12.09.2012

Gee...where have we heard THAT before?

President Obama has said many times that “part of a president’s job is to be able to deal with more than one thing at once.” But another part of a president’s job is setting priorities, and with the U.S. economy hanging in the balance, installing Susan Rice as secretary of state shouldn’t be one of them.

A newly reelected president has a limited amount of political capital that should be expended wisely. You may disagree with George W. Bush’s failed 2005 pushes on comprehensive immigration reform or private Social Security accounts, but you can’t argue that these were small ideas. Nor were Obama’s first-term drives for a massive stimulus package, health reform and an overhaul of financial regulations in the wake of the Wall Street collapse. Agree or disagree, they were fundamental and important.


Going to the mat on a personnel matter like Rice, by contrast, would be more about ego and base pacification than what’s important for the country.

It’s not that Republicans have a particularly strong case against the U.N. ambassador and her unfortunate round of Sunday show appearances on Benghazi. But her inability to win over several GOP senators in one-on-one meetings did not inspire confidence. And as many have noted, her record and temperament are problematic in some respects. Beyond that, as much as Obama may like and respect Rice, there are other good candidates for the job, topped by Senate Foreign Relations chairman John Kerry. (Source)

A D.C. convention I can’t stand: The anonymous Temperament Takedown. As in this, about U.S. Ambassador Susan Rice, as her prospects of being nominated for secretary of state cloud:


A longtime foreign-policy expert who has worked for Democratic administrations, and has dealt with Rice personally, also raised questions about her suitability. “She’s quite smart but temperamentally unfit for the job” because she doesn’t brook disagreement well, this expert said. “Her voice is always right on the edge of a screech. You want somebody who has a sense of authority. It’s like [Treasury Secretary Tim] Geithner at the beginning. He had no air of authority about him.”

It’s a cleverly constructed quote that walks up to the line of sexism—“right on the edge of a screech”—and then insulates itself with the Geithner comparison. The basic idea, though, is that Rice is thin skinned instead of authoritative, aggressive instead of thoughtful. It reminds me of the anonymous attacks on Justice Sonia Sotomayor (conveyed by Jeff Rosen) before Obama nominated her: “not that smart and kind of a bully on the bench,” and “domineering during oral arguments, but her questions aren’t penetrating and don’t get to the heart of the issue.” Then as now, people who had worked with the temperamentally unfit woman in question leaped to her defense.

I don’t know whether Obama should choose Rice or not, but I really hope this temperament attack isn’t part of his calculation. In a city in which Rahm Emanuel’s profane eruptions were celebrated, it’s hard not to suspect a double standard. Maybe this is just one more example of confusing personality with policy, an equal opportunity problem. (Source)

The terrorist attack on the U.S. consulate in Benghazi, Libya, was a tragedy, and four people died. Republicans are sure that Susan Rice and the president are lying about what happened and say they are "not satisfied" with the explanations that were given.

But how many American military personnel, contractors and Iraqi citizens have died, and how many more have sustained traumatic, life-changing injuries, because of the lies that got us into the Iraq War? Where is the outrage over that?

I wonder if the families and friends of the thousands of people killed or wounded in Iraq are "satisfied" with the explanations they were given. It seems the four Americans who died in Benghazi are somehow very much more important than all of those others. (Source)


(CNN) -- On one of her last official foreign trips as secretary of state, Hillary Clinton emphasized her support of the embattled UN Ambassador Susan Rice and brushed off speculation about her and her husband former President Bill Clinton's future plans.

Republican criticism of Rice following the September 11 attack on the U.S. consulate in Benghazi, Libya that left four Americans dead has complicated the possibility President Barack Obama might nominate her to replace Clinton as secretary of state. At issue are talking points Rice conveyed on the Sunday public affairs television shows following the attack which did not label the assault a deliberate act by terrorists. Critics have said she knowingly misled the public while Rice and the White House maintain she made clear the information provided was based on the best intelligence available at the time.

Clinton praised Rice as a capable leader and insisted "she made very clear in her appearances that the information was subject to change as more facts were gathered and analyzed by the intelligence community" in a press conference after a speech at the Organisation for Security and Co-operation in Europe (OSCE) conference in Dublin Thursday. (Source)
Really?  Seriously?  Really?

9 comments:

  1. Is this Susan Rice thing seriously something people are still blathering on about?

    ReplyDelete
  2. I seriously thought people were over this already. For the economy to be such a big "priority", they sure like to nitpick about the most irrelevant things.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. The nitpicking has taken an interesting turn though. It's "Don't look at, don't talk about her...but don't make her Secretary of State either."

      Delete
    2. The economy was a big priority last year but that didn't stop Republicans from nitpicking and waging war on women, blacks, Latinos, gays and other minorities.

      Delete
  3. The GOP will make anything an issue against Susan and other Dems just to send them away from high positions.

    ReplyDelete
  4. when will blacks come together!!!!



    http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=MUI1jLSEH2Q

    ReplyDelete
  5. I understand where you're coming from, but.......

    There is a big part of me that finds it interesting that the same people who stood up in front of the entire world and applauded George W. Bush for leading and Condoleeza Rice for guiding us.....when they were both lying their asses off and placing us in not one but two unnecessary wars would be offended by anything that came out of our UN Ambassador's mouth. Not only did John McCain and Lindsay Graham stand behind Bush and Rice, but they never said anything about being lied to, hoodwinked or lead astray by anything either one of them said.

    I mean they were lying right?!?

    Everyone acknowledges that now...........right?!?

    Well....where is the outrage about that?!?

    ReplyDelete

This blog is strictly moderated. Everyone is now able to comment again, however, all Anonymous posts will be immediately deleted. Comments on posts more than 30 days old are generally dismissed, so try to stay current with the conversations.