• This is a political forum that is non-biased/non-partisan and treats every person's position on topics equally. This debate forum is not aligned to any political party. In today's politics, many ideas are split between and even within all the political parties. Often we find ourselves agreeing on one platform but some topics break our mold. We are here to discuss them in a civil political debate. If this is your first visit to our political forums, be sure to check out the RULES. Registering for debate politics is necessary before posting. Register today to participate - it's free!

Susan Rice Withdraws as Sec of State Candidate

TheNextEra said:
He could also nominate Santa Clause. Both have the same probability of getting nominated by Obama.
Click to expand...

Well, Santa is the king of giving things away regardless of the cost.
 
a351 said:
I assume that's why he spoke so highly of her, vehemently defended her record at numerous press events and challenged congressional members to reexamine their prior evalution of Rice, all well after the Benghazi fiasco. Not exactly a covert approach.
Click to expand...

He spoke highly of her because he would be admitting something if hadn't.
 
TheNextEra said:
And as said before, do you feel the GOP is going to be ANY LESS scrutinizing JUST BECAUSE she is no longer the candidate? The correct answer is....No, the GOP will be just as relentless.

So her appointment, or in this case non-appointment, doesn't matter in regards to the GOP scrutinizing the administration over Benghazi.
Click to expand...

If Susan had to go before congress they would grill her on Benghazi and the obama media would be forced to report on the results.
 
sawyerloggingon said:
If Susan had to go before congress they would grill her on Benghazi and the obama media would be forced to report on the results.
Click to expand...


And maybe she would get caught in a lie that we could use to impeach Obama.
 
donsutherland1 said:
For those who are interested, Ambassador Rice's letter can be seen here: http://images.politico.com/global/2012/12/13/ser_letter.html

It is unfortunate that Ambassador Rice could not have had an opportunity to be evaluated on the merits of what she had to offer. She is just the latest casualty of an often toxic atmosphere in which political differences have become personalized to the extent that those differences displace objectivity and adversely impact political appointments and policy decisions.

Ambassador Rice is correct that the position of Secretary of State should not be "politicized." She understands that politicizing the nation's top diplomatic post in particular and foreign policy in general would disconnect that policy from the nation's interests on which it should be grounded. Such an outcome would be exploited by the nation's enemies. She also understands that a tough confirmation fight could divert the nation's policy makers from tackling other pressing matters related to the country's fiscal imbalances, economy, and need for immigration reform.

Her Senate foes attacked her unfairly strictly because she stayed on script with the message the Intelligence community provided her. There's no courage in attacking a messenger who had nothing to do with the development of the Intelligence Community's assessment, much less the policy choices related to the Consulate in Benghazi. In contrast, she displayed a sense of courage in asking the President not to consider her for a position that only few in the nation's foreign policy community can ever hope to attain.
Click to expand...

She lied to the American Public blatantly and knowingly 5 times all over the Sunday Talk Shows

Being a minority and/or a Female doesn't excuse someone from being a lying POS
 
tererun said:
You misspelled Kerry's seat, kerry's seat, Kerry's seat. There is no actual secret, nor any actual caring for the dead in benghazi by the republicans or their fanboys. This is all for a second chance at a MA senate seat.
Click to expand...
Do you honestly believe that the Republicans could win another Senate race in Massachusetts? I seriously doubt even the Republicans think that could happen.
 
Helix said:
I hope whoever he nominates is as competent and effective as Hillary. she has done a great job.
Click to expand...

Let's hear her Congressional testimony on the 20th about Benghazi before pronouncing her work as "great."
 
Bronson said:
She lied to the American Public blatantly and knowingly 5 times all over the Sunday Talk Shows

Being a minority and/or a Female doesn't excuse someone from being a lying POS
Click to expand...

What lie did she tell? She used the unclassified information the intelligence agency gave her. She did the exact same thing Condoleezza Rice did. The only difference is, the information Condoleezza gave the American people worked toward getting us involved in a war we didn't need to get inolved in. No one gave Condolezza this much grief over passing on information produced by our intelligence agency.
 
Besides all of her other problems, Susan Rice doesn't want anybody asking her where she got 44 million dollars.
 
AliHajiSheik said:
Ok, I read it. What exactly do you feel qualifies her tenure as great? The Turkish/Armenian agreement? I see average, not great.
Click to expand...

i would say that it was the transition to an emphasis on diplomacy after a period of hawkish US foreign policy. that would be a tricky transition to make, and she was able to do it almost seamlessly when one considers that the past four years have included multiple revolutions in Northern Africa and in the Middle East. the fact that it didn't turn into more of a foreign policy disaster than it did is a testament to her competence. others might have done much worse.
 
Fisher said:
Susan Rice withdraws from consideration as secretary of state - CNN.com

Susan Rice, the U.S. ambassador to the United Nations who drew heavy criticism from Republicans over her statements after the September attacks on a U.S. diplomatic mission, withdrew her name from consideration for secretary of state on Thursday.

In a letter to President Barack Obama, she said "the confirmation process would be lengthy, disruptive, and costly -- to you and to our most pressing national and international priorities. That trade-off is simply not worth it to our country."

Obama acknowledged her letter in a statement that described her as "an extraordinarily capable, patriotic, and passionate public servant."
Click to expand...

Had to happen, but a shame nonetheless. I hope her career is fast-tracked in other ways.
 
If I were Obama I would want McCain as Secretary of State. I think that would be funny. Plus it would be like sticking a needle in his eye. The man has been bitter ever since the Republicans made him pick Palin.
 
Jack Fabulous said:
Do you honestly believe that the Republicans could win another Senate race in Massachusetts? I seriously doubt even the Republicans think that could happen.
Click to expand...

uh, they thought Romney won the presidency. Also, warren only beat scott brown 53 to 47. Considering brown is still riding the same popularity and no dem has spent the last few months campaigning it is not terribly crazy. Don't forget these are northeastern republicans. they are more moderate, but they will follow the senate republicans. he may have lost to warren, but he wasn't out of the running. It is a chance, and the republicans are grasping at any straw they can get their hands on.
 
TaraAnne said:
If I were Obama I would want McCain as Secretary of State. I think that would be funny. Plus it would be like sticking a needle in his eye. The man has been bitter ever since the Republicans made him pick Palin.
Click to expand...

reps did not do that. her church presented her. If the reps had suggested her they would have checked her out first. he trusted that her church checked her out first when they recommended her to him.
 
Helix said:
i would say that it was the transition to an emphasis on diplomacy after a period of hawkish US foreign policy. that would be a tricky transition to make, and she was able to do it almost seamlessly when one considers that the past four years have included multiple revolutions in Northern Africa and in the Middle East. the fact that it didn't turn into more of a foreign policy disaster than it did is a testament to her competence. others might have done much worse.
Click to expand...

Again, I'm not disputing competence, I am disputing greatness. What was the "Clinton Plan" that would have her reach greatness?
 
AliHajiSheik said:
Again, I'm not disputing competence, I am disputing greatness. What was the "Clinton Plan" that would have her reach greatness?
Click to expand...

I have already explained why I thought she did a great job. I'm sure you could set a goalpost for "great job" at any point beyond the one I set. still, I hope that whoever replaces her is at least as competent as she has been.
 
donsutherland1 said:
For those who are interested, Ambassador Rice's letter can be seen here: http://images.politico.com/global/2012/12/13/ser_letter.html

It is unfortunate that Ambassador Rice could not have had an opportunity to be evaluated on the merits of what she had to offer. She is just the latest casualty of an often toxic atmosphere in which political differences have become personalized to the extent that those differences displace objectivity and adversely impact political appointments and policy decisions.

Ambassador Rice is correct that the position of Secretary of State should not be "politicized." She understands that politicizing the nation's top diplomatic post in particular and foreign policy in general would disconnect that policy from the nation's interests on which it should be grounded. Such an outcome would be exploited by the nation's enemies. She also understands that a tough confirmation fight could divert the nation's policy makers from tackling other pressing matters related to the country's fiscal imbalances, economy, and need for immigration reform.

Her Senate foes attacked her unfairly strictly because she stayed on script with the message the Intelligence community provided her. There's no courage in attacking a messenger who had nothing to do with the development of the Intelligence Community's assessment, much less the policy choices related to the Consulate in Benghazi. In contrast, she displayed a sense of courage in asking the President not to consider her for a position that only few in the nation's foreign policy community can ever hope to attain.
Click to expand...

Yes lets look at those Merits outside of Benghazi that she was offering up. Course she isn't fit to be the UN Ambassador let alone the SOS.

UNITED NATIONS/WASHINGTON (Reuters) - Susan Rice has had a series of diplomatic triumphs as U.S. ambassador to the United Nations. President Barack Obama, an old friend, showed he has her back when last week he publicly challenged her Republican critics over the Benghazi controversy to "go after me" rather than her. She knew former Secretary of State Madeleine Albright from the age of 4.

And yet Rice is now fighting for her political future. Her chances of becoming the next secretary of state - replacing Hillary Clinton - have been significantly damaged.

Senior Republicans, such as Senators John McCain and Lindsey Graham, have said they will oppose her getting the job, signaling a confirmation battle if Obama decides to nominate her. Some critics in the U.S. media, such as Washington Post columnist Dana Milbank, have said she is unsuitable for the position.

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 bull****."

"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."

Two other diplomats - all three were male - supported this view.

Russian Ambassador Vitaly Churkin, himself not known for mincing words, publicly admonished Rice after she said Russian calls for an investigation into civilian deaths in Libya caused by NATO were a "bogus" ploy.

"Really this Stanford dictionary of expletives must be replaced by something more Victorian, because certainly this is not the language in which we intend to discuss matters with our partners in the Security Council," said Churkin, mocking Rice's education at Stanford.

More immediately at the United Nations, she faces criticism from human rights activists and some diplomats because of U.S. opposition to public criticism of Rwanda for its role in the worsening conflict in the Congo.

Still, it is far from smooth sailing for Rice. Security Council diplomats and human rights activists have more recently criticized her over Rwanda.

Her involvement with the East African nation began in the 1990s, when she was a National Security Council official responsible for international organizations and peacekeeping.

Still reeling from its 1993 failure in Somalia, the United States under Clinton did virtually nothing to stop the Rwanda genocide in 1994.

Nearly two decades later, council diplomats and rights groups accuse Rice of protecting Rwanda and President Paul Kagame, a charge that Rice's defenders say is baseless.

That doesn't wash with some human rights activists. "Despite its influence on Rwanda, in public the U.S. government has been inexplicably silent," said Philippe Bolopion, U.N. director for Human Rights Watch.....snip~

Susan Rice battles critics over style, substance, perceptions - Yahoo! News


Can you say Blackhawk Down? You do remember our two Embassies that got hit back then Right? Kenya and Tanzania? Darfur Ring any Bells?

Do you think the Russians and UN Human Rights Groups and Activists are all Republican and trying to destroy her already Destroyed Reputation with the Continent of Africa?

Don't you actually think that Susan Rice did the Only thing She could do to stop her Political career from being Completely Destroyed.....as it should be! Did you want to continue to talk about Susan Rice's Merits?
rolleyes.png
 
tererun said:
reps did not do that. her church presented her. If the reps had suggested her they would have checked her out first. he trusted that her church checked her out first when they recommended her to him.
Click to expand...

What are you talking about?
 
johnny_rebson said:
And maybe she would get caught in a lie that we could use to impeach Obama.
Click to expand...

Oh did you mean the lie she already admitted to?

screen-shot-2012-11-27-at-1.48.58-pm.png


Senators McCain, Graham and Ayotte have wrapped up their meeting with UN Ambassador Susan Rice about her role in presenting false information about what happened to Benghazi to the American people. She said on five Sunday talk shows the attack on the US Consulate in Benghazi on 9/11 was the result of a spontaneous protest that got out of control. Today she admitted that wasn't true, opening a whole other door for questions about why false talking points were used in the first place.

"I'm more troubled today...because it is certainly clear from the beginning that we knew those with ties to al Qaeda were involved in the attack on the embassy." -Senator Kelly Ayotte

"It is clear the information she gave the American people was incorrect." -Senator John McCain

"Bottom line is, I'm more disturbed now than I was before." -Senator Lindsey Graham.....snip~

GOP Leaders "Significantly Troubled" After Meeting With Susan Rice - Katie Pavlich


What do you think J.R. is Rice's Own words good enough for the Entire Country when she admits what she said wasn't true?

Lets not forget over Benghazi-Gate! Clinton threw herself on the Sword First. After seeing such.....then Panetta and Ham stepped in to say No.....it was they who made the Call. While Gen. Ham has is removed From Afri-com Command. Just taking it over not more than a year and a couple of months Prior to the Attack on the Consulate.
 
sawyerloggingon said:
There are three reasons Susan dropped out, Benghazi, Benghazi and BENGHAZI! obama wants this to go away before the facts come out.
Click to expand...

Actually it is more like.....Somalia, Darfur, the Sudan, The Congo, The UN Human Rights Groups, The Russians, and then Benghazi?

Then there is also the issue of her being out played and out maneuvered by the French when they Officially Recognized the Libyan Rebels without telling the US and forcing Clinton to do a 180 on the Remarks Clinton had read off World Wide. For 2 days Rice was kept in the Dark by the French. The UK then bringing it to our people.

Which Brings us to the Russians.....in which Churkin has played Rice like a clown. The Russians have been able to keep things rolling along in Syria and are quite content that we are bogged down in the ME and Overextended. They would like nothing more than to see the US become embroiled in the Syrian Issue. As they already Understand the Talk of Operations for Obama opening up the Far East extends us beyond our means. So they know That The US has Stepped-Up and continued to move Operations into the African Continent.

Susan Rice cannot even be effective as a Diplomat for anything in Africa, let alone be allowed to keep dealing with the Russians.
 
Ray410 said:
Besides all of her other problems, Susan Rice doesn't want anybody asking her where she got 44 million dollars.
Click to expand...

Susan Rice holds TransCanada stock
11/28/12 - Company is seeking State Department approval to build the Keystone XL pipeline

Potential Secretary of State candidate Susan Rice holds as much as $600,000 of shares in TransCanada, the company seeking State Department approval to build the Keystone XL pipeline. Rice’s investments in TransCanada were first noted Wednesday by the NRDC’s website On Earth. According to her most recent personal finance report, covering 2011 and filed in May 2012, Rice and her husband own between $300,002 and $600,000 in TransCanada stock. Those holdings brought them as much as $20,000 in income in 2011. Federal officials are required to disclose the range of an investment rather than the exact amount. Rice’s husband was born in Canada.

TransCanada isn’t the only Canadian energy company in Rice’s portfolio. She also has investments in pipeline firm Enbridge, utility TransAlta and oil and natural gas companies Encana, Suncor and Cenovus. About a third of Rice’s personal wealth — an amount as high as $43.5 million — is invested in Canadian energy interests, according to On Earth. Rice has other holdings in Chesapeake Energy, Royal Dutch Shell, Devon Energy, Iberdrola, ATP Oil & Gas Corp. and Rio Tinto Limited. Environmentalists quickly criticized the potential selection of Rice given her investments. “It’s really amazing that they’re considering someone for secretary of State who has millions invested in these companies,” Bill McKibben told On Earth. “[Keystone XL] would be one of the first decisions she would make, and she’s not qualified to make an unbiased decision,” said Jane Kleeb, executive director of the anti-pipeline group Bold Nebraska.

According to the Office of Government Ethics, federal officials holding significant amounts of stock conflicting with their duties must sell the stock, recuse themselves from the decision or set up a qualified trust. Who exactly would take over the Keystone review in the event of a potential recusal is unclear, not least because Rice’s nomination is far from certain, and relevant key State Department posts could become vacant in coming months. In a December 2008 letter attached to previous finance disclosure forms, Rice vowed to “not participate personally and substantially in any particular matter that has a direct and predictable effect on my financial interests” without receiving a proper waiver.

Activists have challenged the State Department’s review of the pipeline as “cozy,” citing emails between State officials and a TransCanada lobbyist who was also a former campaign aid for Secretary of State Hillary Clinton during her 2008 presidential run. A contractor chosen by the State Department to conduct an environmental assessment also had ties to TransCanada. The department’s inspector general earlier this year cleared the review of any wrongdoing. TransCanada spokesman Grady Semmens declined to comment, saying potential nominees are “a matter for the president of the United States.” Rice’s office and the White House did not immediately return requests for comment.

Susan Rice holds TransCanada stock - Alex Guillen - POLITICO.com

susanricebipadbackground.jpg


Rice holds stakes in firms that have done business in Iran
November 29,`12 - Susan E. Rice and her husband own modest stakes in global conglomerates that have until recently done business with Iran.

U.S. Ambassador to the United Nations Susan E. Rice and her husband own modest stakes in companies that have until recently done business with Iran, prompting new questions from those opposed to her possible nomination as secretary of state. The companies are global conglomerates. At least some of them have stopped doing business with Iran in order to comply with international sanctions. “With respect to Iran, Ambassador Rice worked to impose the toughest U.N. sanctions regime ever on Iran for its continued failure to live up to its obligations,” said Rice’s spokeswoman, Erin Pelton. “Iran is more isolated than it has ever been and facing the toughest economic pressure ever mustered.”

Pelton added that Rice “has complied with annual financial disclosure requirements aimed at assessing conflicts of interest related to her service in the U.S. government.” One of the biggest of the holdings, between $50,000 and $100,000, according to Rice’s disclosure statement for 2011, is Royal Dutch Shell. The international oil giant stopped buying crude oil from Iran early this year as sanctions were tightened to block oil exports by Iran and to stop financial transactions with its central bank.

A company spokesman said officials dealing with Iran could not be reached, but a person familiar with the company, speaking on the condition of anonymity because of a lack of authorization to discuss the topic, said Royal Dutch Shell owes Iran about $1 billion. Rice and her husband also own between $15,000 and $50,000 of stock in ENI, the Italian international oil company. ENI has said that it is no longer doing business with Iran, but it has a waiver from sanctions to enable it to collect oil as payment for about $1 billion Iran owes the company from earlier business deals. The company had been purchasing crude oil and developing natural gas fields.

On Thursday, Republicans on Capitol Hill began circulating information about Rice’s investments connected to Iran. Asked about the disclosure revelations, one senior GOP official, speaking on the condition of anonymity because he wasn’t authorized to discuss the topic, said, “This news adds to the list of questions about Susan Rice — not only her public statements, but now there are broader concerns about her past record.” Democratic staffers also said on condition of anonymity for the same reason that the investments would prompt questions of her if she is nominated.

Rice holds stakes in firms that have done business in Iran - The Washington Post
 
tererun said:
uh, they thought Romney won the presidency. Also, warren only beat scott brown 53 to 47. Considering brown is still riding the same popularity and no dem has spent the last few months campaigning it is not terribly crazy. Don't forget these are northeastern republicans. they are more moderate, but they will follow the senate republicans. he may have lost to warren, but he wasn't out of the running. It is a chance, and the republicans are grasping at any straw they can get their hands on.
Click to expand...

You are correct.....it is the Gamble the Democrats take in Nominating Kerry. That opens-up his seat and Brown would auto-on as the Front Runner. As the Democrats really have no one that they can run against him. Which if he wins and they themselves think this possible. Then they lose another Seat in the Senate.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom