Tweet
In diplomacy the core question is often this: What do I want to get and what do I have to give to get it? Certitudes and bluntness get you only so far. It is less a question of what you know than how curious you are about what you do not.” Roger Cohen on Susan Rice – NYT
What I want to make clear from the start is that I think Susan Rice is a very talented high achiever, with total access to the President of the United States. For me it is also clear that her being a woman and an African-American are both pluses in representing the United States in a world where the majority of human beings are neither white nor male. And at least she is not contemplating running for president in 2016, with all the pandering that something like that entails (Cuba, Israel, etc).
My objection to Susan Rice as Secretary of State has nothing to do with the Benghazi incident, for example, and I think she may be well qualified for many things, but simply not qualified for diplomacyThe problem for me is that she appears not to have the basic temperament needed for a diplomat, which is to be “diplomatic”. For, whatever its color, American diplomacy’s face should be a friendly face and Susan Rice’s face is anything but friendly. “Diplomacy” is the old word for international “public relations” and this is not likely to be carried out efficiently by anybody whose primary facial expression appears to be that of a flamenco dancer with hemorrhoids..
One of the first qualities of a diplomat is apparent friendliness and charm, which, more often than not, may very well be a disguise for harsh realpolitik and cynical “truthiness”, but charm is essential. The last thing the USA needs is to be seen as a “strict governess” and Susan Rice seems totally humorless, self-righteous and authoritarian in manner, which is always a bad sign in anyone charged with managing human foibles and convincing people to do things they might prefer not to do.
If she becomes Secretary of State, her presence will be provocative and counterproductive. In short, despite her many merits, she doesn’t fit the job description, like a midget for a basketball team or a fat lady for synchronized swimming.
18 Comments
Madeleine Albright.
‘Nough said.
Dear God!
How about John Bolton?
So what we have here is a matter of degree of ass-holery. In which Rice ranks fairly low historically.
Which Rice?
I have to say that my favorite was James Baker, who is the only Secretary of State that I remember that ever stood up to the Israelis… Cost his boss his reelection, I believe.
So we need someone to put a Happy Face on US Imperialism? Rice is perfect for this job since she represents the true cold and arrogant nature of our Hegemony.
Really you are right, but actually it proves my point. Selling what we are selling we need, I dunno, George Clooney? If he can sell Nestle crap coffee maybe he could sell our UN votes.
Some other people have wondered if Susan Rice is diplomatic enough to be the top diplomat.
But the President, unlike Chimpie, is not known for standing against neo-cons. So if war cheerleaders such as MoDo wants someone else, then I expect Obama will cave.
And then there’s that problem with her investments in Keystone, and various Canadian Oil Corps. She’s perfect- in opposite world.
Oh come on, after Hillary Clinton, you’re picking on Susan Rice? The die has been cast for people who absolutely lack any discernible diplomatic qualities to be Secretary of State.
Anyhow, the Defense Department handles all that boring stuff with other countries. Give ‘em a sharp stick when they get out of line, that’s the ticket. All Clinton ever did was to criticize other governments. I don’t think she missed to many verbal targets in the world. But it’s just words. How many divisions does State have? None, that’s how many.
Rice — “provocative and counterproductive”
What are Clinton’s diplomatic achievements? She was in China when she might have been at the DNC proclaiming the diplomatic successes of the Obama administration. But there aren’t any.
Obama said to the assembled State people in 2009: “I’m giving you my best.” Ha. At least he had a reason — getting his political rival out of politics. There is no such reason for Rice, but again she couldn’t be any less productive at State where the motto is: “Diplomacy In Action.” Diplomacy inaction, I say.
Rather than focusing on subjective aspects of her personality (a dubious critique if there ever was one), how about focusing on what we know about her political and personal priorities? See these:
What Susan Rice Meant For Sub-Saharan Policy. (The Atlantic)
Rwandan Ghosts. (Foreign Policy)
And as to her personal business priorities, there are items like this one:
Susan Rice’s Conflicts Of Interest (The Agonist)
The last piece has me wondering if she and her husband are invested in any African mineral projects.
Thank you, Emocrat. As I’ve said before, she’s a nasty piece of work.
Hello, David — Never mind non-diplomat, Rice is a warmonger. But so is Clinton and all the rest. It’s the way it is.
Two articles from Black Agenda Report:
“A Second Wave of Genocide Looms in Congo, with Susan Rice on Point”
http://www.blackagendareport.com/content/second-wave-genocide-looms-congo-susan-rice-point
“The Shameless Vacuity of Susan Rice’s Black Boosters”
http://www.blackagendareport.com/content/shameless-vacuity-susan-rices-black-boosters
I really think it’s time for white people humorist Praise TBoww! To jump in here with a spirited defense of lady warmonger realists.
Give her a chance, she just spoke in favor the zionist bunkerstadt and neglected to point out their role as mass murderers and land grabbers.
To be honest I knew very little about Rice prior to reading the links provided by Emocrat and bigchin. Even allowing for the fact that there might be some more favorable information out there on her these pieces are two very big red flags that should, in a rational world, disqualify her from even being considered for Secretary of State.
However, she was not appointed by Obama to her present post and confirmed with support of the Democratic Party because they were concerned that her history and financial holdings might be in conflict with their worldview or policy goals. She strikes me as the the Tim Geithner of the diplomatic world – a toady to the PTB and a careerist whose ethics (if she indeed has any) will never get in the way of her personal ambitions.
In other words, she’s a lot like her boss (what a shocker) – a guy who should make everyone’s skin crawl but somehow has been able to coat himself in a cloak of reasonableness and moderation. The fish rots from the head.