Qualified For The Job?

For John, BLUF:  Some are trying to make confirmation of US UN Ambassador Susan Rice as Secretary of State appear to be a sure thing and opposition to it racism and sexism (have we forgotten Condi Rice?).  Nothing to see here; just move along.

In Wednesday's edition of The [Lowell] Sun, Ms Faye Morrison excoriated Republicans for picking on US UN Ambassador Susan Rice.

The collective post-election focus of Republicans has been on defaming and smearing the reputation of U.N. Ambassador Susan Rice.  Ms. Rice, a graduate of Stanford University and a Rhodes Scholar, has impeccable credentials and has served our country in an array of positions since 1993, including:  member of the National Security Council; director of International Organizations and Peacekeeping; managing director of Intellibridge; senior fellow at the Brookings Institute; and much more.

I grant the qualifications listed.  And, as I have noted before, on this blog, in the Benghazi situation she was doing what she was told—following orders, if you will.  It that was it, who would be able to complain, the "Gang of 3" Senators aside?  It is the fact that some are troubled by her role in the Genocide in Rwanda, by her role in Sudan and in particular, her support of Mr Richard Clarke regarding not extraditing Osama bin Laden early on and bringing him here for trial.

People I know and respect are troubled by the thought of Ambassador Rice as Secretary of State.  While she is big on Responsibility to Protect (R2P) now, she hasn't always been.  The reports suggest she put politics before the victims in 1994 Rwanda.  But, as Henry Ford might say, "that is a mistake she will never make again".

So, while we Republicans may well be like the "Whig Party of the 1800s—irrelevant, null and void", there are still questions that need to be asked, and answered.

One of those questions has to do with why on earth the President would have allowed two names out there for Secretary of State, Ambassador Rice and Senator John Kerry.  A recent news report asserts that President Obama is "'genuinely conflicted' between Rice and Kerry for Secretary of State".  To bring up Senator Kerry and to then drop him for Ambassador Rice would seem to be an unforced slight to the Senator.  Do Democrats think that Ambassador Rice is a better choice than Senator Kerry?

In the mean time, there is more writing out there suggesting the Intelligence Ambassador Rice relied on was politically cooked.  That is not a good thing.

The strongest indictment comes from Professor Mel Goodman,♠ of the Center for International Policy:

UN Ambassador Susan Rice was too quick to pronounce judgments on the Benghazi attack before the facts were known, which could be attributed to her interest in assuming a public role in order to buttress her case for becoming Secretary of State in a second Obama administration.

The public role belonged to Brennan, but he had previously mishandled duties in the wake of the attempt of a young Nigerian to board a commercial airliner with explosives in December 2009 as well as in the immediate aftermath of the killing of Osama bin Laden in May 2011.

I will grant you that Professor Goodman is a strong and persistent critic of the CIA, but his article does raise some important questions.

In sum, I believe that Ambassador Rice would do a good job as Secretary of State, although likely not an outstanding job, but confirmation is not the slam-dunk that Ms Morrison suggests it should be.  Further, we still don't know why Senator Kerry's name was allowed to surface, if it really is going to Ambassador Rice.

Regards  —  Cliff

♠  Yes, I know and have worked with Professor Goodman.  He and I were on the Faculty of the National War College at the same time.