For secretary of state: Not Rice
President Obama's defense of Susan Rice, messenger of the administration's anti-Muslim-video cover story for the attack on the U.S. Consulate in Benghazi, cannot salvage a career of embarrassments before and during Ms. Rice's 2009 appointment as U.S. ambassador to the United Nations.
What's “outrageous,” as Mr. Obama characterized recent attacks on Ms. Rice, is considering her as the next secretary of State.
This would be the same Rice who, as an assistant secretary of State during the Clinton administration, reportedly flipped a South Side salute at Richard Holbrooke, former U.S. ambassador to Turtle Bay, during a meeting with senior staff, reminds Dana Milbank of The Washington Post.
But Rice apparently is “popular” with international colleagues at the United Nations — which is no recommendation of U.S. foreign policy prowess.
Slow to criticize, Rice remained silent when the U.N. elected Iran to its women's rights committee and named Libya to its Israel-bashing Human Rights Committee.
And while she chastises the Bush administration's U.N. policies, Rice has been able to pass only one resolution on Iran and its nuclear saber-rattling; the Bush team passed five, notes Richard Grenell, who has served as a spokesman for four U.S. ambassadors to the U.N.
“Whether the issue is Sudan, Egypt, North Korea, Israel or Rwanda, Rice has been either missing in action or unable to deliver a quick and effective resolution,” Mr. Grenell says.
And this is supposed to qualify her for secretary of State? Next!
Show commenting policy
TribLive commenting policy
You are solely responsible for your comments and by using TribLive.com you agree to our Terms of Service.
We moderate comments. Our goal is to provide substantive commentary for a general readership. By screening submissions, we provide a space where readers can share intelligent and informed commentary that enhances the quality of our news and information.
While most comments will be posted if they are on-topic and not abusive, moderating decisions are subjective. We will make them as carefully and consistently as we can. Because of the volume of reader comments, we cannot review individual moderation decisions with readers.
We value thoughtful comments representing a range of views that make their point quickly and politely. We make an effort to protect discussions from repeated comments either by the same reader or different readers.
We follow the same standards for taste as the daily newspaper. A few things we won't tolerate: personal attacks, obscenity, vulgarity, profanity (including expletives and letters followed by dashes), commercial promotion, impersonations, incoherence, proselytizing and SHOUTING. Don't include URLs to Web sites.
We do not edit comments. They are either approved or deleted. We reserve the right to edit a comment that is quoted or excerpted in an article. In this case, we may fix spelling and punctuation.
We welcome strong opinions and criticism of our work, but we don't want comments to become bogged down with discussions of our policies and we will moderate accordingly.
We appreciate it when readers and people quoted in articles or blog posts point out errors of fact or emphasis and will investigate all assertions. But these suggestions should be sent via e-mail. To avoid distracting other readers, we won't publish comments that suggest a correction. Instead, corrections will be made in a blog post or in an article.