The Susan Rice file: Affront to statecraft
It appears that Susan Rice's complicity in the Benghazi scandal could be the least of her confirmation worries should she be nominated by President Obama to succeed Hillary Clinton as secretary of State.
Ms. Rice, this nation's ambassador to the United Nations, has proven to be a serial prevaricator in her role as the keeper of the cover-up of the September tragedy that left the U.S. ambassador to Libya and three others dead in a terrorist attack.
But as The Wall Street Journal's Bret Stephens notes, citing published accounts, Rice has a long and sordid history of failure in foreign fiascoes.
One of Mr. Obama's acolytes, Samantha Power, documented a 1994 incident in which Rice, as a member of President Bill Clinton's National Security Council team, voiced concerns about the political ramifications of using the word “genocide” in describing the genocide then unfolding in Rwanda.
In 1997, Rice became an assistant secretary for Africa policy. And Columbia University's Peter Rosenblum recounts how Rice, in 1998, botched a peace plan between warring Ethiopia and Eritrea. Her actions directly led to an escalation of the war, prompted Rice's recall to Washington and resulted in a “probation” ordered by a furious Madeleine Albright, then secretary of State.
Then, upon the death of Ethiopian strongman Meles Zenawi three months ago, Mr. Stephens notes how Rice “praised” him as “wise” and” “visionary.” He's the same henchman the State Department last year said was responsible for “torture,” among other unpleasantries.
The bill of particulars against Susan Rice is long. Her documented failures are legion. Nominating her as secretary of State would be an affront to not only statecraft but decency itself.
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 â 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.