Should Susan Rice become the new Secretary of State?

[CarpeDiem3 0]

Should Susan Rice become the new Secretary of State, to replace the retiring Hillary Clinton?

[livendive 8]

I have no idea. The current tantrum being thrown by Republicans reminds me of a toddler crying after spilling its Spaghetti-O's and I think it should be given about as much consideration. That said, the totality of her resume and skills may or may not support such a challenging role. She's an unknown quantity to me.

Blues,
Dave

"I AM A PROFESSIONAL EXTREME ATHLETE!"
(drink Mountain Dew)

[quade 4]

Well, Ambassador to the UN seems like a pretty short step away from Secretary of State to me. Basic job is pretty much the same plus air mileage.

quade -
The World's Most Boring Skydiver

[Andy9o8 2]

Quote

the totality of her resume and skills may or may not support such a challenging role. She's an unknown quantity to me.

Here ya go:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Susan_Rice

[Gravitymaster 0]

Is she for or against the legalization of pot?

[quade 4]

Quote

Is she for or against the legalization of pot?

In her job, she would never say what "she" is for. That's not the purpose of the job; never has been. The purpose of the job is to communicate official information and negotiate on the country's behalf. Her personal opinion is the least important thing she has to offer and possibly destructive to its purpose.

quade -
The World's Most Boring Skydiver

[Gravitymaster 0]

I need to know what she is going to do for me if I vote for her in this poll.

[CarpeDiem3 0]

Quote

In her job, she would never say what "she" is for. That's not the purpose of the job; never has been. The purpose of the job is to communicate official information...

Then I guess we need to know more abour her role in the way the Libya information changed from the military brieifings up to the White House. Somewhere along the way the inconvenient truth was altered for political election purposes. If she's involved in that, then she's unfit.

[quade 4]

Quote

Quote

In her job, she would never say what "she" is for. That's not the purpose of the job; never has been. The purpose of the job is to communicate official information...

Then I guess we need to know more abour her role in the way the Libya information changed from the military brieifings up to the White House. Somewhere along the way the inconvenient truth was altered for political election purposes. If she's involved in that, then she's unfit.

You absolutely have no idea what motivations might have been involved. Blame "the government" if you want, but I have no doubt whatsoever she was doing the precise job she was supposed to be doing at that moment. "The government" has dozens upon dozens of reasons to say one thing to the UN while the truth might be different. One of them is the safety of remaining individuals posted to the embassy under attack. It's foolish and naive to expect 100 percent and absolute truth in moments such as those.

You have no idea whatsoever how much "the government" may be protecting "house guests."

Really foolish and insulting to simply assume anything at this point.

quade -
The World's Most Boring Skydiver

[Kennedy 0]

Quote

Quote

Quote

In her job, she would never say what "she" is for. That's not the purpose of the job; never has been. The purpose of the job is to communicate official information...

Then I guess we need to know more abour her role in the way the Libya information changed from the military brieifings up to the White House. Somewhere along the way the inconvenient truth was altered for political election purposes. If she's involved in that, then she's unfit.

You absolutely have no idea what motivations might have been involved. Blame "the government" if you want, but I have no doubt whatsoever she was doing the precise job she was supposed to be doing at that moment. "The government" has dozens upon dozens of reasons to say one thing to the UN while the truth might be different. One of them is the safety of remaining individuals posted to the embassy under attack. It's foolish and naive to expect 100 percent and absolute truth in moments such as those.

You have no idea whatsoever how much "the government" may be protecting "house guests."

Really foolish and insulting to simply assume anything at this point.

Careful you don't hurt yourself stretching, twisting, and spinning that much.

witty subliminal message
Guard your honor, let your reputation fall where it will, and outlast the bastards.
1*

[quade 4]

I don't have to spin anything here. We have historical evidence of things like this in the past where a US embassy is attacked and there is an elaborate charade in order to protect, even rescue, people who worked there.

It may not be years until we know the true story.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Canadian_Caper

quade -
The World's Most Boring Skydiver

[Kennedy 0]

Argo fuck yaself. Yeah, I read the story and watched the movie. You can't actually think that's got any relation whatsoever to what's happened in Benghazi. Paul, we all know you're smarter than that.

witty subliminal message
Guard your honor, let your reputation fall where it will, and outlast the bastards.
1*

[quade 4]

Quote

Argo fuck yaself. Yeah, I read the story and watched the movie. You can't actually think that's got any relation whatsoever to what's happened in Benghazi. Paul, we all know you're smarter than that.

I'm smart enough to know we know only a fraction of the truth at this point and I'll withhold judgement until we know more.

How about you? Can you be at least that open minded?

quade -
The World's Most Boring Skydiver

[popsjumper 2]

Quote

Quote

the totality of her resume and skills may or may not support such a challenging role. She's an unknown quantity to me.

Here ya go:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Susan_Rice

She has a history of war-mongering.

"Together with National Security Council figure Samantha Power, who already supported military intervention, and Secretary of State Hillary Rodham Clinton, who came to support it, the three overcame internal opposition from Defense Secretary Robert Gates, security advisor Thomas Donilon, and counterterrorism advisor John Brennan, and the administration backed U.N. action to impose the no-fly zone and authorize other military actions as necessary...."

My reality and yours are quite different.
I think we're all Bozos on this bus.
Falcon5232, SCS8170, SCSA353, POPS9398, DS239

[jclalor 12]

There is precedent for a recent appointment to Secretary of state, after their being directly involved in the catastrophic failure in the interpretation of intelligence.

[Gravitymaster 0]

Quote

There is precedent for a recent appointment to Secretary of state, after their being directly involved in the catastrophic failure in the interpretation of intelligence.

Well, we have to stop encouraging these war-mongers at some point, don't we?

[Andy9o8 2]

Quote

Quote

Quote

the totality of her resume and skills may or may not support such a challenging role. She's an unknown quantity to me.

Here ya go:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Susan_Rice

She has a history of war-mongering.

"Together with National Security Council figure Samantha Power, who already supported military intervention, and Secretary of State Hillary Rodham Clinton, who came to support it, the three overcame internal opposition from Defense Secretary Robert Gates, security advisor Thomas Donilon, and counterterrorism advisor John Brennan, and the administration backed U.N. action to impose the no-fly zone and authorize other military actions as necessary...."

Depends on whether you consider "kicking the bully's ass" to be "warmongering".

But all that's twaddle. Let's talk about what really important. Rice wouldn't be the first female secretary of state, but she would be the first doable one. Please examine your Guy Card while you mull that over.

[winsor 236]

Quote

Argo fuck yaself. Yeah, I read the story and watched the movie. You can't actually think that's got any relation whatsoever to what's happened in Benghazi. Paul, we all know you're smarter than that.

I'm smart enough to know we know only a fraction of the truth at this point and I'll withhold judgement until we know more.

How about you? Can you be at least that open minded?

[CarpeDiem3 0]

Quote

Quote

Quote

In her job, she would never say what "she" is for. That's not the purpose of the job; never has been. The purpose of the job is to communicate official information...

Then I guess we need to know more abour her role in the way the Libya information changed from the military brieifings up to the White House. Somewhere along the way the inconvenient truth was altered for political election purposes. If she's involved in that, then she's unfit.

You absolutely have no idea what motivations might have been involved. Blame "the government" if you want, but I have no doubt whatsoever she was doing the precise job she was supposed to be doing at that moment. "The government" has dozens upon dozens of reasons to say one thing to the UN while the truth might be different. One of them is the safety of remaining individuals posted to the embassy under attack. It's foolish and naive to expect 100 percent and absolute truth in moments such as those.

You have no idea whatsoever how much "the government" may be protecting "house guests."

Really foolish and insulting to simply assume anything at this point.

Gosh, you really jumped to a knee-jerk conclusion there. Notice the parts that I've highlighted in my comment, to which you responded. See how I said "we need to know more", and then followed by a conditional "if"? Yeah, you seem to have missed those in your haste to slam me. Tsk tsk. And the irony is, that you've only made yourself look foolish and naive. Especially in light or your later message #13, where you said the same thing I did, and called yourself open-minded for it. Ha! You seem to be bi-polar, and I ain't talking about white bears.

Have a nice day.

[quade 4]

I'm not asking you to be open minded to some half-assed theory. I'm asking you to be open minded that there is a possibility we do not know all there is to know about what happened yet.

If you believe you know everything there is to know about what happened, I'll ask you right now if you want to make a bet.

I guess I should warn you though, I've never lost one one this forum.

quade -
The World's Most Boring Skydiver

[winsor 236]

Quote

I'm not asking you to be open minded to some half-assed theory. I'm asking you to be open minded that there is a possibility we do not know all there is to know about what happened yet.

If you believe you know everything there is to know about what happened, I'll ask you right now if you want to make a bet.

I guess I should warn you though, I've never lost one one this forum.

I doubt that I know everything about anything. However, one need not know everything about something to have sufficient knowledge to make an informed decision.

As far as blamestorming the debacle in Libya goes, it seems there is enough incompetence involved that nobody need take full credit for that particular goat rope.

Should Susan Rice's talking points re: Libya disqualify her as Sec'y of State? Probably not; I am sure she is no more or less unqualified than the vast majority of people likely to be tapped for the position - talking points or no.

If she gets the nod and turns out to be at all competent, I will be pleasantly surprised. If she turns out to be typical of the kind of political hacks (of any political persuasion) that Washington tends to attract, I will not be surprised in the least.

Regarding the death of our Ambassador et al., the bottom line is that we screwed the pooch. The gory details don't change much, and, as such, are unnecessary.


BSBD,

Winsor