On November 30, he rated Rice's nomination "a close call." He called Republican criticism "fabricated." At the same time, he said she may not be Obama's best choice.
It's "a close call on the merits." It's hard imagining what he has in mind. War criminals belong in prison, not government. Perhaps Ignatius and likeminded imperial supporters forgot.
All he finds fault with Rice is that "some people don't like her. They find her abrasive, self-promoting (and) mercurial." He admits that State Department officials prefer John Kerry. He looks headed for Defense when Panetta steps down next year.
It's Obama's call. In 2008, he chose a rogue's gallery of cabinet and other top officials. Four deplorable years followed. Expect what's ahead to be worse domestically and abroad.
America already is a hair's breadth from full-blown tyranny. It's waging war on humanity at home and abroad. Rice and others like her favor continuing what should be condemned and stopped.
New York Times contributor Andrew Rosenthal thinks Republicans took her "out of the running for secretary of state." Others disagree. Critics hope so but still think she's top choice.
Washington Post contributor Dana Milbank headlined "Susan Rice's tarnished resume," saying:
She's "ill-equipped to be the nation's top diplomat." It's for reasons unrelated to Libya. She "managed to make an impressive array of enemies - on Capitol Hill, in Foggy Bottom and abroad."
Compared to John Kerry, she's "a most undiplomatic diplomat." Milbank doubts enough votes exist to confirm her. "Colleagues talk of shouting matches and insults."