Serving up this steaming pile of
Celebrity Gossip
Gay Politics
Gay News
and Pointless Bitchery
Since 1995

What do the Republicans really have against Susan Rice?

The Benghazi clusterfuck is a faux scandal with nothing at the heart of it. It is likely the Republicans and Fox know this. Now that the election is over, they have chosen to focus on Susan Rice, a peripheral player in the Libyan situation, in order to prevent her from becoming Secretary of State.

Is she just a convenient target (since Hillary is retiring)? Or do they want to block her promotion for some unspoken reason?

by Anonymousreply 4011/27/2012

The theory I heard that makes the most sense is that John Kerry really wants the Secretary of State job and would jump on it given the chance. That would open up his Massachusetts senate seat and give the republicans an opportunity to return the popular republican Scott Brown to the senate. It's all just one big game of chess.

by Anonymousreply 111/17/2012

You know why R1's theory is so stupid? Because it would only work if everyone in the fucking world knew about it except Obama.

For Obama to stand up there and defend her, knowing both McCain and Graham were besmirching her to get John Kerry out, opening a Senate seat for Scott Brown? Is Obama supposed to go along with this? Give me a break.

BTW, the Dems have enough votes to confirm her. They don't need that old fuck and his g/f.

by Anonymousreply 211/17/2012

But they must realize that publicly challenging the President almost forces his hand to nominate her.

by Anonymousreply 311/17/2012

Kerry wants Defense and he's being considered for Defense. The Republicans are fucking with Rice first, because they think they can stop Obama from putting her in at State, second, because they know she's an easy, convenient target who was only speaking the script she was given, with no deeper knowledge than they had,so they could use her to completely invalidate the credibility of the Administration on Benghazi, and Thirdly, because she is Black, the President is Black, so some of them see a conspiracy of her lying to protect him.

Her views and performance at the UN are completely opposite what the NeoCons want since they think the UN is pretty useless.

by Anonymousreply 411/17/2012

If that's the case, R1, what about the rumors of Kerry for SecDef? It still leaves a vacancy.

To answer OP's question, look at the line of targets for Faux Noise: Van Jones, Shirley Sherrod, Common,, now Susan Rice... What do they all have in common?

by Anonymousreply 511/17/2012

[quote]was only speaking the script she was given, with no deeper knowledge than they had

That exonerates her. It's not helpful to their argument that she intentionally deceived the public for political reasons. (Not that I can understand what they think the political advantage would have been.)

by Anonymousreply 611/17/2012

The belief is that the administration purposefully lied about the nature of the attack because:

1). To say that it was an organized, planned terrorist threat would indicate a lack of competence (why didn't we know and prevent this, especially on the anniversary of 9/11)?

2). To say it was an organized terrorist threat would undermine thire position that we have beater Al Queda, etc.

3). To say that it was caused by the film would support the administration's perspective that we are causing the trouble in the Middle East by not respecting their religious beliefs.

All of these topics, in theory, helped the Obama campaign significantly.

Susan Rice was, in theory, a primary mouthpiece to support these "lies" well after it was known that they were,in fact, not true.

by Anonymousreply 711/17/2012

McCain's attacks ring hollow because Condi was National Sec advisory, ie. not merely reading a script, but helping to *write* it. She failed the country on 9/11 and helped spread the lies about Iraq and mushroom clouds. The Bush admin. pro-actively lied to us, lied about WMDs, about Bin Laden and Saddam being connected, lied about everything to get a war they've wanted long before 9/11 which led to the deaths of thousands of people, incl. 4500 American troops...yet we're supposed to believe that four deaths in a country going through transition, a country where the people rose up against the militias they blamed for those 4 deaths, a Libyan president apologizing to the US for those deaths, a country where they could've used more security, but the GOP voted AGAINST $$$ for security, is an impeachable offense? Get a mirror, rightwing assholes.

The GOP underestimates the public's ability to witness blatant hypocrisy. You'd think they'd realize that fact when they got their asses handed to them on election day. Quit pushing conspiracies that expose your party's bullshit and real agenda.

by Anonymousreply 811/17/2012

If she gets the job there will be three Black SoSs in 10 years. Colin Powell, Condi Rice and now Susan Rice.

by Anonymousreply 911/17/2012

Sometimes the simple explantion is the best:

"So what’s going on here? I can sum it up in two words: scandal envy. Republicans are indescribably frustrated by the fact that Barack Obama, whom they regard as both illegitimate and corrupt, went through an entire term without a major scandal. They tried with “Fast and Furious,” but that turned out to be small potatoes. They tried with Solyndra, but that didn’t produce the criminality they hoped for either. Obama even managed to dole out three-quarters of a trillion dollars in stimulus money without any graft or double-dealing to be found. Nixon had Watergate, Reagan had Iran-Contra, Clinton had Lewinsky, and Barack Obama has gotten off scott-free. This is making them absolutely livid, and they’re going to keep trying to gin up a scandal, even if there’s no there there. Benghazi may not be an actual scandal, but it’s all they have handy."

by Anonymousreply 1011/17/2012

What previous poster said about Condi Rice and 9/11. The hypocrisy is astounding.

Also, and maybe it's just me, but when a volatile international situation is evolving, I personally don't require minute by minute updates from the UN ambassador, the president or anyone else. I want them to handle their business, not tell the public all the details as the evidence evolves.

by Anonymousreply 1111/17/2012

The reason nothing will stick to Obama is because we remember these same rightwingers defending the Bush admin for every vile thing they did. They also think we don't recall TARP started under Bush, so when they scream about it with Obama, you just have to roll your eyes. Their voices are farts in the wind.

NOTHING Obama does will ever come close to what those bastards did for eight years, and when Romney is stupid enough to include the same neo con filth into his circle, then you know they not only had no regrets about what they did, they're looking to make things even worse.

by Anonymousreply 1211/17/2012

BTW, let me just point out something that Steve Kornacki said which made a lot of sense: McCain is obviously doing this because he's a vindictive, bitter man.

The reason he was many Dems "favorite" Republican is because he used to stand up to Bush. It never occurred to people that he's doing to Obama what he did to Bush. Bush beat him in the primaries, and he was clearly bitter about the fact that here he was, this "war hero" and son of entitlement who got passed over for the war dodging "national guard" son of entitlement.

He's doing to Obama what he did to Bush, but it hurts even more now because it was his last chance to run and he was finally the nominee.

by Anonymousreply 1511/17/2012

McCain was pretty publicly humiliated by the press calling him out of not attending the Benghazi briefing and subsequently having the "How dare you question me!" meltdown (as if he were Patsy Stone!) with the reporter. He's been pretty much de-fanged for now.

One nice thing about the whole election 2 weeks ago is that the press is not letting the Right get away with murder like they usually do, because they realize the American people are sick of it.

by Anonymousreply 1611/17/2012

My favorite thing about Republicans is when they say: "Here they go, still blaming Bush." As though we ever got a chance to do so during the time he was president without being called "traitors" by them.

My question to them would be: When will THEY start blaming Bush? When will they start taking responsibility for what Bush did which led to the mess we have today? How is it in their minds, the mess not only never existed under Bush, but suddenly appeared when Obama took office?

by Anonymousreply 1711/17/2012

The GOP talking point on this is stupefyingly uniform:


What the fuck is wrong with those people?

by Anonymousreply 1811/17/2012

Susan Rice was misplaced in giving the administration's account of the Libya affair. She has no input over diplomatic security.

I support the president and his right to appoint whoever he wants, but Ms Rice has a lot of absenteeism and inactivity on her record at the UN. I think now the Middle East is in flames we need someone as SOS who is a heavyweight -- more experienced and more respected.

by Anonymousreply 1911/17/2012

[quote]Ms Rice has a lot of absenteeism and inactivity on her record at the UN

What is your source for this? Fox News?

by Anonymousreply 2011/17/2012

Insightful, R15

by Anonymousreply 2111/17/2012

"So what’s going on here? I can sum it up in two words: scandal envy. Republicans are indescribably frustrated by the fact that Barack Obama, whom they regard as both illegitimate and corrupt,..."

OK, I get the "illegitimate" part since Republicans think they're entitled to the White House and that ANY Democratic administration is not legitimate.'

But corrupt?? Based on what? How is he corrupt vs. any other President we've had?

by Anonymousreply 2211/17/2012

They are not saying they know of any corruption. They just assume a Chicago politician is corrupt.

by Anonymousreply 2311/17/2012

Dana Milbank thinks Rice is unqualified.

Said enough Dems would vote with the Rs to keep her from SOS. Said a lot of Dems don't even like her.

by Anonymousreply 2411/17/2012

Whoever becomes SoS needs to have the mettle to stand up to Israel.

by Anonymousreply 2511/17/2012

Call me crazy, but in order to figure out what's going on you have to get inside your enemies head and think the way they think. So from that perspective, yes, crazy, but not really. Follow me?

I think they have a problem with a Black Woman named Rice outshining the NeoCon Black Woman named Rice. They are trying mightily to dress Condi up to look like Presidential material.

There are some serious GOP borkers who want very much to run Condi against Hillary. If not on the top of the ticket certainly as VP.

Sending her to the convention this year and having her get so public with her endorsement of Romney against Obama was not done in a vacuum.

This is about Susan Rice outshining Condi Rice. And Ambassador Rice will certainly outshine her. Do not doubt it.

by Anonymousreply 2711/20/2012

Rhymes with lack.

by Anonymousreply 2811/20/2012

Oh my god, really?

Please, dear heavenly baby jeebus, send us Condi fucking Rice to run against Hillary Clinton next time around.

You know that Condi couldn't successfully run for President (or any other public office) to save her tits, right? She's hopeless.

by Anonymousreply 2911/20/2012

I'm sorta glutted on news shows, so i can't remember where I saw this. But one show had people discussing the Republican post-election attempts to make nice with minorities. Then they discussed the possibility of McCain filibustering this nomination. Gosh, wouldn't it be funny to see a bunch of old white guys blocking the advancement of a young black woman at the same time their party was trying to mend fences with AA voters.

by Anonymousreply 3011/20/2012

They are lying about supposed lies from Rice. What do they have against her? Nothing. It's part of their obstruction game. A few of the older ones probably have her confused with Samantha Power.

Samantha Power is the Irish born historian and human rights activist who got canned from Obama's 2008 campaign for calling Hillary C. a "monster." The GOP thinks she is secretly behind all the president's foreign policy and they hate that because she's intelligent and smart and sees them for the toads they are.

by Anonymousreply 3111/20/2012

Susan Rice was in charge of Africa for the Clinton administration, and they've made repeated attempts to pin the Rwandan genocide on her even though she was a total meddler and interventionist. The president of Nigeria died during a meeting with her. She helped get rid of that billionaire CIA toad Mobutu. She was an early advocate of action against Qaddafi. If anything, they have hated her for being the most intervenionist of all the Dems, taking away all their "tough talk" bullshit on these subjects because she has more balls than any of them ever did.

by Anonymousreply 3211/20/2012

Don't forget Cheney and Qaddafi were business partners.

by Anonymousreply 3311/20/2012

39 Republicans wrote to the president saying that they won't vote to confirm her and to drop her.

by Anonymousreply 3411/20/2012

Well her talking points that she fumbled arent as bad as Condi's misinformation and lies.

by Anonymousreply 3511/20/2012

The reason why the Republicans hate her is that they were FOR genocide in Africa, for the rape of Zaire by Mobutu, for the criminal thug Moammar Qaddafi, and for the idea of keeping Africa under the thumb of ignorant and violent fascist dictators.

by Anonymousreply 3611/21/2012

Anyone following the latest? Rice met today with John McCain, Lindsey Graham, and Kelly Ayotte.

They all came out and trashed her even further to the press.

I am actually hoping that this standoff escalates. I've never really cared for Susan Rice, but now I want Obama to nominate her, just because of these idiots.

by Anonymousreply 3711/27/2012

Just saw a CNN/org poll on CNN....

Susan Rice's favorability rating sits at 35%

John Kerry 40%

Hillary Clinton 67%

by Anonymousreply 3811/27/2012

r37, I did see it and boy that was WEIRD.

I mentioned this on another thread, but boy, they were so DARN DRAMATIC, almost in tears while talking about the meeting.. WTF is going on here? I just don't get the visceral and emotional response??

by Anonymousreply 3911/27/2012

Susan Rice is obviously a masculine lesbian.

by Anonymousreply 4011/27/2012
Need more help? Click Here.

Follow theDL catch up on what you missed

recent threads by topic delivered to your email

follow popular threads on twitter

follow us on facebook

Become a contributor - post when you want with no ads!