When President Clinton chose to appoint Susan Rice as Assistant Secretary of State for African Afaiars in 1997, among the strongest opposition was that of the Congressional Black Caucus, who considered Rice to be a member of "Washington's assimilationist Black elite." They had that right. She has not been a good person for the oppressed -- Black or Brown -- and especially not for the Palestinians.Georgianne Nienaber writes regularly on Africa for Opednews.com and Huffingtonpost.com. She responded by talking about Rice's history in Africa. It's terrible. Rice was a part of Bill Clinton's national security team when Rwanda was undergoing a horrible massacre of 800,000 people-- mostly hacked to death by machetes. Neinaber had this to say on Rice:
She had been given senior jobs at the National Security Council from 1993 to 1997, but, like her boss Bill Clinton, refused to call the 1994 killing of 800,000 Rwandans "Genocide." Clinton and Rice did almost nothing to help. For services performed, or not, she was promoted to become Special Assistant to the President and Senior Director for African Affairs from 1995 to 1997.
She is among those well connected, privileged few who -- for whatever reason -- let themselves become part of an oppressive system, having forgotten their roots after rising so high above oppressed people that they cannot see them anymore. She belongs to a select small club -- Colin Powell, Eric Holder, and Condoleezza Rice are charter members -- who apparently are often not even aware of how they have let themselves be used by the white establishment.
That's what happened to Susan Rice on the celebrated "Benghazi Affair." The white male folks who should have been speaking about what happened -- Obama counter-terrorism chief John Brennan and then CIA Director David Petraeus -- immediately got out Dodge....to Libya! Did not Rice realize she was being used?
All the focus on what she said, and when, diverts attention from what really was going on at that CIA installation under consulate cover in Benghazi. No Establishment figure or media darling wants to focus on that.
It must be added that, in addition to reverse racism, there remains, of course, racism itself. Do you think Lindsay Graham would be so aggressively critical of Susan Rice, were he not representing the great racist state of South Carolina?
In sum, on her record at State and at the U.N., alone, it is clear that she has herself suffered from application of the Peter Principle. Susan Rice has already shown herself to be far below the required level of competence and -- what is equally important -- of compassion to be considered for the position of secretary of state.
"Oh I could go on and on. Never mind her failed tenure in the UN., now one of the world's most despised "peacekeeping" bodies.
If the fact that she was behind the invasion of Zaire (Now DR CONGO) by multinational forces in 1996 to overthrow Mobutu and set the stage for the current chaos isn't enough:
Rice lobbied hard and won not to call the Rwandan genocide, "genocide" in 1994 when we had the opportunity to stop the bloodbath by unleashing the UN forces of General Romeo Dallaire who were positioned in Rwanda but had been told to stand down by the UN. She worked in April 1994 (month of the genocide) in the National Security Council under Richard Clarke and was quoted as asking about the consequences of using the word "genocide" on the effects of the coming November congressional elections! See Bystanders to Genocide (Atlantic 2001)- Advertisement -
Like all good politicians, she has since recanted, apologized for saying something inappropriate, or said she can't remember; depending on which interview you read about her.
Ask "Patrice" how he feels about it.
Progressives elected Obama in 2008 and unleashed his cowardly drones. Let's not make the same mistake again.- Advertisement -
Rwanda is my personal litmus test for everything. Find a person who will simply do the right thing. Morality is not that difficult."
John Nichols, writer for the The Nation and regular pundit on network news responded to my inquiry,
"It seems to me that at least some of the enthusiasm for making Susan Rice Secretary of State is rooted in the fact that she is so loudly opposed by John McCain and Lindsey Graham. But there is more than that in play. Ambassador Rice would be a plausible Secretary of State. She is very smart, has a great deal of experience and appears to enjoy the confidence of the president. Those are important measures. But those ought not be the only measures. Ambassador Rice has a long record of supporting US interventionism. And her economic thinking tends toward neo-liberalism, which is the last thing we need in the midst of a global debate about austerity. On both of these issues. I wish we were considering someone like former US Senator Russ Feingold -- who spent 18 years on the Foreign Relations Committee, chaired the Africa Subcommittee with savvy and sensitivity, and has written a remarkably good book on international relations. And it is important to recognize that there are other career diplomats who could be considered, folks like Anne Woods Patterson, the current US Ambassador to Egypt who has had some very demanding assignments under Republican and Democratic presidents, including acting US Ambassador to the United Nations in 2005 and US Ambassador to Pakistan from 2007 to 2010. But my bet is that the front-runners remain the predictable crew: John Kerry, Chuck Hagel and perhaps Nick Burns.
Paul Craig Roberts, former assistant Treasury Secretary and columnist for the Wall Street Journal replied,