Obama File: Susan Rice Appointment Controversy


In the early part of 2012, Secretary of State, Hillary Clinton, announced she would quit if Barack Obama won a second term in office. Of course, there was speculation that she would run for either vice-president in 2012 or president in 2016, but she denied any intentions by stating she was tired of being on the high wire of American politics.

She also stated at a town hall meeting:

I have made it clear that I will certainly stay on until the president nominates someone and that transition can occur. But I think after 20 years, and it will be 20 years, of being on the high wire of American politics and all the challenges that come with that, it would be probably a good idea to just find out how tired I am. … There are so many interesting things I’m interested in, I mean, really going back to private life and spend time reading, and writing, and maybe teaching, doing some personal travel, not the kind of travel where you bring along a couple of hundred people with you.

As she prepares to leave the Secretary of State office, the Benghazi scandal still looms in the background, and recently President Obama has made it clear that he wants Susan Rice to succeed Hillary Clinton.

While the credentials of Susan Rice and her background, education, and tenure as Ambassador to the United Nations her resume is tarnished with personality problems. However, immediately after his reelection, President Obama went all out in defense of his choice of the new Secretary of State as part of his second-term Cabinet. Mr. “Fast and Furious” is still there.
Susan Rice has managed to make enemies in Washington with her “brusque” personality, crude remarks and gestures. When she was assistant secretary of state during the Clinton administration, she flipped her middle finger at Richard Holbrooke during a meeting with senior staff at the State Department. She has also engaged in shouting matches and insults. One of the persons insulted was Hillary Clinton, one of the first former Clinton officials to detect to the Obama camp in the Democrat primary elections. During that time, Rice condemned Hillary’s Iraq and Iran positions accusing her of getting critical judgments wrong. But Susan Rice’s actions against H. Clinton were mild compared to her portrayal of John McCain in 2008, who now is emphatically against Susan Rice being appointed Secretary of  State; depicting him as reckless and dangerous. Yet Susan Rice has just such a reputation, for example, when –

she unnerved European allies when she denounced as “counterproductive” and “self-defeating” the U.N. policy that Iran suspend its nuclear program before talks begins.

Rice even provoked the Russians (who consider Obama a fellow communist) to recently declare their opposition to her nomination as secretary of state, stating she is 

too ambitious and aggressive and her appointment would make it more difficult for Moscow to work with Washington.

Obama still favors her over John Kerry, but more likely he will be chosen for next Secretary of Defense.
The other controversy about Rice is her continued statement that the Benghazi attack was not pre-planned, as she was originally informed it was a protest gone out of control by the intelligence agencies (ever hear of a protest occurring in the middle of the night?) – even rebutting and insulting a Libyan official who stated otherwise. It was because Rice was following orders from the White House, and because she does that so well, it is probably the key reason for choosing Susan Rice; she is not as independent as Hillary Clinton.
Just as the American people are pawns to the Obama Mob, Susan Rice is just another chess piece in the Obama chess game to reinvent America.  If Obama wants to prevent further problems and scandals, he had better think again about his choice of the secretary of state replacement.
If her personality is ignored, there are other items in her record … Wikipedia:

In a 2002 op-ed piece in the Washington Post, former Ambassador to Sudan Timothy M. Carney and news contributor Mansoor Ijaz implicated Rice and counter-terrorism czar Richard Clarke in missing an opportunity to neutralize Osama bin Laden while he was still in Sudan in 1996. They write that Sudan and Secretary of State Madeleine Albright were ready to cooperate on intelligence potentially leading to Bin Laden, but that Rice and Clarke persuaded National Security Adviser Sandy Berger to overrule Albright.[23] Similar allegations were made by Vanity Fair contributing editor David Rose[24] and Richard Miniter, author of Losing Bin Laden, in a November 2003 interview with World.[25]

Diplomats must be able to tell people to go to Hell in such a way they look forward to the trip. Susan Rice is not that kind of person because of her personality, not her academic or professional background – and certainly not because of her race, as some have unjustly declared that it is a racial issue for not wanting her in one of the most important positions in the president’s Cabinet. Jim Clyburn, having no facts to rely on stated that attacks on Susan Rice were racial code words. Democrats say that Republicans are using Susan Rice as a scapegoat in response to the Benghazifiasco. Benghazi is fading from the news, thanks to the media, and marks yet another corruption addressed to be thrown under the rug, like Obama throws people under the bus. Despite congressional hearings and investigation, the Obama administration avoids the issue. The Washington Post claims the Benghazi incident was unfortunate and failure in several respects, but not a part of conspiracy including gun running for Islamic Jihadist groups.
Apparently, any opposition to policies of this president is racist, and that includes investigations into the corruption that ran a muck within Obama’s administration, and he being guilty for covering it up.
Was not that the reason why Democrats planned impeachment hearings for Richard Nixon? Lies and cover-ups.  At least he gracefully resigned.
Well, maybe they are right, these ARE racial issues in that some African Americans think everyone owes them for their past tribulations and the rest of society is to turn their heads concerning corruption and crimes committed. That IS racial. It is also hypocritical to have a Black Caucusand a Hispanic Caucus but no White Caucus or Asian Caucus or Martian Caucus. A caucus should be a group that stands together on political issues and ideologies – not based upon racial identity and certainly not a racist supremacy group. It is why Allen West said adios to the Congressional Black Caucus.
Racism is racism, not matter which side is condoning it. Like Don Cobb wrote:

There is no Congressional White Caucus. Nor is there a White Chamber of Commerce or a National Association for the Advancement of White People. Why not, you might ask? Because those would be considered “racist” organizations, would they not? If white people, rather than Hispanics, created a national organization or non-profit called “The Race,” would everyone be okay with that? Yet Hispanics have done it and mum’s the word on acismray (pssst: I believe that is Piglatin for “racism” ;-).That, of course, points to a plethora of principles being ignored and even trampled on, such as honesty, courage, integrity, truth, love, self-discipline, honor, acceptance, humility, confession — the list of principles being ignored and not practiced is long when it comes to those who quietly allow and support racism in America. … Ask yourself: Would you support a Congressional White Caucus? Probably not. I wouldn’t. Then why have you said nothing about the Congressional Black Caucus or the Congressional Hispanic Caucus? Racists support racism

It is another promise unfulfilled by Barack Hussein Obama and company … unity. Frankly, I am sick of hearing about and talking about racism. We should all consider ourselves Americans with ethnic backgrounds and be done with it. This is the 21st century and everyone should have put all that aside.