Archived material is restricted to Rantburg regulars and members. If you need access email fred.pruitt=at=gmail.com with your nick to be added to the members list. There is no charge to join Rantburg as a member.
Posted by Redneck Jim 2012-12-10 00:09||
#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||
#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||
#4 Really so bad? Yes. Go ask the Diplomad. He had to work with her.
Posted by SteveS 2012-12-10 00:55||
#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||
#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||
#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||
#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||
#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||
#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....
Posted by Frank G 2012-12-10 20:16||
#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||
#12 Ummm, guyz?
It's Frank J.
Salt (and pepper, and mustard, and pickles) accordingly. ;-p
Posted by Barbara 2012-12-10 21:33||
#13 Yeah, we know. But we're still outraged by the whole mess.
Posted by SteveS 2012-12-10 21:38||
#14 "was party to a cover up"
Isn't that the point of a diplomat?
Posted by European Conservative 2012-12-10 22:09||