General Discussion
Related: Editorials & Other Articles, Issue Forums, Alliance Forums, Region ForumsSusan Rice Vocally Supported the Iraq War, and Every Mid-East War Since
After weeks of dog whistles and GOP bullshit, the truth about Susan Rice is finally emerging. It may not be what those Democrats who have circled their wagons around her may expect or want in the next US Secretary of State:
Susan Rice was a cheerleader for Bushs invasion of Iraq (11/02, 12/02, 02/03)
Assistant secretary of state in the Clinton administration, Rice has been a prominent foreign policy spokesperson for the Obama campaign. Here are some of her claims shortly before the invasion of Iraq:
I think he [then Secretary of State Colin Powell] has proved that Iraq has these weapons and is hiding them, and I dont think many informed people doubted that. (NPR, Feb. 6, 2003)
We need to be ready for the possibility that the attack against the U.S. could come in some form against the homeland, not necessarily on the battlefield against our forces. And I think there, too, is an area where the American people need to be better prepared by our leadership. Its clear that Iraq poses a major threat. Its clear that its weapons of mass destruction need to be dealt with forcefully, and thats the path were on. I think the question becomes whether we can keep the diplomatic balls in the air and not drop any, even as we move forward, as we must, on the military side. (NPR, Dec. 20, 2002)
I think the United States government has been clear since the first Bush administration about the threat that Iraq and Saddam Hussein poses. The United States policy has been regime change for many, many years, going well back into the Clinton administration. So its a question of timing and tactics. We do not necessarily need a further Council resolution before we can enforce this and previous resolutions. (NPR, Nov. 11, 2002)
Susan Rice advocated the US stay in Iraq for many years to come (04/03)
Susan Rice: To maximize our likelihood of success, the US is going to have to remain committed to and focused on reconstruction and rehabilitation of Iraq for many years to come. This administration and future ones will need to demonstrate a longer attention span than we have in Afghanistan, and we will have to embrace rather than evade the essential tasks of peacekeeping and nation building. We would be wise to involve as early as is feasible the UN and key allies in the complex tasks of democracy building and reconstruction, and we would be wise to help foster organic internal processes for selecting a new national leadership in Iraq, as the international community did in supporting the loya jirga process in Afghanistan. We can not be seen to select or anoint new Iraqi leaders. We need also to be to be exceedingly careful with the Americans coming in under General Garner to assume governance roles in Iraq.
Susan Rice swayed the President to pursue a UN authorization for airstrikes in Libya (03/11)
Time Magazine observed in March 24, 2011 issue about Rices role in swaying the President: http://www.time.com/...
Obama gave Rice the go-ahead . . .
Susan Rice then sought a similar UN authorization for military intervention in Syria (10/11)
Rice was one of the most vociferous champions of international armed intervention against Syria. On October 5, 2011, after Russia and China led a group of countries which vetoed a Security Council resolution similar to that which authorized the use of outside force in Libya. Brazil, India, South Africa and Lebanon abstained. After the vote, Dr. Rice used unusually nondiplomatic language to say that those countries had carried out a cheap ruse and, addressing a press confererence after the vote, she said that the Syrians have been slapped in the face by several members of this Security Council today.
I think Libya has been beat to death, overused, and misused by countries as an excuse by countries to not untake their responsibilities with regard to Syria.
Susan Rice led the push for the US to join Israel in Confrontation with Iran (09/12)
Dr. Rice has also been the point of the spear in the escalating US confrontation with Iran. Her rhetoric toward that country has been often hostile, played out on the UN stage underlined by gathering regime change operations and economic destabilization under the U.S.-led sanctions regime.
During the past three years, US relations with Iran have steadily deteriorated as the international sanctions regime overseen by Ambassador Rice has intensified. Iran sees the U.S. as playing a see-saw game of threats and economic warfare with Israel to ratchet up pressure and tensions. The Jerusalem Post reported on September 16, 2012: http://www.jpost.com/IranianThreat/News/Article.aspx?id=285292
Susan Rice has pushed every Middle East war during this past decade.
If she becomes Secretary of State, chances are she will be a leading voice urging the United States into the next one.
Measure twice. Cut once.
Enrique
(27,461 posts)if there are any differences with Hillary they are probably subtle. And likewise with John Kerry, who for some reason is the only other choice. I'm not sure what committee narrowed all the choices down to those two, but maybe that's none of my business.
leveymg
(36,418 posts)In which case, we are in for a Hell of a second term. I think the time for simple, quiet trust has officially passed.
kelliekat44
(7,759 posts)That is precisely why McCain's attacks on her are so strange. So his motives are not pure.
blm
(113,071 posts)now into choosing Rice. Funny how all of a sudden GOP just can't lavish enough praise on Kerry on camera resulting in Dems circling the wagons around Rice and taking potshots at Kerry because they BELIEVE McCain and Co is earnest in their claims that they prefer Kerry.
The left can be manipulated so easily at times - and this is one of those times. The hawks do NOT want a Secretary of State Kerry. I don't, either, but for completely different reasons - I would prefer he remain in a more independent position as top senator on Foreign Policy.
Enrique
(27,461 posts)he is the president, he can choose anyone. If they block Rice, and Obama thinks they did it to get Kerry out of the Senate then he can pick someone else. But I haven't heard anyone say that. It's almost like he was given a list of acceptable candidates to choose from. Maybe it was the Council on Foreign Relations, maybe it was Skull and Bones, who knows. Anyone know if Rice is a bonesman?
leveymg
(36,418 posts)The two schools probably have more modern and much older secret societies, respectively.
FarCenter
(19,429 posts)Rhodes scholarships were funded by that old imperialist Cecil Rhodes to encourage solidarity of the Anglo-Saxon empire.
leveymg
(36,418 posts)TPTB realized sometime around 1945 that the Old World was about to go away. They put the formalities off until 1963, and in Hong Kong it was deferred further until 1997, and Cecil would just have a stroke and die if he saw who gets some of his endowment. But, the world is still pretty much run the same it was in the 1870s. Look at a Degas painting. Not much has really changed.
blm
(113,071 posts)exhausting diplomacy before interventionism, and are targeting Rice whose hawkishness ala Hillary they DO agree with most often?
I'm surprised so many Dems are falling for the dog and pony show.
KoKo
(84,711 posts)into picking her by trashing her and therefore making him look weak if he didn't defend her by appointing her as SOS.
Others say Repugs want Kerry but there's the fear of losing his Senate seat in Massachusetts by us Dems.
Honeycombe8
(37,648 posts)karynnj
(59,504 posts)One clear difference is her February 2003 statement. Kerry on January 22, 2003 at Georgetown University said that Bush should NOT RUSH TO WAR and said it was not a war of last resort - which I assume that most GU students knew meant he was saying it would not be a just war.
The significance of the date is important. When Kerry voted to get inspectors in, there had been no inspectors with for 4 years. Rice's comment was made after the IAEA and Hans Blitz were there for about 4 months inspecting even in the Presidential palaces - finding nothing. There was FAR more reason to know that there were no WMD in 2003 than 2002. (By the way, Dean himself was more agressive in 2002 than in 2003 - he just did not have to vote.)
As to later - 2 words: Kerry/Feingold - The exit plan that set a dead line to get out - Neither Obama or Hillary voted for it, but 6 months after the vote when it became popular, both had plans simiolar to it with longer timelines.
As to the 2004 quote, compare to Kerry's Iraq speech in 2004 given at NYU. The gist was to involve the regional powers and interntional organization to a greater degree, have no permanent bases and start leaving in 2005.
allrevvedup
(408 posts)The destruction of Libya was obscene, even before the extra judicial execution of Gaddafi, but no one has bothered to come up with a rationale for taking out Assad. Obama said he hated dumb wars, and I give him and his advisors the benefit of the doubt in misjudging the benefit of these MENA interventions, but they are humanitarian disasters and I believe we are being played by the UK and its allies. Very dumb indeed.
sabrina 1
(62,325 posts)thriving countries. Can't have free and independent African nations. Especially when they use their own resources provide for their own citizens, free education, free Health Care, have a law that says that every Libyan citizen has a right to own a home and pays to make sure that happens. Or provides special care for the mentally disabled, including homes and whatever Health Care they need.
They actually shared the country's profits from its resources with its own citizens.
What a wast of money, well in the view of the old Imperialists. So something had to be done about it.
Now all those oil revenues will be safely in the hands of those who are entitled to them, in their view.
The entire enterprise was one big war crime. It was shameful. A once developing country where minorities were protected and paid well, has been reduced to rubble and no citizen who doesn't support the destruction of their country, is safe. This was no grassroots uprising. Once again we were lied to.
elleng
(130,995 posts)none of which would apply to MY nominee for SOS/SOD, Wes Clark.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wesley_Clark
vilify
(102 posts)Report1212
(661 posts)moondust
(19,993 posts)And this goofy Benghazi side show is their way of daring the President to nominate her?
Bomb bomb bomb, bomb bomb everybody...
KoKo
(84,711 posts)Auntie Bush
(17,528 posts)Each other or you and I? However, I'm not about to write off Rise from my list. I personally like her and I'd hate to lose Kerry from the senate.
riderinthestorm
(23,272 posts)Like Bill Moyers.
Or Dr. Deane Marchbein, who is currently on the Doctor's Without Borders board of directors, who has tons of international experience (http://www.doctorswithoutborders.org/aboutus/page.cfm?id=3773)
I don't know. There are so, so many smart candidates who AREN'T part of the elite whose perspective, drive, intelligence and ability to think outside the box would be so welcome.
Why does it have to be Rice or Kerry??
KoKo
(84,711 posts)the dreams are ahead of us. Maybe "One Day..."
grantcart
(53,061 posts)I don't agree that she will necessarily be a voice urging to war as she later urged an end to Iraq and didn't support intervention in Syria.
And not all intervention IMO is inherently bad. Our intervention in Libya and in the post break up of Yugoslavia has saved many innocent lives.
In the thread it is suggested that she would be another Clinton. If you evaluate Clinton's quiet influence for example in Burma that is something I find reassuring. The fact is that the so called interventionist SOS Clinton did not end up in broad engagements with disastrous effects if she can accomplish in North Korea what has been done in Burma (and the parallels are not as different as they might seem) then it would be a great achievement.
In any case I believe that you raise very substantive issues and if she is the nominee I would like Democratic Senators to raise these issues in the hearing and I would like to see a very clear statement that "I was wrong about Iraq" before she was confirmed.
The unfortunate fact is that if we eliminated all of the people who were wrong about Iraq we would not have many to choose from, so you raise some important questions that should be addressed in the confirmation hearings, if there are any.
KoKo
(84,711 posts)stuff I've watched about Susan Rice for awhile ...but, good to see it posted here.
Cautions about her.....
Comrade Grumpy
(13,184 posts)fried eggs
(910 posts)As far as her Israel comment, should she have said there was daylight, several weeks before the election? I'd be glad if she did, but it's not very realistic (although I doubt many Americans care about the US-Israel relationship).
jsr
(7,712 posts)WinkyDink
(51,311 posts)still_one
(92,257 posts)morningfog
(18,115 posts)still_one
(92,257 posts)mike_c
(36,281 posts)It has been my general policy to oppose ANY political office, elected or otherwise, for anyone who helped to grease the skids for the invasions of Iraq and Afghanistan. I also oppose John Kerry for the same reason, and will be glad to see Hillary Clinton leave. War mongers, every one of them.
edit: Thank you for posting this information.
karynnj
(59,504 posts)Le Taz Hot
(22,271 posts)I know, I know, he was for it before he was against it. He'll still be known as the guy who manged to lose to the worst. president. ever.
ProSense
(116,464 posts)"He'll still be known as the guy who manged to lose to the worst. president. ever."
...look what that got us. Look at the suffering and death that brought. I wished more people had voted for Kerry and the Republicans hadn't succeeded in suppressing the vote.
I'm sure the effects of Bush are far worse and lasting in people's mind than what Kerry is "known as."
ProSense
(116,464 posts)you'll never convince detractors.
ProSense
(116,464 posts)"for anyone who helped to grease the skids for the invasions of Iraq and Afghanistan"
...include Kucinich, who voted for the Afghanistan war?
H2O Man
(73,567 posts)Rice is, of course, the resident neoconservative in the administration.
The fake crap that McCain et al are doing is a lower level of domestic politics .... the republican party is in a win-win situation: if it's Kerry, they get another shot at a Senate seat in MA; if it's Rice, they get the neoconservative.
On the higher level -- and this is international, of course -- the neoconservatives play point for the forces that depend upon, and indeed demand, an on-going US military presence in the Middle East. This force -- that Merton called the "Unspeakable," and that I refer to as the "machine" -- already has special forces throughout the Middle East, a significant area of Africa, and southeast Asia.
It would take an enormous effort to slow the machine, much less stop it. That machine doesn't much care how many young US soldiers are maimed or killed. And it sure as hell doesn't care about the native populations in those regions. It's all about resources, money, and control.
Certainly, President Obama is far superior a person, hence President, than Mitt could/would have been -- on domestic policies. But the international scene is different. I know that as a human being, Barack Obama cares about people -- including US soldiers and the citizens of other nations. But I question if he believes that he can stop the machine, and I do not think that he would be likely to take the risks necessary to try.
leveymg
(36,418 posts)Susan Rice is not the person Obama needs at State to try to stand up to, or at least slow down, the killing machine.
Thanks for the rec.
grantcart
(53,061 posts)Four years ago we were ginning up a major confrontation with Russia. That is gone. We have had multiple transfers from dictatorships to struggling democracies with remarkable little loss of life.
Then there is Burma. I have a house that is less than 2 kilometers from the Burmese border. For the last 15 years I have given up all hope that a major civil war could be avoided there. The Army was so entrenched. And a new generation of leadership came and the President took an enormous risk by making a personal trip there and embracing a very shaky transition.
Now we see for the first time in decades the possibility of a peaceful transition for the people of Burma. Burma is very much like Yugoslavia in that it has no real center and is made up of dozens of ethnic groups that really don't like each other.
But it goes deeper than that. I believe that the President (and SOS Clinton's) major second agenda in Burma was to show the new but isolated leadership in North Korea that if they take a step towards us, even a small one, the President will take a big step towards them. Burma was, behind China, North Korea's number one trading, diplomatic, and military friend. By bringing Burma out of isolation the President is showing North Korea that entirely new relations are possible.
I don't think that the message of the President getting Aung Suu Kyi out of house arrest and into parliment was lost on Cuba either.
Similarly I don't think that the message was lost on Iran either.
People don't see the very nuanced, and high risk, efforts of the President's international movements because the President, and SOS Clinton would rather deflect attention and get results than land on aircraft carrier and have a photo op.
I believe that the President's actions have saved tens of thousands of lives, and his foriegn policy has advanced the interests of peace in areas where there wasn't a lot of hope, more than any other President in recent times. Clinton's intervention in Yugoslavia saved the lives of thousands of Muslims. The President's interention in Burma has done the same, but he did it without landing a military force.
blm
(113,071 posts)helluva Sec of State exhausting all avenues to promote diplomatic alternatives in order to prevent military intervention.
Puzzledtraveller
(5,937 posts)Quantess
(27,630 posts)More status quo.
Ganja Ninja
(15,953 posts)into defending someone over nothing for a reason I can't figure out yet. Is Susan Rice going to be the Democratic candidate in 2016? Is all of this about building the stature of another right wing Democrat? A Black Woman Democrat under attack from old Republican white men for something she basically has no connection to? Could this be a cynical ploy to create a corporate approved Democratic candidate for 2016?
otohara
(24,135 posts)not feeling the love anymore for this Rice.
Martin Eden
(12,872 posts)No, it was clear the Bush administration was conjuring the threat pursuant to the PNAC agenda.
Susan Rice should have known this. We here at DU did.
leveymg
(36,418 posts)cpwm17
(3,829 posts)Someone's position on the Iraq War says a lot about their morality and intelligence. Some Democrats didn't support the war for partisan reasons, so the litmus test isn't perfect.
It was very easy to tell that that evidence was cooked; and even if Iraq had the alleged weapons, the war was still not justified.
Martin Eden
(12,872 posts)Link to his speech:
http://usliberals.about.com/od/extraordinaryspeeches/a/Obama2002War.htm
liberal_at_heart
(12,081 posts)would be a mistake. I do think she was unfairly targeted. Any nominee should be picked based on their credentials and on who would best represent our values and interests abroad.
bobthedrummer
(26,083 posts)leveymg
(36,418 posts)still_one
(92,257 posts)1StrongBlackMan
(31,849 posts)It's official ... Now that the gop-enemy, in the form of one mitt romney, has been vanquished, Democrats can turn to our favorite past-time, attacking Democrats!
Solly Mack
(90,775 posts)and I dont think many informed people doubted that.
LMAO
Wonder what she has to say on those WMD now?
Capt. Obvious
(9,002 posts)How come his name is never mentioned?
joshcryer
(62,276 posts)He was critical of the Iraq War surge (though he did vote for the Iraq War Resolution), he was against intervening in Syria and Libya, he was for toning down the rhetoric against Iran.
Poll_Blind
(23,864 posts)See also: What you just did.
PB
joshcryer
(62,276 posts)Not ruling out other options.