Backed by Obama, sharp-tongued Susan Rice battles critics

Comments (81)
Marla wrote:

Looks like sexist attitudes still reign supreme! The straight talking, no nonsense, earthy style that Rice is being lambasted over would be considered a virtue if she was a man.

Nov 24, 2012 1:37am EST  --  Report as abuse
fromthecenter wrote:

What would these same people have called Bolten? Just curious…

Nov 24, 2012 1:43am EST  --  Report as abuse

We all know this scenario.: A man is STRONG but a woman is STRIDENT. A man is BOLD but a woman is ABRASIVE. A sexy man is admired as a STUD. A sexy woman is derided as a SLUT.
This is nothing more than the same old you-know-what.

Nov 24, 2012 2:10am EST  --  Report as abuse
skeeter9791 wrote:

So let’s throw an exceptionally competent woman under the bus because a bunch of old white guys want to beat their chests and make the US relevant in the world by just shouting slogans at the UN? Seriously? she may be tough and effective but it is what is best for out country that counts…not our party…or didn’t the last election get that point across. I won’t have tea with her but would be glad to know she is doing our country’s business.

Nov 24, 2012 2:13am EST  --  Report as abuse
NYC55 wrote:

Seriously, now we’re spinning the line that Ms. Rice is abrasive? Maybe Obama should nominate Alan Colmes…?

If you wanted merely to look away from Benghazi and get some reactions to the idea of a Rice nomination from diplomats, you could have done just that.

I notice a full repetition – without rebuttal – of the patently self-serving attacks on Ms. Rice, but I missed Reuters’ story about how ridiculous the charges are. No logical questioning of “so, what’s your point? Ex post facto comments by definition weren’t causal.”

Where’s the breakdown analysis comparing the two Rices, contrasting the current Rice’s after-the-fact spin about Benghazi against the former Rice’s knowing, willing, and unforgivable participation in the fabrication of a casus belli against Iraq which resulted in 100,000+ casualties? No follow-up questions for Mssrs. McCain and Graham?

It’s amazing that the Right constantly talks about the “liberal” media when they have such esteemed outlets as Reuters passing off right-wing talking points as reporting (or at a minimum ignoring the amplified echoes sure to blanket talk radio when they offer up a great, vacuous nontroversy story.

Nov 24, 2012 2:27am EST  --  Report as abuse
js2012 wrote:

What is Rice battling, she is still singing the same song and telling the same lies that she told in September. She doesn’t deserve any post and should be sacked from the current one as well.

Nov 24, 2012 2:37am EST  --  Report as abuse
Lowell_Thinks wrote:

@nativearizonan, you don’t rate the criticize an American war hero who was tortured in a North Vietnamese prison camp. You are nothing but whale snot compared to him.

Nov 24, 2012 4:02am EST  --  Report as abuse
Abulafiah wrote:

Looking on the bright side, as long as Republicans carry on behaving like a bunch of immature idiots like this, they will never be elected. The even brighter side is that they are so ideologically driven that they can’t even learn from their mistakes. – “Wow! We lost again! The voters got it wrong!”

Nov 24, 2012 4:02am EST  --  Report as abuse
sandman839 wrote:

Leave it the the right, they just say what their handlers tell them to. When they had their chance to get answers they were to busy going on the air saying they wanted answers. McCain does not have much room to talk about the intelligence of others, since he was so smart the have Palin for a running mate. She probably has no idea were Benghazi is.

Nov 24, 2012 4:06am EST  --  Report as abuse
Numb3rTech wrote:

Since Susan Rice was doing as she was told (and telling falsehoods when she knew the truth due to her status and security clearances) when she went on the many television shows saying the Benghazi attack was due to the video, she should not receive all of the blame. From the information on the internet and testimony of several officials, Mr. President Obama knew exactly what had happened and he is now accepting the blame since he won the election. The last I read, the DNI was taking the blame for the lies. Yet, they do as they are told by Mr. President Obama just like Susan Rice does. I have even read that Christopher Stevens has received the blame for being in that location.

In my opinion, with the live videos and knowing people that could stop the invasion were only 90 minutes away at the most, and the fact that Mr. President Obama along with many other members of the intelligence agencies were really getting the correct data, I believe there should be a penalty brought against the entire bunch. There is too much corruption in Washington, D.C.

If ex-president Bush had let four (4) people that represented our country die and lied about it as the current administration did, ex-president Bush would have been impeached. I do not know why Mr. President Obama’s administration has acted in this fashion. Was there something else going on behind that this is covering up?

I doubt the public will ever know the truth about the Benghazi incident. There is no transparency. There are lots of deals being done behind closed doors. This may even be considered a minor distraction to cover up something else. There has to be a reason that they let those people die. Time may tell.

Nov 24, 2012 5:56am EST  --  Report as abuse
Chuckterzella wrote:

The GOP, having lost the battle against Obamacare, having pretty much given up (except for Donald “You Say You Want A Revolution” Trump)on the Kenyan birth thing, the Muslim thing, the Socialist/Facist/Communist/Unitarian thing,as well as the election to a second term thing, are grasping aroun,d trying to find a new ‘thing’…anything…to go after the Administration with.

It’s telling that the best they could come up with is a few almost-right/ kinda-mistaken comments by Ms. Rice made just days after an unexpected attack in a still unstable country, before the FBI was even allowed in to investigate (not that that did much good after so long a time passed).

Look, there are several facts that are (seemingly) clear:
1) Despite it’s still fragile situation, Libya is considered to be friendly to the US.
2) The GOP-led House voted to decrease security funding for our embassies
3) Our ambassador chose to eschew a large security contingent, as a) it would’ve been composed of private guards ala’ ‘Blackwater-like’ companies and b) it would send the wrong message to the Libyan people.
4) He was also considered to be a good friend to Libya and I understand he sincerely believed the danger to himself was minimal.

That fact that Ms. Rice didn’t get it completely right, based on the information she was given at the time, shows no real indication that she was intentionally lying either. After all, no one said Colin Powell was ‘lying’ when he went before the UN with the Bush Administration claim of Iraqi WMDS.

This is a GOP ‘chimera’ to be used as an opening salvo in the “Second House War” against Obama. It’s weak and it’s a petty response to a real tragedy and a hypocritical ploy designed to use the deaths of four good Americans for political gain.

In short, it ain’t 9/11 and for all John McCain’s quaking about “Watergate Style hearings” it is no more than a tragedy we should learn from and move on.

Nov 24, 2012 6:12am EST  --  Report as abuse
jobardu wrote:

I see, the official Reuters/media spin is that any criticism of Susan Rice has to be racial or gender bias, or a prejudice against her dedication to service. How about something substantive and much closer to reality? Susan Rice knew, as the administration has admitted, that the attack was coordinated by terror groups. The usual cover stories of government are vague lies. The Obama administration, and Ms. Rice, chose to follow another path.

Specifically, the Benghazi cover story was anti-Semitic, anti-Christian, anti-American and anti-free speech. It also was pressed on the public despite being unmasked by the Wall Street Journal the day after it was launched. What’s worse, the Administration refused to allow proximate military resources to come to the aid of American diplomats under siege. Not only that, the General that protested the order to not follow his previously ordered procedures was fired. Then came the failure to defend the constitution the administration, including Susan Rice, vowed to uphold. The administration apologized to the Islamist attackers for the exercise of free speech by American Citizens and had the alleged producer of the short film, one that was edited substantially by Islamists, arrested and treated in highly irregular if not unprecedented punitive ways. The icing on the cake was having Obama, Hillary and Nancy Pelosi declare support for unconstitutional measures to limit freedom of speech and make criticism of Muslims, but not Jews or Christians, a crime.

If subject of this story was a Sam Rice and the President a white, Republican, then the media would be, accurately, calling for an impeachment hearing. Given the political correctness of the perpetrators, Reuters and the media are engaging in ad-hominem attacks against any one with courage and clarity to speak out.

It is hard to imagine this abandonment of journalistic integrity to coming to a good end, but if I could predict the future I wouldn’t be posting on news sites.

Nov 24, 2012 6:33am EST  --  Report as abuse
Numb3rTech wrote:

PortlandME wrote:
Numb3rTech….as Joe Wilson once said: You lie!

No, I did not lie. I stated what I have read along with my opinion. If I am wrong, that may be so. But I did not lie. I only stated what I have read and seen mostly here on the internet and put in my opinion.

I honestly believe that those people did not have to die.

Nov 24, 2012 6:34am EST  --  Report as abuse
phlydog48 wrote:

From the article:

“They say the attacks on her during the presidential campaign were part of Republican efforts to frame the Benghazi assault as a terrorist attack, possibly linked to al Qaeda, on Obama’s watch.”

SO, who was responsible for the attacks?

Nov 24, 2012 7:00am EST  --  Report as abuse
asiaman wrote:

This is one smart lady and the idiots bashing her are still playing politics well after the election is over…

Repubs please get over it and work to make you country the true leader of the Free World…

She will be a great asset to any position Obama assigns her..

When she testified before Congress she was simply great…not ruffled or intimidated in the least…

Nov 24, 2012 7:09am EST  --  Report as abuse
Fbear0143 wrote:

Maybe Rice is smart and savvy, but to me, the chief diplomat for the United States needs to BE diplomatic and not agressive. There is no need in this position for anyone who would display an attitude superior to anyone with whom she must meet, negotiate, or attempt to make allies of. If Rice is not up to this task, and apparently in the eyes of somr diplomats from other nations,she is not, then she should not be chosen simply because the president has her back. Diplomacy is the name of the game, and thus if she has a difficult time bridling her tongue, she has no business in the role of secretary of state, no matter what her other qualifications.

Nov 24, 2012 8:27am EST  --  Report as abuse
raptor666 wrote:

“I relied solely and squarely on the information provided to me by the intelligence community,” Rice told reporters at the United Nations. “I made clear that the information provided to me was preliminary and that our investigations would give us the definitive answers.”…not according to the congressional testimony of the director of the CIA…

Nov 24, 2012 8:36am EST  --  Report as abuse
logic_101 wrote:

Portland, your comments are fraught with lack of understanding. The ones calling for the investigation and in the House controlling the investigation are the same deliberative body that called only men to testify in an investigation on women’s reproductive rights. They are reminiscent of the McCarthy era, he at least had alcoholism to go along with his rotted brain and morality. To find how real Americans think I refer you to a real American from the Republican Party and from the great state of Maine, the late Senator Margret Chase Smith. Hearing what a group of misogynistic bigots who were soundly trounced in the last election should be regarded as what they are politics as usual from a party facing extinction.

Nov 24, 2012 8:47am EST  --  Report as abuse
auger wrote:

Quite a shift for the non-politically correct GOP to attack her for calling things bluntly – This is an age for action, not etiquette

Nov 24, 2012 8:55am EST  --  Report as abuse
morbas wrote:

The power is the populace, I have given my congressional representative my mandate to approve S.Rice. Have any of you asserted your right of representation?

Nov 24, 2012 9:14am EST  --  Report as abuse
Numb3rTech wrote:

PortlandME wrote:
“Numb3rTech…You are stating an opinion based on news/media accounts.
Thus, you are using, at best, second hand information which could or
could not be accurate or the truth.
So, your opinion does not really matter.
Unlike you, I am waiting for the official investigation to provide us
with the best information that is available to professionals who were
involved in the situation. ”

Your opinion counts as little as mine or anyone else that posts here.
You may also be like me and never get the truth.
You just have to pick on others that put out their opinions.
I respect your opinion, but that is “your” opinion and not mine.
The “professionals” may never give out the truth due to security.

Nov 24, 2012 9:15am EST  --  Report as abuse
Raelyn wrote:

Fox News is encouraging McCain and Liindsey and their ilk — every time I tune in to Fox they have some old geezer there ranting on and on about Susan Rice, which they encourage. They are so desperate and will stoop to anything — having totally forgotten the WMD lies the GOP perpetuated to start wars. Is it our gigantic military-industrial complex looking for more cocktail parties and pockets to fill? I will stick to my good old faithful factual news sources, thank you very much.

Nov 24, 2012 9:20am EST  --  Report as abuse
blackburncci wrote:

Rice is qualified but has failed, she is abrasive, lacks self guidance necessary for that role, totally went overboard on her endoesment of Morsi in Egypt, for no reason other than previous poor performance it is time to replace with someone with the skills and insight she has demonstrated to be lacking

Nov 24, 2012 9:20am EST  --  Report as abuse
KDupre wrote:

I’ve seen Rice interviewed on TV several times and she was so rigid in the interviews she always stared straight ahead and refused to answer ANY questions at all. All she could do was repeat what she had already said which appeared to be the policy line. It certainly didn’t leave a good impression with the audience.

She may be very bright but she didn’t give that impression. The impression she left was that of an extreme party shill who would always toe the line exactly and couldn’t think for herself.

If indeed that is what she is, I can see why some people wouldn’t think well enough of her to confirm her.

Nov 24, 2012 10:01am EST  --  Report as abuse
Amskeptic wrote:

For any intelligent principled American still standing after this ludicrous election season, may I strongly encourage your to write/email your representatives expressing support for any possible nomination of Susan Rice to the position of Secretary of State. Then, if you are feeling crabby, please write John McCain and Lindsay Graham suggesting that they please step out of the way. They are an embarrassment.

Nov 24, 2012 10:03am EST  --  Report as abuse
Abulafiah wrote:

Fbear0143 wrote:
“Maybe Rice is smart and savvy, but to me, the chief diplomat for the United States needs to BE diplomatic and not aggressive.”

Respect is earned, not a right. Tell me what these Republicans have done to earn her respect, or anybody else’s. It looks to me as though she is treating them with precisely the diplomacy and respect they deserve.

If Republicans want to be treated as intelligent individuals, they should start behaving like intelligent individuals.

Nov 24, 2012 10:24am EST  --  Report as abuse
Ozarklib wrote:

Sorry, but “this is crap,” “let’s kill this,” “this is bullshit,” and “bogus” are all in daily use in the good ol’ USA. We don’t need sugar-coated tongues dealing with countries like Libya and Russia. The truth speaks its own language.
The attack in Benghazi was a mess that could not be unraveled immediately, and there WERE protests in the Arab nations about the actions of Terry Jones and the movie.
This woman has cojones and that’s just what we need in a Secretary of State.

Nov 24, 2012 10:31am EST  --  Report as abuse
victor672 wrote:

She sold her soul to Obama and now her career is ruined. Oh well.

Nov 24, 2012 11:01am EST  --  Report as abuse
FrankRifleman wrote:

Back to the “hood” for you Ms Rice.

Nov 24, 2012 11:44am EST  --  Report as abuse
ellis0114 wrote:

I get tired of reading about these anonymous, sexist criticisms against a highly qualified and competent woman. The only criticism in this article that is not anonymous comes from a Russian ambassador, and we all know that Russian imperialistic ambitions repeatedly lead to UN Security Council vetoes against US-supported resolutions and do not lend themselves well to warm and fuzzy feelings between the ambassadors. In contrast, the criticisms of Bolten were specific and well-documented, sometimes to the point of being documented in news media reports. Furthermore, calling a proposal bogus may be appropriate. The real issue there is not only the word(s) she used to describe proposals and positions but also WHY she describes something as she does. If she’s calling something for what it is, then she represents a tradition of US Ambassadors to the UN who use American bluntness and plain-spokeness to advance US interests. So, if the real issue is the style she uses to accomplish otherwise good work, then ask her to moderate or change her style. But let’s cut the character assassination which is nothing more than a thinly disguised effort to thwart and frustrate President Obama.

Nov 24, 2012 11:47am EST  --  Report as abuse
Numb3rTech wrote:

sidevalve56 wrote:
“I’m pretty sure its all sexism and racism…only sexists and racists would take into consideration her job performance.”

Business people always look at job performance. Sex and race should not matter. It is always about who can do the job the most professionally and productively. A person’s temperment and ability to handle stressful situations is important along with maintaining proper respect and attitude.

Nov 24, 2012 11:49am EST  --  Report as abuse

McCain and Graham want Kerry in this post so that Brown can get his seat in Congress. The only way the Repubs can come out ahead in this battle.

Nov 24, 2012 12:03pm EST  --  Report as abuse
texoman wrote:

I lost all respect for McCain back when he ran against G.W. Bush for the presidency! After losing to Bush because of Rove’s typical smear campaign of lies and questions about him fathering a mix-race baby, McCain fell in step and supported Bush. He did this knowing that Bush and Rove were the lowest of the low in politics! Because of this, McCain became a low-life politican just like them and will say anything to get his way!

Nov 24, 2012 12:14pm EST  --  Report as abuse
Numb3rTech wrote:

Ozarklib, I also disagree with a lot of things ex-president Bush did. I was not trying to compare apples to oranges. I had higher expectations from Mr. President Obama and his administration.

Nov 24, 2012 12:23pm EST  --  Report as abuse
Curmudgeon43 wrote:

If she has to resort to profanity, she is not a proper candidate for Secretary of State.

I was inclined before to give her the benefit of the doubt.

No longer.

She is not qualified.

Nov 24, 2012 12:37pm EST  --  Report as abuse
VSNFR60 wrote:

Susan Rice, on her way to becoming Secretary Of State, it is too obvious.

Nov 24, 2012 1:11pm EST  --  Report as abuse
USAPragmatist wrote:

@Numbe3rTech, to quote you ‘Since Susan Rice was doing as she was told (and telling falsehoods when she knew the truth due to her status and security clearances) when she went on the many television shows saying the Benghazi attack was due to the video, she should not receive all of the blame. ‘ So because Susan Rice did not divulge classified information and instead read from the UNCLASSIFIED talking points you are going to persecute her? If she had done what you wanted then you would be getting on her for releasing classified information to the terrorists. You, and others on the right, have become tiresome with this and other attempts at finding some sort of scandal to possibly impeach Obama on, face facts you lost the election now deal with it. Do not try and subjugate our democracy with these false accusations.

Nov 24, 2012 1:16pm EST  --  Report as abuse
Cleveland2012 wrote:

The US destabilized Libya and armed its insurrection, and then one of our CIA bases got exposed and another compound was destroyed. An Ambassador died and several other Americans were killed, and then the infighting in DC began. The whole thing is a circus.

Combative foreign policy, and a combative mouthpiece for that policy, are not what we need. The problem with Ms. Rice is her lack of flexibility, her lack of diplomacy. She seems to have one tool to fix problems: a hammer. Put her in charge of finding and prosecuting inside traders on Wall Street. Don’t put someone willing to shoot her mouth first and then think later in charge of representing our country. As a last resort go dig the Condinator out of storage and re-Christen her. After all, we kept Secretary Gates, and he did a good job. We have already made enough mistakes. Let’s find someone less uptight to deal with the world, and to show the world who we are.

Nov 24, 2012 1:30pm EST  --  Report as abuse
markson wrote:

It is not about woman vs. man, black vs.white, democrat vs. republican, it is about her abrasive,offensive and confrontational style which will alienate friends and possible friends in our diplomatic efforts. We can not afford this. We need a better candidate for the job.

Nov 24, 2012 1:51pm EST  --  Report as abuse
tx-peasant wrote:

The title of this article is intentionally misleading – the criticism of Amb. Rice is based on her incompetence in representing US interests, not her style. The incompetence is demonstrated by her handling of the Libya terrorist attack.

Nov 24, 2012 1:54pm EST  --  Report as abuse
yubamary wrote:

Numbe3rtech, I’m with you.
However, Mr. President Obama will get what he wants. They sent her out there so that we can start getting used to seeing her. She will probably run for Vice Pres. next time or President who knows.

Nov 24, 2012 1:57pm EST  --  Report as abuse
jjjjjjjjj wrote:

Is she abrasive or arrogant?

Nov 24, 2012 2:36pm EST  --  Report as abuse
ballsy wrote:

She should be the next US Ambassador to Libya.

Nov 24, 2012 2:40pm EST  --  Report as abuse
BioStudies wrote:

“They say the attacks on her during the presidential campaign were part of Republican efforts to frame the Benghazi assault as a terrorist attack, possibly linked to al Qaeda, on Obama’s watch.”

No framing was necessary. It was a terrorist attack, linked to al Qaeda, on Obama’s watch. What else could it be?

Nov 24, 2012 2:55pm EST  --  Report as abuse
UnPartisan wrote:

Benghazi or not, she is a horrible diplomat. The Chinese and the Russia hate her and while she has been in the UN they have repeatedly used their veto powers against us. She is a failure in the UN, she is abrassive, she is rude, she has no business being Secretary of State. Kerry should get that position, not her.

Nov 24, 2012 3:11pm EST  --  Report as abuse
Decatur wrote:

What is the real perspective or proportion of this compared to say the U-2 incident, Bay of Pigs, Liberty, Pueblo, Mayaguez, overthrow of Shah, or Beirut Marine barracks?

With all respect to the deceased who worked in harm’s way, I have the impression Benghazi is being exploited before it is investigated.

Nov 24, 2012 3:47pm EST  --  Report as abuse
ptiffany wrote:

Abrasive style? Sharp-tongued? Who are you listening to, those who would make her out to be something she is not? Her biggest recent criticism of late regarding the Benghazi debacle is that Rice was not assertive or aggressive enough and was far too soft tongued and diplomatic.

One has to wonder about the agenda of the writers who got this so wrong.

Rice has been an exemplary ambassador and should be commended for her exceptional efforts.

Nov 24, 2012 3:56pm EST  --  Report as abuse
eztalk wrote:

I find nothing exceptional about this woman, especially concerning her dismal record at the U.N. The only thing she’s got going for her is Obama’a sexist reaction to the “little woman’” not being able to stand up for herself, and the fact that if anyone questions her, her race is brought into it.

That’s Obama’s weapon: racism and trying to portray himself as some kind of savior to someone who supposedly can’t stand up for herself. Question: If she’s so helpless that she needs this type of “saving”, why is she holding the office? Can only a man be able to hold this office since there needs to be a “man” to defend her?

What sexism!

Nov 24, 2012 4:18pm EST  --  Report as abuse
eztalk wrote:

ptiffany…….what has been “exemplary” in her work at the U.N.?

Nov 24, 2012 4:18pm EST  --  Report as abuse
fawltybean wrote:

This is the easiest job in the world. Secretary only has to do and say as AIPAC and Israel say. AIPAC will even write everything down for the secretary.

Nov 24, 2012 4:26pm EST  --  Report as abuse
fritzk wrote:

it is yet another notable failing of media that Rice would face the volume of irresponsible questioning that she has. I so wish media would police itself responsibly. instead, media is no less a problem than our inept government and our immoral business leadership. Anything to create ‘controversy’, eh?

Nov 24, 2012 6:19pm EST  --  Report as abuse

This cracks me up. She appeared so “Mousey” when talking about Bengazi. Guess she’s a “Potty Mouth”. Don’t know if her attitude, will get her too far as Secty. Of State. But looking at her..who knew??

Nov 24, 2012 6:24pm EST  --  Report as abuse
UnPartisan wrote:


Yeah, having the media question our government is a huge problem. We should eliminate that freedom of press Monday, then follow up with freedom of speech, and right to bear arms later in the week. You wouldn’t be the first Obama supporter to suggest eliminating parts of the bill of rights.

Nov 24, 2012 7:17pm EST  --  Report as abuse
higheagle wrote:

Actually many Americans feel the need for a tough negotiator, like Susan Rice… and should Ambassador Churkin like someone a bit more Victorian perhaps he might re-read some of his own country’s history during the reign of terror under Joseph Stalin…?!!!

Nov 24, 2012 9:47pm EST  --  Report as abuse
Abulafiah wrote:

Why do Republicans think they should be treated in the same way as a foreign government to be negotiated with?

They are not! They are the losers in a domestic election, largely irrelevant, pursuing an irrelevant time-wasting political farce, and Rice does not have any obligation to be nice to them.

Nov 25, 2012 2:32am EST  --  Report as abuse
deLafayette wrote:

Namby-pamby diplomats don’t like her sh*t-kicker style because they think women “should not say things in that manner”.

But, they can and will at the appropriate time and behind closed doors.

This is sexism of its worst kind. Foreign policy, since Mata Hari, has no room for sexism – and the boys have ruffled feathers its because they don’t want the girls taking their jobs.

Diplomacy is a mix of truth, lies and innuendo – all employed at various times of necessity. So, Ms Rice, talks tough. Ever thought of talking tough back at her, boys?

Nov 25, 2012 4:32am EST  --  Report as abuse
stambo2001 wrote:

Every day she becomes more and more a divisive figure, every day both sides become more entrenched in their positions. This GUARANTEES that obama will nominate her, it’s his modis operandi. Barry will do nothing to compromise while crying that the republicans won’t compromise.

And don’t bring up the ‘we won the election’ line. Only 65% of voters turned up to vote and barry got 50% of those, so only 33% of the voting public voted him president. That is not a majority of citizens, it’s just a majority of those that turned up. 35% didn’t vote and that alone is a larger block of citizens that what voted barry in. Understand? That block is the silent majority. Barry won in 2008 only to have the silent majority put a quick end to his control in 2010. No?

Right now neither side can say who the silent majority stand with, and that’s a problem for barry.

Nov 25, 2012 6:45am EST  --  Report as abuse
Numb3rTech wrote:

@ USAPragmatist

I had higher expectations from Mr. President Obama and his administration. I am not trying to subjugate our democracy with false accusations. I just want a truthful and transparent government as we were promised. I do not expect lies. Our nation was not built on these kind of principles, moral or values.

To me, the democracy is being torn apart by the extremists. All sides have them. I am more in the middle and vote for whoever I consider is best for the country, not for me. I am not that selfish. I have faith in the United States, a Republic for which it stands.

Nov 25, 2012 7:10am EST  --  Report as abuse
Norm204 wrote:

After reading all these comments I am completely overcome by the hypocritical stance of the left wing Democrats. The truth is that if this Benghazi affair had unfolded exactly the same under a Republican administration in the White House then these same left wingers would have already had the President impeached. Instead, we find them defending the indefensible.

I bet Ms. Rice is really angry at the President. She trusted him and he used her.

Ambassador Rice acts and speaks just like a political party hack. In my life we have had some great, yes great UN Ambassadors like Adlai Stevenson, Arthur Goldberg, Daniel Moynihan, and Madeleine Albright representing our country. Now we have a party hack.

Nov 25, 2012 7:18am EST  --  Report as abuse
UnPartisan wrote:


I still hear Democrats calling for Bush and Cheney to be tried for war crimes. They despise Rumsfeld and Rice. Yet how dare we question the misinformation passed to us by the Obama administration. Republicans are just as hypocritical as Democrats though. That is why I am finished with both parties. The only intellectually honest people in America are the independents and third party supporters.

Nov 25, 2012 1:14pm EST  --  Report as abuse
Confession wrote:

Ambassador Rice does not have credibility with the American people, she lied to our face in five separate interviews on September 16th, (Meet the Press, ABC News this Week, CBS Face the Nation, I’m not able to find the names of the other two shows.) The transcripts of these three shows, that I have reviewed reveal that Ambassador Rice explicitly supported the hypothesis of a spontaneous movie inspired attack on the consulate. This is while we now know that the Situation Room at the White House was able to see the Benghazi attack in real time via drone and within 24 hours the Intelligence Community was certain of terrorist involvement. “In Benghazi testimony, Petraeus says al Qaeda role known early.” Reuters article Friday November 16, 2012. The real sexists are the leftists who pretend a woman in her position should not be judged based on her merits, but should be given a pass because she is a woman. I repeat by her merits, she falls short of the virtues of honesty and competence. Vote her down for Secretary of State.

Nov 25, 2012 4:22pm EST  --  Report as abuse
Janeallen wrote:

There is a difference between abrasiveness and toughness.

Kissinger, Baker always exuded a sense of calm. If there is a way to maneuver the situation, they always do that, rather than resorting to ranting and raving, as if “other countries are all American subsidiaries”. Rice did the opposite.

As a woman, I find the excuse, that she was attacked because she is female, lacking in merit.

Nov 25, 2012 7:02pm EST  --  Report as abuse
Janeallen wrote:

The United States certainly can find better talent than Rice, who got there clearly because she knew the right people, who wrote the references she needed to get to where she wanted!

Come on. This is a trying time for our country.
Obama was pretending to be defending Rice;
in fact, he was trying to distract from his own lies on Letterman, which amounted to the same — covering up Al Qaeda activity so as to appear that the killing of Al Qaeda he had accomplished was a God-like achievement, which it was not.

Wake up folks. Leave McCain alone. He is an honorable American, with a reputation as a centrist of decades. Folks who are calling him undeserved vile names, seem never to have examined his logic or reasoning, or viewpoints. Open your eyes folks. OBama is distracting from his own cover up. Even though it didn’t make a difference on the election, still, it leaves a bad taste, at the very least. By NO means is it justified to vilify McCain and others, like the press and bloggers are allowed to do. The Guy is doing his job, and his duty. Obama and Rice weren’t; instead, they were saying whatever they thought it takes to get re-elected.

Ruthless and blind in their ambition, that’s what Obama and Rice as a duo demonstrated they were willing to do, and with no regret!

Obama needs a Secretary of State who is like a George Schultz to Reagan. Without Schultz, Reagan could not have ended to Cold War; Schultz cautioned, persuaded and succeeded in altering many Reagan’s detailed plans and important decisions for the greater good of our country.

Rice is a horrible choice because she is a yes-person. We already know Obama has shown many weaknesses as executive head of our country during the first term. He’s stubborn, and refused to listen to previous opponents, and stuck with less well suited candidates who had gone a long way back with him as friends. That’s VERY BAD for our country.

Folks! PUT COUNTRY FIRST; PARTISANSHIP SECOND. Then it’s obvious Rice is a very bad choice. I’m saying this as somebody who voted for Obama.

Nov 25, 2012 7:14pm EST  --  Report as abuse
jo5319 wrote:

Forget the inappropriate analogy of WMDs.

Democrats in Congress voted for the Iraq war overwhelmingly.
Get over it. Learn not to like ranting and raving, which led so many Americans to support the war, blinded the senses, and swayed so many to be led by the nose to follow war cries.

The current war cries against McCain is no different than the senseless war cries supporting Iraq War for no obvious reasons, even if there had been WMDs— it was a pre-emptive war, folks, and Bush never really said too many times that 9-11 was plotted by Saddam Hussein. Folks just wanted to believe that, and find a scapegoat to punch when there wasn’t any distinct country to bomb after 9-11.
That’s exactly what so many are doing here– chanting war cries against McCain for thin evidence that he wasn’t just doing his job.

Our democracy requires Senate confirmation; so let the Senators do their job, and not subvert our check and balance system.

McCain has always been a centrist. Those who make him into an extremist are making little sense, and only revealing how little they know about McCain, and how many times he has been willing to stand apart from the majority and speak rationally and independently, away from the fray of party politics.

Nov 25, 2012 7:24pm EST  --  Report as abuse
PPlainTTruth wrote:


I absolutely agree with you.

I want a Secretary of State, whom I still want to listen to, when he or she goes on TV to explain what is going on during a crisis in foreign affairs. I don’t think I ever want to hear any puppet show put up by Susan Rice. And I deserve a better Secretary of State than her. I give thumbs down for Rice. Thumbs up for McCain for standing up to the mob like behavior I’ve observed that is displayed by people who want to shout him down. No justification to treat a Senator that way.

Though he didn’t win, more than 58 million American voters chose McCain as their Presidential choice in 2008. How many of the bloggers who are issuing vile venomous attacks on McCain could have garnished 1% of that many American voters’ support? Ask yourself that, before ranting and raving in a disgraceful way, just like Susan Rice likes to do too frequently!

Nov 25, 2012 7:54pm EST  --  Report as abuse
PPlainTTruth wrote:

I don’t think she sold her soul to Obama.
She was expecting her boss Obama to promote her for
towing his line, and covering for him. It’s bribe for bribe.

Many in politics get to where they are because of that.
They don’t ever ask, “What’s best for the country?”

They ask, “What choices, within my control, can I make, to maximize my chance of climbing up to the top?” And they follow that, with little regard to what’s best for the country, because with their smarts, they can handle challenges for that question. That seems to be the ONLY focus of what Rice has in using her smarts— that’s how she came across as Ambassador to the United Nations. Of course, it may not seem to stand out, because too many are like her, with overriding ambition as first, second, third priority. Our country— we’re lucky if our country comes fourth.

Surely, there is somebody better our country can pick to be Sec of State. How can we have no talent up at the top of Obama’s Administration except those who are willing to be puppet to Obama the puppeteer, or a puppeteer to Obama the puppet in economics. That’s a very fair statement because, after all, Obama revealed on Letterman that he could not handle his daughter’s 10th grade math homework!

Nov 25, 2012 8:05pm EST  --  Report as abuse
Gigimoderate wrote:

Wow, sounds like a lot of you have been brain washed by FAUX news. Parroting their talking points about Susan Rice. Be careful your hatred might get in the way of seeing the actual truth.

Nov 25, 2012 10:21pm EST  --  Report as abuse
Refriedbean wrote:

I would think everyone would want an intelligent, tough minded person to be Secy. of State, but then again, the GOP continues to amaze me with their obstructionist “Nays”. It’s almost like background noise.

Nov 25, 2012 10:25pm EST  --  Report as abuse
nonchalanto wrote:

Bringing up the “language” issue is clearly sexist. I think everyone can agree that if a man had said “this is bull***”, it would not have warranted mentioning in this article.

So what if the Russian ambassor doesn’t like her? Given that Russia’s always on the opposing side from us in the UN, I’d think that would be a good thing. Ambassors don’t always have to be nice and cuddly – the UN is really NOT a very friendly place. One simple measure for ambassadors is that they just have be effective in achieving the goals set out by ther bosses. And no one has said anything to show this woman is not effective… fact, quite the opposite.

And yes, she carried the water given her by the intelligence community – well, that’s kind of how things work. These types of posts do not accomodate much “free-lancing” and “ad-libbing” – you represent what you’ve been provided. Anyone who wouldn’t have carried that water would never have got this far.

John McCain unfortunately doesn’t have much of a leg to stand on in this matter. He just comes off as witch-hunting cumudgeon with an ax to grind. It’s been sad for me to watch McCain’s decline but he’s clearly past his sell-by date.

Nov 26, 2012 12:52am EST  --  Report as abuse
tinobelix wrote:

The Best Capable Candidate to become Secretary Of State is: John Forbes Kerry .
John Forbes Kerry is the senior United States Senator from Massachusetts, a senior United States Senator and chairman of the Senate Foreign Relations Committee.

Nov 26, 2012 3:12am EST  --  Report as abuse
Whipsplash wrote:

McCain and Graham against Rice, hardly sounds like a fair fight. Those two clowns need some help.

Nov 26, 2012 5:48am EST  --  Report as abuse
PPlainTTruth wrote:

@Gigimoderate: I’m not sure which post you are referring to, but mine was immediately before yours.

I never watched Fox on this topic.
I watched Obama’s first press conference broadcast live– all from his own words.
I watched Susan Rice speak for herself on ABC.

If anything swayed me, is the shockingly biased, baseless insults of McCain on Huffington Post. Huffington Post backfired on me, because the vile partisanship was just as irksome as some Tea baggers’ vile partisanship to me.

Your bias seems to come right out of the biased, shouting, ranting and raving posts and comments on Huffington. Go there to comment instead of Reuters where both sides get their say. You’ll feel more at home.

It’s too bad that Obama kicked off his 2nd term, doing exactly opposite than what he admitted his voters wanted him to do, ie., to stop the bitter partisanship. State the facts, discuss the logic, not keep falsely accusing others’ opinions as being fed by some others, and use that as an excuse to shut your own ears and refuse to listen.

Obama did a real good job fanning the bitter partisanship. I give a thumbs down for his first press conference.

Nov 26, 2012 2:55pm EST  --  Report as abuse
Janeallen wrote:

What’s atrocious is that the leftists are doing what the Teabaggers used to do — close their ears, refuse to discuss, reason or analyze objectively, and shout down independents by accusing them of following some scripts!

Thanks Obama. We voted for you to bring the country together.
You did exactly the opposite.
Our country has not been this divided for a while, so refusing to listen, and constantly making false accusations about people they disagree with, to avoid reasonable exchanges.

That’s including the recent trend of censorship by Reuters editors.

Nov 26, 2012 3:44pm EST  --  Report as abuse
Janeallen wrote:

Actually, not just Reuters, but Huffington, Wikipedia editors now have the same reputation — whatever opinions they disagree with, they fabricate some tales that such opinions are paid for, copied, following some script by a platform they never listen to or ever want to respond to. It appears possible that the Japanese propagandists who successfully shut down much of the history of their militarists have managed to spread that atrocious attitude to both the leftists and the Teabaggers. Another item to thank the Japanese propagandists who shut down the voice of the comfort women in this manner for more than 6 decades.

Folks. Some habits are detrimental to our democratic system.
Don’t emulate it just because the deceitful seems to have succeeded. It’s not worth it. Don’t follow scammers’ examples because of their transient undeserved “success”; eventually, scandals will break out, and you may not be able to afford to take the consequences, because those who started the scams had usually thought through all the possible scenarios in which they would be exposed, and you folks haven’t! Then you folks will be in for a surprise!

Nov 26, 2012 4:55pm EST  --  Report as abuse
Janeallen wrote:

Susan Rice’s gender & ethnicity are irrelevant.
The only relevant issue it who is the best candidate for Secretary of State, for our country, regardless of partisanship.

This is a trying time for our country. It’s time to put the vile talk aside, Dems and Repubs. The GOP embraced the African-American female candidate, Condi Rice, as Secretary of State, as long as their ideology and platforms match. There is no evidence that GOP opposed Susan Rice because of her race or her gender; I have not heard a word in reference to her race or gender during their criticisms. It was all about her performance as spokesperson on the Benghazi incident. And when an American Ambassador died, along with 3 other Americans, it is not a trivial issue. There is no need to invoke some gender or racial discrimination claim here. And I’m female.

Nov 26, 2012 5:06pm EST  --  Report as abuse

It’s been mentioned that Susan Rice knew Albright since she was four years old. Madeleine didn’t have a reputation of being abrasive, nor did Condi Rice, or Hilary Clinton. Why do folks force gender into the discussion? Diplomats are supposed to have diplomatic skills. It’s one thing when we were so dominant economically and garnished so much respect for our military decisions from WWII and humanitarian efforts that being domineering was accepted without question.

Now, the situation is quite different. Germany disagreed with us at G20. Many countries question us and demand better explanation for any proposal we make at the UN, G20, WTO, or any international organization. We cannot expect to bully our way through; if you choose somebody who does, then not only are we less likely to achieve our intended goals, our credibility as world leader might be further compromised. Somebody who knows when to act tough, and when to act diplomatically is what’s needed. I don’t know Susan Rice well; but even reports and posts that support her, don’t propose any evidence that she is more than a one-sided, rigid UN representative. The world is changing all the time. We don’t know what will happen when we choose a candidate, and we cannot afford a mediocre Sec of State with this complicated and challenging world. I have serious doubts about her suitability for the position of Sec of State based on writings that support her, and defend her abrasiveness, and lack of diplomatic skills. It just sounds like she is a one-sided talent, not well rounded enough for the post.

Nov 26, 2012 6:39pm EST  --  Report as abuse
Janeallen wrote:

This is a petition to the White House, initiated in Canada by Ethiopian Human Rights Activists about Ambassador Susan Rice’s promotion. It’s eye opening for me; I hope it will pass censorship on Reuters.

Nov 26, 2012 7:18pm EST  --  Report as abuse
Butch_from_PA wrote:

Rice is a smart tenacious person who goes after what is needed.
Unfortunately, she has a lot of baggage of what was later deemed poor choices.

Whether following orders or not – that baggage and her diplomacy style should weigh heavily on using her as secretary of state. With so much talent to chose from – if she is picked for the job – this bodes very poorly on Obama – who should be thinking of making America strong, not paying favors to friends.

We will see.

Nov 27, 2012 4:18pm EST  --  Report as abuse
sweetwilli wrote:

I would love to hear what Susan Rice really thought after meeting with the “Three Blind Mice”. She, of course, would not lower herself to participate in cynnical political gamesmanship. She is used to getting the job done, not trying to appear relevant without being relevant.

Nov 28, 2012 11:18am EST  --  Report as abuse
Distillerman wrote:

She does well with her manipulations of the facts and equally as proficient at dodging responsibility. Sounds like a typical leftist shill. She’ll work out fine.

Nov 28, 2012 9:46pm EST  --  Report as abuse
sjfella wrote:

The majority reelected the Chief Clown so they deserve exactly what they got including all the associated nonsense that goes with him. God help the rest of us.

Nov 29, 2012 12:13pm EST  --  Report as abuse
This discussion is now closed. We welcome comments on our articles for a limited period after their publication.