The Post-Election Project: The Establishment Pillories Susan Rice

How ironic it is that the establishment is angry at Susan Rice for possible mis-statements over what the US knew regarding the attack that led to the death of US ambassador to Libya Chris Stevens, and three other Americans. Whatever took place then -- and that is still not clear -- making mis-statements about one incident should hardly be more troubling than advocating for wars and invasions for hidden reasons, and allowing the American people to be misled as to what is actually going on in a massive and bloody adventure such as Libya. Rice was instrumental in convincing Obama to launch NATO's eight-month bombing campaign against Libya -- but where do we see her being criticized for that?

***

Continuing with Milbank's Post piece on Rice:

"It was Rice's own shoot-first tendency that caused her to be benched as a spokesman for the Obama campaign for a time in 2008. She unnerved European allies when she denounced as 'counterproductive' and 'self-defeating' the U.N. policy that Iran suspend its nuclear program before talks can begin. She criticized President George W. Bush and McCain because they 'insisted' on it. But, as The Post's Glenn Kessler pointed out at the time, European diplomats were rattled by such remarks because the precondition was their idea."

Should we trust The Post's assurances that the Iran "precondition" was really the Europeans' idea? It's the oldest trick in the book to get other countries, like Turkey with Syria and Qatar with Libya -- out front to mask imperial calculations. Just ask that most reticent group, the "Coalition of the Willing," that was muscled by the Bush Administration into feigning enthusiasm for the Iraq war.

And should opposing the idea of preconditions prior to negotiations really constitute a black mark against a diplomat? How well have such preconditions worked out in the standoff between Israel and Palestine?

"Rice's pugilism provoked the Russians to weigh in this week in opposition to her nomination as secretary of state. The Russian business daily Kommersant quoted an anonymous Russian foreign ministry official as saying that Rice, who quarreled with Russia over Syria, is 'too ambitious and aggressive,' and her appointment would make it 'more difficult for Moscow to work with Washington.'"

When others speak their minds, they're "bold," "blunt," "refreshingly direct," "effective." We've seen those terms, along with harsh criticism, directed at...the Russian leader Vladimir Putin. More interesting is that Rice is so hated that she gets it coming and going -- she's not on board on some things, and too much on board on others (read Syria.)

Meanwhile, in all of this, there is scarcely any big-picture discussion about all the unnecessary, tragic wars we've seen prosecuted by the "heroes" in this saga, and more anger at this Rice than at another woman named Rice who served as Secretary of State, and today practically gets a free ride: Condoleezza, the friendly face of the Iraq deception and the tragedy that followed.

Meanwhile, the Post piece reads like a straight hit from the Hillary Clinton camp. Beyond Milbank's point that the Clintonites don't like Rice for perceived transgressions and indignities, they probably also would prefer that Hillary not be followed by another woman who might outshine her in concrete diplomatic breakthroughs, of which there have been not so many thus far under Obama. After all, Hillary's got a presidential race to run, which calls for plenty of image-burnishing, sharp elbows...and lots of assists from well-positioned pundits who tell us what to think and whom to like.

# #

See GRAPHIC Info here.