You have commented 338 times on Rantburg.

Your Name
Your e-mail (optional)
Website (optional)
My Original Nic        Pic-a-Nic        Sorry. Comments have been closed on this article.
Bold Italic Underline Strike Bullet Blockquote Small Big Link Squish Foto Photo
Home Front: Politix
Is Rice really so bad?
2012-12-10
The Republicans' opposition to Susan Rice's potentially becoming the next secretary of state is pretty hard to understand.

It wasn't long ago that Republicans were all for a different black woman named Condoleezza Rice taking the same job -- is the GOP just bigoted about the name Susan?

Republicans' stated objections to Rice make no sense. They complain that she's "dishonest" and "incompetent," to which she could easily respond, Well, duh, that's why I work for the government.
Frank J Fleming at his best....RTWT
Posted by:whitecollar redneck

#14  "was party to a cover up"

Isn't that the point of a diplomat?
Posted by: European Conservative   2012-12-10 22:09  

#13  Yeah, we know. But we're still outraged by the whole mess.
Posted by: SteveS   2012-12-10 21:38  

#12  Ummm, guyz?

It's Frank J.

Salt (and pepper, and mustard, and pickles) accordingly. ;-p
Posted by: Barbara   2012-12-10 21:33  

#11  Rice is not the issue.

She is an issue, all right. Just a separate one from the Benghazi cluster-foo.

(does this admin have anything besides issues?)
Posted by: SteveS   2012-12-10 21:32  

#10  you might just as well blame Jamie Gorelick for the intel wall between the CIA and FBI before 9/11/01...oh wait....that date ...ummm....

nevermind
Posted by: Frank G   2012-12-10 20:16  

#9  I reckon if we wish to see folks like Susan Rice rise to even higher positions of leadership and responsibility in gov't.... we could just let it slide. lblis is right, rejecting Rice is essential.
Posted by: Besoeker   2012-12-10 14:54  

#8  Rice is not the issue.

The issue is a White House cover up of a catastrophic diplomatic failure which resulted in the loss of American lives. Rejecting Rice's nomination (or potential nomination) is absolutely essential because any other action could be viewed as a sanction of the White House's actions.
Posted by: Iblis   2012-12-10 14:48  

#7  She either wasn't, or was party to a cover up

Twice (Kenyan/Tanzania and Libya) and under two separate administrations.

The real question is why the WH thought she was expendable as such or believed because of race/gender she is above questioning [real racism/sexism at work]

More toward the latter, but mainly because she's been both a proverbial State Department insider and a reliable ideological hack.
Posted by: Pappy   2012-12-10 12:05  

#6  When you are made the point man, it's always understood that you may well get whacked. The real question is why the WH thought she was expendable as such or believed because of race/gender she is above questioning [real racism/sexism at work].
Posted by: Procopius2k   2012-12-10 08:39  

#5  A candidate for the top diplomatic post in the nation should be intelligent enough to identify a terrorist attack conducted against a US Diplomatic Mission. She either wasn't, or was party to a cover up. Both explanations disqualify Ms. Rice.
Posted by: Besoeker   2012-12-10 02:18  

#4  Really so bad? Yes. Go ask the Diplomad. He had to work with her.
Posted by: SteveS   2012-12-10 00:55  

#3  I don't see China backing down in ECS or SCS, + war agz Iran either next March or Summer 2013???
Posted by: JosephMendiola   2012-12-10 00:33  

#2  Iff the Bammer likes + wants Rice for post-Hillary SecState, he will nominate her irregardless of the critics.

AFAIK, by most accounts Hillary is not going to leave DepState until circa EOY 2013 anyway -"Susan/Susie" broadly then has most of an entire year to prove herself to her critics.
Posted by: JosephMendiola   2012-12-10 00:31  

#1  Not so bad, but not good enough.
Posted by: Redneck Jim   2012-12-10 00:09  

00:00