Ambassador Susan E. Rice is a very powerful and accomplished Black woman. Aside from her status as a Rhodes Scholar and countless more academic accolades, she has served as a public servant under two sitting presidents (Presidents Clinton and Obama). And, she was a Senior Fellow at the Brookings Institution. Her background harkens back to another prominent Rice, Condoleezza Rice. She too is an accomplished academic, both scholarly and musically, and public servant. The key difference between the two is just the party to which they each belong. Susan Rice is a Democrat and Condoleezza Rice is a Republican. So why, if Susan Rice is so similar to Condi Rice, would conservatives question her credentials and preparedness to potentially occupy the same role Condoleezza held during the Bush Adminstration? Well, it’s actually trite at best.
Condoleezza Rice held several roles under the tutelege of the 43rd United States President, George W. Bush. First, she was the National Security Adviser. Then, in 2005, she was confirmed as the Secretary of State after Colin Powell resigned. The most prominent questions for Condi came after the attacks on the World Trade Center on September 11, 2001. During that time, she claimed that the White House was unaware of the status of Iraq’s nuclear program. And, she was the preiminent security leader for the US during the worst acts of terror this country has ever seen. Some questioned whether she was simply lying to the American people. Or, if she was so inept that she missed key intel indicating that America was in danger and that Saddam Hussein possessed no weapons of mass destruction. Either way, Condi’s credibility was a major point of contention well before her confirmation in 2005. But, she was appointed nonetheless.
Susan Rice’s story veers off in a different direction here. She hasn’t served during a major American catastrophe like 9-11. And, she certainly has not been the national security adviser during an attack on American soil. Yet, Congressional Republicans have been working feverishly to block her would-be appointment following Senator Hillary Clinton’s annnouncement that she will not be serving as Secretary of State during President Obama’s second term in office. In a letter to the President, 97 House Republicans stated that they were not confident in Ambassador Rice’s qualifications for Secretary of State. Citing the attacks on Benghazi as the prime catalyst for their concerns, the letter explains how this issue detracts from Ambassador Rice’s abilities to properly address international issues.
“Though Ambassador Rice has been our Representative to the U.N., we believe her misleading statements over the days and weeks following the attack on our embassy in Libya that led to the deaths of Ambassador Christopher Stevens and three other Americans caused irreparable damage to her credibility both at home and around the world.”
They continue to note that their concerns are held universally, as they are speaking for the American people. They elucidate Ambassador Rice’s perceived blatant disregard for truth and transparency.
“Ambassador Rice is widely viewed as having either willfully or incompetently misled the American public in the Benghazi affair.”
When this story is juxtaposed against a backdrop of Condi Rice’s actions and role in 9-11, the reaction from the Reps almost seems unreal. A key difference between Condi and Ambassasor Rice is that one was “unaware” of intel leading to major political fallout and an entire war while the other was actually repeating the most current intel from the CIA, respectively. Ambassador Rice’s reliance on the intelligence officers whose job it is to provide intelligence does not constitute a failure on her part. There was obviously more to the story that had yet to be uncovered. But, for Reps to make it into a boon resting squarely on Ambassador Rice’s shoulders seems a bit unfounded.
But what of it? Will these accusations and obstacles go anywhere? Well, Senator John McCain (R-AZ) has been extremely loquacious about his disdain for Ambassador Rice’s confirmation. And, since he has been so vocal about Benghazi, this is no surprise. Both he and Republican Senator Lindsey Graham of South Carolina have vowed to work against her with all of their “power.” And, unlike the House, the Senate actually does have the power to block presidential appointments as they have been flexing their muscles in this respect since President Obama was elected. Though this is harmful to the American people, the backhanded antics are the stalwort politics that losing parties often cling to when they’re down. The Democrats are no different.
Some people have said this is because Susan Rice is Black. Well, I disagree. I think this is because she is Black AND a Democrat. Remember when Ann Coulter explained on Fox News about the science of how conservatives Blacks are “better” than liberal Blacks?
It seems that this is a real concept. Political actors like Allen West, Herman Cain, and Condoleezza Rice are all coveted, doted upon, and touted while Colin Powell, who has moderated over the years, and Michael Steele (former RNC Chair), now a commentator on the evil MSNBC, have been proverbially kicked to the curb. And who can blame the Reps? It doesn’t benefit them to have reformed Black people who move toward the middle or the left. And Susan Rice, though strikingly similar to Condoleezza on paper, is just another liberal Black. This is about idealism. Political idealogues have a zeal for their own reality. It isn’t about race any more than it is about gender or state of origin. Because, I guarantee you that if Benghazi had happened under a Republican president, the tables would be turned and the Dems would be doing many of the same things the Reps are doing now.
This is what you call desperation politics folks. Or, as some might say, politics as usual. And, poor Susan Rice just happens to find herself caught in the middle of this unending tug-of-war. Why do they hate her? Because she is not them. It really is just that simple.
This was a nice read. This is off subject but I thought it was interesting that she’s married to a white man 🙂
This was a nice read. I have lost faith in our political representatives on all sides of the aisle but I have not lost faith in our system. If we have people of character and moral values, we could have a system of government that could actually represent the people and Susan Rice would not be rejected “because she is not one of them.”
This is off subject but I thought it was interesting that she’s married to a white man 🙂
@Steven27
Yes, I find that interesting too. And, that she is of mixed heritage herself. Thanks for the comments:)
No, I don’t think the Rightwing hates Susan Rice just because she’s Black. The fact that she’s a close friend of President Obama seems to be a better explanation for their hypocritical stance. I hope President Obama nominates her as Secretary of State after Hilary Clinton resigns. There aren’t enough Republicans in the Senate to block her confirmation.
http://www.politico.com/news/stories/1112/84326.html
@Patricia Kayden
True, with the seats gained this election season, these few naysayers can’t block her. But, they are spinning the potential nom in a very negative light for the American people. That is the new method used to defeat political adversaries. Thanks for the comments:)
Ann Coulter….UGH
The battle Senator McCain is waging against Susan Rice dates back to the 2008 campaign, when McCain felt insulted and slighted by remarks by Susan Rice who said then that, “I don’t think he’ll be strolling around the market in a flak jacket”. Rice was referring to then-Senator Barack Obama, who was planning a trip to Iraq. McCain is just a bitter old man.
Yup, this is definitely not about race, but rather more predictable hate-mongering from the Right, seizing upon whatever chance they can to discredit the Obama administration. Before the President won his second term, most of their vitriol about the Benghazi was aimed at him, in their attempt to make him look weak on foreign policy. But, I think after the popular majority showed their support of Obama by casting their vote for him, the Right had to go after someone close to him, in order to avoid having their further attacks accused of mere resentment over losing the election.
That being said, ever since Obama started running in 2008, the Right has used thinly veiled racial devices to keep that segment of white American society who still votes with a skin-toned color-wheel in mind, politically active. They know they have to keep certain types in the South and our rural areas happy, and feeling the Right puts their best interests at heart, race-wise. If the Right didn’t have their racism to count on, these constituents, who also tend to be on the lower end of the income spectrum, would be able to see that economically the Right has been screwing them over since the era of Reaganomics or before.
@PlanetCharnBaby
Great informed commentary! I agree that it is an implicit tool to satiate specific voting blocs in the country. It is deviant and illusory but I do not think it is as simple as some would like to believe. Race may be a factor or a correlative variable (being that most people in Obama’d Administration are some type of minority) but it is not the central factor in the disdain for Rice.
What a sad waste of time and energy.
Thanks to the National Black Republican Association, we can compare the so-called “dog whistles” and rampant racism of the GOP with that of the Democrat Party/left-wing of America.
http://cache.trustedpartner.com/docs/library/NationalBlackRepublicanAssociation2009/Democrat%20Racism%20Against%20Black%20Republicans3.pdf
Are there racists in the Republican Party? Of course. In any group you will find your share of racists/idiots/mental midgets, etc…
It is the Democrat Party (by a LARGE margin) which openly and publicly uses race (as well as gender, gender) to divide our country and gain power and retain power. I have no doubt in my mind that we could bug the offices of politicians/business leaders and hear many things like this and worse. Yet, it is in public that the Democrat party and its supporters use this language.
I do not blame Susan Rice for the inaccurate information that she gave to the public,…the buck stops with her boss.
@DWB I wholly disagree with this notion “it is the Democrat Party (by a LARGE margin) which openly and publicly uses race (as well as gender, gender) to divide our country and gain power and retain power.” I think the Romney campaign proved that to be untrue. And, I think a majority of Americans would disagree with you as well.
While I agree that White and Black liberals depend on race issues to solidify their base. I think it is funny that they are somehow deemed culpable for race baiting in a similar fashion as the Reps. It is just not true. But, I think the Rice issue above is being blown out of proportion and should be dropped. It is a distraction.
A different perspective with which to ponder the resistance to Susan Rice’s nomination as Sec. of State. Susan Rice is a black woman married to a white man and her appointment to Secretary of State will thrust her and her family into the limelight. I find there are many people that are okay with interracial relationships so long as it remains “undercover.” Thrust an attractive and accomplished black woman and her equally attractive and accomplished white husband and their children into the spotlight and all of a sudden, Houston, we have a problem, because then more black women will start to question and think to themselves, “I want what she’s got, how do I get that for myself?” Thus, the proverbial can of worms will be open because Susan Rice is now a shining example and role model to millions of black women of what we all can achieve. Those “good ol’ boys” in Congress just don’t want their “secret” to get out (white men desire black women), and their wives definitely don’t want their husbands’ secrets to get out.
@MadamCJCPA
I saw a 60 Minute article in 97 or ’98. ábout William Sebastian Cohen, Senator from Maine and Clinton’s Sec of Defense. It wasn’t undercover. Did anyone make a big deal of his marriage to a (very) attractive and accomplished black woman,Janet Langhart (see wikepedia). If anyone did, it was more likely the Guardians of all Things Dark and Lovely.
@jimske @MadamCJCPA I’m with jimske on this one. The people who protest the loudest and make the nastiest comments are black folks. I’m convinced if more black folks knew Susan Rice was married to a white man, they wouldn’t be so vociferous in their support of her.
What does either one of those points have to do with Susan Rice?
I clearly stated that PEOPLE (insert whatever race you prefer) are okay with interracial relationships (BW/WM) so long as they remain undercover. Duplicity is extremely covert, that is why spies specialize in it. Who trains the spies? The government, so best believe there are alternative “undercover” agendas at work here to keep Susan Rice out of the Sec. of State position.
@Penny @jimske @MadamCJCPA
Not only is she married to a white man, they are worth between $20,000,000 and $45,000,000 through investments and inherited money. Also, I attended an all black function earlier today and Susan Rice was being discussed and I mentioned that her husband was white. The woman that I was talking to was a big fan of Susan Rice’s until I told her that she was married to a white man. Her response was “well I dont know how much I can support her now.” I told her that I could be marrying a white man one day and she said well I dont know. It is just that for a black woman to be that high profile should be married to a black man. I told her that many women on that level dont have black men to date. I guess it would be okay to let these brilliant women be single and alone instead of married to white men. It was really upsetting. Wait until it comes out about her being married to a white man and being wealthy, all hell is going to break loose. What people dont realize is that there are a number of black women married white men and the couples are wealthy. It is just kept quiet while the opposite are rammed down your throats in the media….
@onepost @jimske @MadamCJCPA onepost, thank-you for proving my point. I can’t believe that lady pulled her support as soon as told her Ms. Rice was married to a white man. You are right about them rather black women being alone. SMH.
OnePost your story just goes to highlight the hypocrisy that is prevalent and in full effect when it comes to BW/WM high profile couples. Condelezza Rice was accepted among the GOP because of her single status. They know most black people vote Democrat, so Condi would not be idolized nor emulated to the degree that Susan Rice has the potential to be with young black girls/women. The tide is turning, and more and more black women are actively seeking to date and marry non-black men, this is why the black collective works overtime trying to dissuade black women from dating and marrying out, and white women obviously fear the added additional competition for the attention and affections of white men. Young black women have watched Oprah, Condi, and numerous other black women trade their love lives in exchange for their careers and decided that is not the road they want to take, so of course they will focus on those women they feel they can closely identify with and uphold as a role model.
All this thought and hand-wringing concerning high-profile black women has me thinking about the Malia and Sasha Obama. What do you think would happen if they (in the future) also date and marry out? It probably won’t happen for the simple fact that I am sure there is some Jack/Jill upper echelon black boy being groomed this very second on how to land one of the two girls.
@MadamCJCPA I was just thinking the same question of what would happen if Sasha and Malia date out. Thanks for reminding me about Jack and Jill. Totally forgot about them. Anyone know if Susan Rice was one?
I think the right would love her if she hated Obama.
While I think a lot of things on the extreme right are about race, I don’t think this is. This is a strategy. Other than old man McCain who is still bitter from his 2008 loss, the right is strategically trying to do whatever they can to make sure Susan Rice isn’t nominated. They feel if they hem and haw enough, she’ll either bow out of the running or President Obama will cave under pressure. What I believe they really want, is for Senator Kerry to take that spot. He’s the next logical pick after Rice and he’s already made it known he’s interested in the position. Should Senator Kerry take that post, that’s one less democrat in the Senate and in a special election the Republicans are hopping to do get one of their own to fill Kerry’s seat, possibly Scott Brown in a special election. Historically Democrats don’t do as well in off Presidential election years or special elections which is how Brown captured Kennedy’s seat in the very blue state of Massachusetts. Even though the Democrats will still have the majority, it wouldn’t be much of one. That’s my theory.
@EvieE Your theory is one hundred percent sound and factually correct. If the Reps are indeed hoping for a Kerry nom, berating Rice would benefit them. Though, I don’t think Obama is willing to simply offer the opportunity to Kerry. He has indicated interest but has a background better suited for the Defense role. I don’t think Obama will be bullied into nominating Kerry. But, you’re right, the Reps are hoping for other, less liberally inclined options.
@JennMJack @EvieE
Jenn and EvieE, veterans organizations will consider it a slap in the face if Kerry is nominated as Sec of Defense. Which means BHO, the emprial president, will nominate Kerry for Sec of Def, not Sec of State. So who will the Senators listen to, their contituants or the Pres?
@jimske @JennMJack @EvieE
Their constituents re-elected Barack Obama as U.S. President. The constitution gives the President the power to appoint his cabinet with the advice and consent of the Senate, which currently has a Democratic majority. If they want to listen to their constituents, they should confirm the President’s nominee, despite what some special interest groups might think. What is imperial about the president and Senate performing their constitutional duties?
@Brice Cameron @jimske @EvieE
I agree. We are not talking about the House here. The Senate has maintained a Dem majority for the duration of Obama’s presidency. His administration, his noms. Same goes for judicial noms. If the American people didn’t want him to do so, they would have made that clear in 2010 and 2012. They did not.
@JennMJack @Brice Cameron @jimske @EvieE Perhaps the GOP should take a page out of the Democrat playbook and oppose any nominee that they think that they can knock off or use to potentially damage the opposition president? Election results have rarely stopped the Democrats from opposing various cabinet and judicial nominations.
@Brice Cameron @JennMJack @EvieE
Brice, you and most of America have no idea how imperial BHO has been. First example: recently, in defiance of the law, he re-allocated $165 million dollars in the DOJ budget to buy an 10 year-old unused prison in western Illinois for the benefit of his friends in the cash strapped state government. http://michellemalkin.com/2012/11/30/gitmo-north-returns-obamas-shady-prison-deal/. Second example: he weakened welfare reform of 1995 by granting waivers in complete defiance of the law http://www.foundry.org/2012/07/13/morning-bell-obamas-imperial-presidency-guts-welfare-reform/ and http://dailycaller.com/2012/07/13/will-obama-get-away-with-it/. This assessment doesn’t come from me but from the individuals who wrote the law. Third example: last January, BHO has made recess appointments when the Senate was not in recess to fill 3 seats o the NLRB. http://politicalticker.blogs.cnn.com/2012/01/04/republicans-furious-over-obama-recess-appointments/. And as far as Dem Sen leadership is concerned, that all right. (Of course it is; it serves the special interest of labor unions.) Fourth example: BHO simple ignored the War Powers Act wrt to our military actions in Libya when Congress invoked the 90-day deadline of the Act. “Moreover, it was a war that the president’s own attorney general apparently believes was illegal. Though the Justice Department’s Office of Legal Counsel provided legal cover for the initial strike on Libya, they balked as the war approached the War Powers Resolution’s 60-day deadline for stopping involvement in “hostilities” not authorized by Congress. Acting OLC head Caroline D. Krass told the president continued bombing would violate the WPR, and “Attorney General Eric H. Holder Jr. supported Ms. Krass’ view, officials said,” according to The New York Times’ Charlie Savage.” Fifth example: in 2010, BHO imposed a moratorium on Gulf of Mexico oil drilling yet twice the courts ruled Congress had not given the executive branch the authority to do so. http://science.time.com/2010/07/12/obama-issues-new-offshore-drilling-moratorium/ and http://www.bloomberg.com/news/2011-02-03/u-s-administration-in-contempt-over-gulf-drill-ban-judge-rules.html. Recently, the 5th Circuit has ruled the O administration didn’t violate an order striking down a moratorium but that’s because they issued a 2nd moratorium, a technicality. Bottom line, when BHO finds he’s doesn’t have the power to do something, he over and over again seizes the power, just line Egyptian President (for life) Morsi. Jim
@EvieE I agree with you 100%. No race or gender card in this one. It’s all about politics and freeing up the Massachusetts Senate seat. I heard the same thing. However, the masses follow the lead of the media and those who “set the agenda” and cogitate about racism and sexism while grander games are played behind the scene.
Jenn,
Once again your commentary on politics shows your youth and lack of history. While it is true,C Rice and SRice are superficially similar except for the party they belong to, their careers show a differences in their accomplishments and honesty.
CRice was a part of the foreign policy wing that brought down the Soviet empire; SRice was part of the State Department and helped shape the shameful US policy toward Central Africa during the Clinton administration (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Susan_Rice and http://www.foreignpolicy.com/articles/2012/11/29/rwandan_ghosts?page=0%2C0). “Between 1993 and 2001, she helped form U.S. responses to the Rwandan genocide, events in post-genocide Rwanda, mass violence in Burundi, and two ruinous wars in the Democratic Republic of the Congo.” If I work backwards from your USC graduation date and assume you entered college right after high school, you were only partially aware of what happened in the Congo and Rwanda during that decade. Believe me when I say that as bad as the genocide and wars were, the world’s reaction, lead by Clinton and his State Department, was just as bad. ”Perhaps the most damning anecdote– told by French academic Gérard Prunier and confirmed by New York Times journalist Howard French — was of a private conversation Rice had after her first trip to Central Africa around this time: “Museveni [of Uganda] and Kagame agree that the basic problem in the Great Lakes is the danger of a resurgence of genocide and they know how to deal with that. The only thing we [i.e., the United States] have to do is look the other way.””
Then, as UN Ambassador, as the Congo civil war raged with Rwandan interference, SRice showed sympathy for Rwanda. “When a United Nations investigation submitted its report on the conflict to the U.N. Security Council in June, providing copious evidence of Rwandan involvement, the ambassador blocked its publication, insisting the Rwandan government be given a right of reply first (the investigators say they had tried to provide this, but had been rebuffed by officials in Kigali).
Moving on to the comparative honesty, CRise’s testimony and public statements about Iraq’s WMD programs matched the assessment of the Bush intel agencies as well as with Clinton’s intel agencies, the French and British agencies, the UN’s IAEI, and numerous others. On the other hand, SRise’s public statement’s were not. Should she have known differently? That’s one of the questions being investigated by McCain, Graham and Ayotte (why did you not mention her?). You linked to a Nov 21 AP article whereby you claim SRice repeated the most current intel from the CIA”, that’s been shown since (and I think before) that that was not true. Someone changed the assessment (as Bush and Cheney were falsely accused of doing in 2002-2003) of Petraeus and the CIA; who and why is one of the things McCain, Graham and Ayotte were trying to get from SRice.
Now, is it any wonder McCain and the others are going to “work against her with all or their power”?
If you want to compare and contrast CRise and SRice, try looking at the ways the media treated them. SRice is the “victim” of those mean ol’white men (even though Ayotte is a woman) while Crise was an Aunt Jemima and a house slave.
@jimske If we’re comparing records Condi Rice, another brilliant woman of color, was part of the administration that took us into an illegal war in Iraq.
No one ever questioned her intelligence and claimed that she was “not qualified” for her position.
Susan Rice decisions under a particular administration may be more reflective of that administration’s policy than her acumen.
Further more questioning @JennMJack understanding of the political situation based ” your youth and lack of history” seems to me a bit ageist. Go ahead and disagree and question her understanding of the particulars but leave the age based judgement out of it please.
As the article below outlines “Rice was using talking points that had been approved by the CIA, and she repeatedly emphasized that the information was preliminary.”
http://mediamatters.org/research/2012/11/30/myths-and-facts-about-the-conservative-medias-w/191597
@LadyLittlefoot @JennMJack
LadyLittlefoot, 2 points; 1) Media Matters is an arm of the Dem Party. their organization is filled with Democrat operatives. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Media_Matters_for_America, So nothing they say can be taken as truth. For example, it is known that the talking points were not approved by the CIA.
2) Saying the Iraq invasion was illegal over and over again does not make it so. We went to war after passage of the Authorizatoin of Military Action in Oct 2002. I’d really like the BB&W community to read it as doing so would give you a clearer understanding of what was going on and what was believed at the time. For example there were members of al-Qaeda and other terrorist organizations known to be in Iraq.. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/ Authorization_for_Use_of_Military_Force_Against_Iraq_Resolution_of_2002.
Lastly, I won’t address your silly accusation of ageism except to say its a fact that with age comes wisdom, in this case, the wisdom to know when an objection is based on race or competance.
@jimske Well, I queued up this piece about a week ago. So, your note on the cited articles is right. I am citing old news in many ways But, the logic still holds.
The Reps have not once mentioned the Congo (which they all were in agreement with Clinton on) as their reasoning for potentially blocking Ambassador Rice. Instead, they have focused with laser-like precision on Benghazi. So, my age aside, I am using their talking points as my evidentiary support here. Not affiliations with past administrations. Thanks for the comments:)
@JennMJack
Actually Jenn, the Senators (not Reps; they don’t get to vote on confirmation) do have issues with her past performance and it even extends to the Senator who sponsored her during SRice’s confirmation hearings.. http://news.investors.com/ibd-editorials/113012-635391-rice-involved-in-1998-embassy-bombings.htm ‘What troubles me so much is the Benghazi attack in many ways echoes the attacks on both embassies [Kenya and Tanzinia] in 1998, when Susan Rice was head of the African region for our State Department,” Sen. Susan Collins, R-Maine, said Wednesday after two hours with our U.N. ambassador. “In both cases, the ambassador begged for additional security.” To make matters worse; “Also then, as now, she went on TV to claim, falsely, that we “maintain a high degree of security at all of our embassies at all times” and that we “had no telephone warning or call of any sort like that, that might have alerted either embassy just prior to the blast.” There were plenty of warnings and our East African diplomats were begging for help as Ambassador Chris Stevens was in Benghazi.” Bottom line, objections to SRice have nothing to do with her race, her white husband or her academic success and everything to do with her performance.
@jimske
Actually @jimske, I am ever more convinced that you did not actually read the piece. As I previously stated:
“Unlike the House, the Senate actually does have the power to block presidential appointments as they have been flexing their muscles in this respect since President Obama was elected.”
Reps means Republicans not members of the House of Reps. No one with half a smidgen of knowledge of politics calls congressmen/women Reps. As a political science scholar, I am aware that the HOR does not confirm presidential appointments. If we are going to debate, you must first read the entire piece so that we are at least starting from the same point of origin.
My incling that you did not read the piece is further underscored by the fact that you seem to think I am saying that Reps are threatening to block her because of her race. If you read through to the end, we are in agreement. I maintain that race is not the reason for their issue with her. And, your argument is still shaky at best when you totally disregard the comparison made in the article to Condi Rice. How do you explain Condi’s performance and subsequent confirmation versus Susan Rice’s. You appear to be simply reaching for straws.
Sophia A. Nelson writes about this today in the Daily Beast.
http://www.thedailybeast.com/articles/2012/12/01/susan-rice-just-another-incompetent-black-woman.html
Trudy Rubin writes in the Wisconson State Journal on Why Susan Rice is wrong choice for Secretary of State.
http://host.madison.com/wsj/news/opinion/column/guest/trudy-rubin-why-susan-rice-is-wrong/article_984827ca-3b4f-11e2-bff5-0019bb2963f4.html
I agree, just like white liberas would like to lynch a conservative black person. I think Rice as classy as any person that has ever lived.