NEWSMAKER-UPDATE 1-Backed by Obama, sharp-tongued Susan Rice battles critics

Comments (26)
PatrickHugh wrote:

Blunt, rude and successful. Sounds perfect.

Nov 24, 2012 11:58am EST  --  Report as abuse
Hedonikos wrote:

Wow… kkong. Considering the language of your posting it is very clear you have an opinion based on emotion and not intelligence. “King Barry”? “porch monkey”? You are sorry. How sad your world must be to not be able to intelligently express an opinion. Instead you sound just like another conservative old white man. At least the stereotype is being shown. Based on Ms. Rice’s extraordinary resume, I believe she may be what this nation needs right now. A tough diplomat who is intelligent enough to know that sometimes the plain truth is what is needed to negotiate with others. You boy Bush tried to emulate such character but failed because he was unable to form a comprehensive sentence. Those years in history will go down as an era when a nation was run by the intellectually challenged conservatives elected by the same.

Nov 24, 2012 11:58am EST  --  Report as abuse
QuarkHadron wrote:

Think about it…. The explanation that the ‘intelligence community’ removed the reference to terrorist attack may fool some folks who won’t think too deeply about what they are being told, but….

It doesn’t explain how the ‘it was a video’ was inserted,

It doesn’t explain away the Administration’s responsibility – they knew it was terrorists, even if the talking points to be released to the public didn’t say so – the Administration still enabled the lie that they knew was a lie, and

It shows the Administration supported lying to the American people – the terrorists knew they did it, so what could be gained from keeping it secret from the American public? How can National security be damaged (the concept of classification) by telling the public what the enemy already knows?

Please don’t just swallow everything you’re fed without chewing it a bit to get the flavor. Convincing, believable lies are still lies. Are Americans really so naive they can’t even think for themselves?

Nov 24, 2012 12:46pm EST  --  Report as abuse
Logical123 wrote:

Susan Rice is rude and incompetent, the last qualities that one needs in a diplomat. She regularly insults the Russian and Chinese ambassadors to the UN. If she is Secretary of State, forget about ever resolving the farcical dispute about the non-existent Iranian nuclear weapons problem that is entirely based on American and Israeli lies.

Nov 24, 2012 12:55pm EST  --  Report as abuse
fromthecenter wrote:

So what was bolton considered to be?

Nov 24, 2012 1:02pm EST  --  Report as abuse
AZ1811 wrote:

It’s is clear that someone removed the reference to “terrorism” from the talking points memo provided by the CIA. The real question is who decided to replace it by laying blame on an obscure video. That seems to me to be the crux of the situation. Someone, Rice or another, was trying to mislead the American people. She knew it wasn’t the video and so did all of her superiors.

Nov 24, 2012 1:03pm EST  --  Report as abuse
ObamaScare wrote:

She sounds as incompetent at diplomatic relations as her boss.

Nov 24, 2012 1:08pm EST  --  Report as abuse
ljcevc wrote:

Ms. Rice is a United States Ambasador. The only possibly workable defense (after trying many others) is: “it was the intelligence communities fault.” (do note the amorphous “community” idea) However: This makes one assume that both Clinton’s State Dept Security and Petreaus’ CIA either misled the WH, or ignored the direct reports of highly seasoned special operators in the fight & surveilance drone information reported within hours of the event — just incredulous. The other arguments include: 1) “no one knew for sure” “fog of war” “very uncertain” completely belie Ms. Rice’s very strong, clear and focused message during numerous televised interviews. 2) yeah, but she used the word ‘terrorist’ and ‘preliminary’ in her remarks — this is akin the to “small print” on Bank ATM Fees, and marginal product warranties, playing a legalistic technicality completely overwhelmed by the force of the core message.3) finally, the defense which at essence is: “she was only following orders” … no thinking citizen of any country can accept that logic.

Nov 24, 2012 1:25pm EST  --  Report as abuse
ChaNar wrote:

In a male-dominated organization and environment such as the United Nations, it does not take a genius to understand why a woman of the intellect and assertiveness of Susan Rice would have critics, even enemies. The UN is an organization dominated by men with a third-world mentality, mindset and attitude, especially towards women, and this is the single greatest obstacle to its relevance and effectiveness. Ms. Rice’s predecessor, one John Bolton, was a maniacal and intolerant bully and bigot during his tenure, whose performance was characterized by his inherent insanity and profane attitude towards the entire organization and its representatives, but the media has cunningly swept this ugly era under the rug. For the uninformed, who seem to operate under impression that this history is not significant, the US has always had more enemies than friends in the UN and Susan Rice’s capacity to deal with these nimrods and cretins, who occupy seats in its hallowed halls, has been nothing short of decisive and illustrious. Those who make comment on these articles would be well advised to educate themselves about these subjects and issues before they fly off the handle out of some misguided need to weigh in on a debate which is beyond the scope of their understanding.

Nov 24, 2012 1:28pm EST  --  Report as abuse
UnPartisan wrote:

“Diplomats on the 15-nation U.N. Security Council privately complain of Rice’s aggressive negotiating tactics, describing her with terms like “undiplomatic” and “sometimes rather rude.” They attributed some blunt language to Rice – “this is crap,” “let’s kill this” or “this is bullshit.”

“She’s got a sort of a cowboy-ish attitude,” one Western diplomat said. “She has a tendency to treat other countries as mere (U.S.) subsidiaries.”"

She wont make it through confirmation with a track record like that.

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

wow,, after publically stating they wanted the US out of the UN.. they go to the extremes to manipulates who gets appointed there.. just like when warren was about to be appointed to the consume protection agency and their business partners were about to be subpoenaed and brought to justice.. this must be the same thing.. they don’t want to be part of the UN and don’t care.. unless their personal agenda is put in jeopardy…

Nov 24, 2012 2:28pm EST  --  Report as abuse
aschark wrote:

It seems that some people are miffed at the “replacement” of the word “terrorist,” in the TV report, while others are miffed at the mention of (5 times) the CA film. Rice, reportedly a woman of intelligence, read the report on Benghazi on 5 TV programs. Why didn’t Clinton read the report? It’s her job. She had the time to make an $80,000 movie with Obama, apologizing for the CA video. Why do I think that Hillary did not want to do what Rice did? Maybe because Hillary’s on her way out, and her possible replacement was getting practice to read what she’s told to read. Maybe because Hillary didn’t want to mislead the public on that CA video being the cause, on her way out. History, you know. I say that because of the following incident where the attackers were positively identified the next day as Taliban. That’s my opinion, and here’s how I got to it:

on 9/14/12, 3 days after Benghazi, Camp Bastion, Afganistan, was raided by 15 Talibans (which was confirmed the next day),leaving 2 dead Marines, 9 wounded, and the destruction of 8 aircraft. It’s described as “arguably the worst day in USMC aviation history since the Tet Offensive of 1968″ by John Gresham of the Defense Media Network. Camp Bastion is one of the largest airports in the world, and the death of 1 Marine is too many. Why didn’t Rice or Hillary mention this? Or anyone else? Rice came out 5 days after Benghazi, 2 days after Camp Bastion, and pushed the video theory. Rice had 2 days to learn about Camp Bastion, seeing as how she’s getting practice to be the SoS, but it was never mentioned. Maybe because the CA video would be too much for people to swallow 2 times. Maybe because the Taliban was positively identified as the assailants the next day, which was 1 day before the TV shows.
This Administration has too many questions asked of it, and the first word of most of the questions begins with the word “why.”
Some people will fall on their swords for some screwups, but pushed on their sword or tossed under a bus is more appropiate (3 Generals retiring in 1 month?). Obama isn’t even sworn in yet for the next four years, but I think there will be more unexplainable situations because, in his last term, he has more “leeway.”

To be continued

PS Don’t hold my feet to the fire for mentioning “last term.” I could be wrong.

Nov 24, 2012 2:38pm EST  --  Report as abuse
Jerryball wrote:

Anyone who can rile up the Russians with truthfulness and being accused as “abrasive” by the Russian Ambassador is all right in my books. If the “rude and undiplomatic” John Bolton, Bush’s ambassador to the UN, who equated “diplomacy with weakness and indecisiveness,” should be all right with the neoCONs, Rice, because she’s a woman with a command of diplomacy can certainly be our Secretary of State no matter what the old white flatulents say. But only if these hair on fire little girls can get over their “Forked Tongue Syndrome.” Rice knew Madeleine Albright since she was four years old had a great mentor for the job. An Ambassador only has the authority to read what the Intelligence Department gives her, without personal slants and personal innuendoes and insults, unlike Congressmen and Senators who are perpetrators of runny mouth, diarrhea quotes, and hoof in mouth disease. These GOP Congressmen have forgotten how to do their job and now portend telling everyone else how to do their job? Buncha slags who only know how to pick up their bribes and government paycheck.

Nov 24, 2012 3:00pm EST  --  Report as abuse
MrUniteUs1 wrote:

Reuters,Fox,AP,NBC,NEW YORK Times and many others reported that the film sparked the attack in Benghazi. No one complained, no one said cover up. Why not? Susan Rice says the same thing and we get all these wild accusatons, from FOX and their puppet politicians. Why?

Meanwhile under reported in America Why?!

Muslim Rage: Over 50 killed in 30-nation Islamic protest wave

After watching this, who can honestly say the anti-Islamic film had nothing to do with the attack in Benghazi. The difference in Benghazi is that the attackers had access to heavy weapons and experience using them. They just got through fighting a war. What about Al Qaeda? Al Qaeda has been calling for protest since the film came out.

I’m wondering if Republicans really believe the anti-Islamic film had nothing to do with the attack in Benghazi, or if they are just saying that for political reasons. First they hoped this would cost the President the election. Now some are hoping President Obama will nominate John Kerry instead Susan Rice, with hope of getting a Republican in that Senate seat.

Nov 24, 2012 3:18pm EST  --  Report as abuse
MrUniteUs1 wrote:

That “obscure” anti-Islamic film trailer became famous, after it was translated into and Arabic shown on Egyptian Televsion. From their protest, some of them violent, spread to 30 countries, including Libya

Nov 24, 2012 3:44pm EST  --  Report as abuse
PatrickHugh wrote:

Just let the conspiracy yahoos keep talking to themselves. No one else is paying serious attention to them.

Nov 24, 2012 4:22pm EST  --  Report as abuse
duepross wrote:

This article, like pretty much all other published discussion of Susan Rice, ignores the obvious criminality that Susan Rice, the U.S. State Dept. and the current Administration, who together frame U.S. foreign policy and comprise our corps of so-called “diplomats”, have become.

I do not claim that this is a new phenomenon. The U.S. has been run for quite a while now by war criminals eagerly projecting exactly the values one might expect from a country which is not only the arms and death merchant to the world, but which also bears the record of single worst perpetrator of terrorism in world history. That is certainly not new to this administration, though the irony of it all has been greatly heightened by the fact of the Nobel Peace Prize having been so wrongheadedly awarded to this current top reigning wardog, and by the treachery of his betrayal of the Democratic constituency back home.
The only qualifications Ms. Rice would bring to the job of top Diplomat is the fact that, as you state, her equally bloodthirsty boss would “have her back”. Her intended path at Secretary of State, that being the continued oppression and subjugation of all lesser nations in unilateral pursuit of U.S. and U.S. corporate interests, would be no more than a continuation of the same road taken before by the likes of Mad Hillary, C. Rice, Albright, Kissinger,

Ms. Rice has stated that she believes that murderous “sanctions” are “a diplomatic tool”. That removing the ability of a population to sustain itself (“making them, e.g. Iranians, uncomfortable”, as she puts it) is just a way to “get them to want to choose different leadership and policy”. But the people she’s willing to starve and siege like that have no more ability to change the actions of their government than do we here in the U.S. And sanctions are no more a form of diplomacy than are the CIA covert operations or the U.S. drone bombings, assassinations, and terror that have been melded so seamlessly into State Department locations and activities everywhere in the world today.

The genocide of Libya, conducted under the propaganda guise of, and incredibly mis-labeled as, an action taken to defend Libyans from their dictator (a notion that has been fully debunked – the Gadhaffi government having been fully exonerated of what were later admitted to as being false reports of intended aggressions against the Libyan people), is often listed in the accomplishments column for Rice. This article as well credits her (as part of the Mad Hillary/POTUS team) with some kind of welcome humanitarian gesture there, while foisting the actual civilian bombing (and genocide) off onto France or NATO. Of course it was nearly entirely U.S. money, U.S. policy, and U.S. military leadership in pursuit of U.S. goals that was at work there, so deflecting the crime to others is simply a lie of obfuscation.

Before the U.S. led action, Libya had the most prosperous economy in North Africa, better social welfare programs than America, including governmental provision of education through the university level, health care for life, and governmental supported housing and employment, etc., which made for a measurably higher rate of literacy and a better standard of living than we have here. But Libya was intentionally destroyed by the U.S.
And Ms. Rice played her role as a policy architect and chief cheerleader for the neoliberal/neoconservative aims of the U.S. to conduct a genocide for the apparent goals of terminating Libyan funding and sponsorship for the (now defunct) African Union, ending Libya’s nationalization of its resources, and literally paving the way for U.S. and nominally U.S. domiciled multinational corporate interests to take over Libyan assets and control Libyan markets.

The U.S. intentionally destroyed Colonel Gadhaffi’s “Great Manmade River”, for god’s sake, which once supplied water to the Libyan (desert) population. Tens or hundreds of thousands of innocent Libyan people, nearly all of whom approved of their country and its leadership, were killed by the U.S. actions, its bombs, its destruction. This genocidal action was underwritten and conducted by a U.S. team that included Ms. Rice, requiring as it did the full throated complicity of the U.S./U.N. contingent and their unequalled powers within that body, the U.S. State Department to openly voice lies and misdirections in lieu of statesmanship, and relying on the U.S. dominated, U.S. instrument of NATO to effect the actual siege and carnage.

Under their direction, a rancid stew of CIA, Libyan expats, opportunists, mercenaries, and other human refuse was shoved into the vacuum we created where a very capable Libyan government and the thriving population of the Libyan nation used to stand. Mention that point, just once please, when pretentiously “analyzing” what the hell happened in Benghazi. Or when trying to figure out why the Administration and this State Department would put lying liars like Rice up on stage to lie about these things to the American people. (Americans could handle the truth. They just don’t want to.)

There is an obvious and irrefutable connection between the actions and words of people like Ms. Susan Rice and the devastation and instability that transpires in their wake.

Regarding Secretary of State: it is not that Ms. Rice is less qualified to be top U.S. “diplomat” than the other war criminals that have held the job. It’s that none of them are. None of them are diplomats. And none of them are qualified. And none of them should be permitted to represent America.

The whole lot of them belong in the gallows for their war crimes. I’d say merely facing the gallows (rather than already hanging), but this group and this Administration have expressed complete disdain for Constitutionally mandated due process, along with the codification of other policies that signal many noxious departures from the letter and spirit of America’s founding documents.

America and all true Americans should neither want, nor any longer tolerate, the brutal neoliberal, neoconservative terrorism being foisted on the rest of the world in our name by the likes of such horrid little people as these.

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

PatrickHugh and some of the other sharp-as-tacks posters here, do me a favor? Email or write John McCain, Lindsay Graham, and other hopelessly angry partisan representatives, and give them the truth with vinegar. Totally enjoyable reading . . .

Nov 24, 2012 5:17pm EST  --  Report as abuse
QuarkHadron wrote:


You’re a little behind the times.

“Reuters,Fox,AP,NBC,NEW YORK Times and many others reported that the film sparked the attack” because that was what the government (you know, the guys with the intel?) were officially announcing at the time. The news media were reporting on the official announcements. (It was before the election, you know….)

If you are still saying the film was the direct cause of the Libyan attack, then you are disagreeing with what the government is now saying – Obama now says the intelligence at the time indicated it was an organized terrorist attack and not a spontaneous mob response. The (ex)head of the CIA – in testimony before the Congress – has said that at the time, they knew it was an organized terrorist attack and not a spontaneous mob response.

Now you want to try and say you know better than the President and the head of the CIA at the time? (Or do you just choose not to believe what ever doesn’t agree with your convictions – despite being proved otherwise?)

My point is, that the effort to explain it away by saying ‘someone else’ deleted the terrorist references from the talking points does not explain who inserted the false information – and it does not excuse anyone in the administration from knowingly participating by saying what they knew to be inaccurate.

Nov 24, 2012 5:39pm EST  --  Report as abuse
tcricks wrote:

What a tempest in a teapot!

McCain and Lindsey, you lost the Presidential and many Congressional elections…the people have spoken…get over it and get to work. The people want real discussions, debates, and most of all, work done on their behalf.

So stop this petite bickering over what Susan Rice might have or might not have said. We all know the rolling story that was Benghazi and so day-to-day the scenario and answers changed as new information was gathered…so what? This is normal.

Get back to work for us, as you swore you would and for which you already are overpaid to do…NOW.

Nov 24, 2012 6:22pm EST  --  Report as abuse
MikeSwe wrote:

Susan Rice is being attacked for BLATANTLY LYING. Plain and simple. She not only gave the bogus story of the Benghazi attacks being a “spontaneous” uprising due to some lame video–the video in question had been out since July, and given the instant circulation of the internet, if it had been known to the Muslim world prior, there would have been massive protests already, which there never were–but then she also claims she was going on what intel the WH knew about. That is ANOTHER LIE, as both the CIA and the State Dept knew it was a COORDINATED TERRORIST ATTACK, hours after the attack itself, and Rice also has access to any confidential intel as well.

Lastly, you know Rice is guilty when the “you’re a racist!” card slithers out from the woodwork, because there’s no defense of her lying.

Nov 24, 2012 6:43pm EST  --  Report as abuse
feadjep wrote:

Was it not the US Senate that confirmed Susan Rice to become the US Ambassador to the UN a few years ago?

She was then qualified for this highly visible post and after years of functioning flawlessly in this position and thus gaining much experience, now some lawmakers are claiming that she’s NOT QUALIFIED to be promoted to serve as the next US Secretary of State?

This does not pass the smell test.

Nov 24, 2012 7:08pm EST  --  Report as abuse
beancube2101 wrote:

She is not anything sharp. She just played along helping those gung ho right wing Zionists hijacking our international relationships and Americans foreign policies. She is young but she haven’t rid herself from those old school brain washed one sided attitude for the purpose of a real UN embassy. She needs to do real soul search for representing all Americans and our neighbors as a whole instead of representing a narrowly defined political establishment in Washington and by mass media industrialists.

Nov 24, 2012 7:09pm EST  --  Report as abuse
niche wrote:

It is a much bigger issue to get to the bottom of Collin Powell’s testimony in the UN about the clear and present danger of Iraq’s WMD. We have to find out the truth of “who knew what when” that led to the false testimony that tricked the American public and allies into supporting the subsequent invasion.
This is a much much more serious issues that changed the course of world history, and partially to be blamed for the current state of the American hardship. It is completely hypocritical to make such a big deal on Rice’s statement, which has no consequence on the tragedy that had happened before her statement on a TV program.

Nov 26, 2012 2:20am EST  --  Report as abuse
Whipsplash wrote:

McCain and Graham against Rice? It hardly seems like a fair fight, those boys are going to need some help.
Some of you Obama haters need to get yourselves a life.

Nov 26, 2012 12:18pm EST  --  Report as abuse
Owkrender wrote:

That’s how far the GOP has come: attack the ambassador to the UN groundlessly, then accuse her of not being lady-like when she pushes back. “…aggressive negotiating tactics…??” I SAY….

Nov 27, 2012 10:34pm EST  --  Report as abuse
This discussion is now closed. We welcome comments on our articles for a limited period after their publication.