UN Pick Rice: Another Wrong-on-Iraq Nominee

On the outside chance that anyone thought that Dr. Susan Rice might be the exception to the rule of wrong-thinking that characterizes Barack Obama's foreign-policy team, well, think again.

Obama's nominee to serve as the U.S. ambassador to the United Nations, had this to say February, 2003, after then-Secretary of State Colin Powell made a wholly absurd presentation a plenary session of the United Nations Security Council regarding the supposed threat posed by those Iraqi imaginary weapons of mass destruction.

"I think he [Powell] has proved that Iraq has these weapons and is hiding them," said Rice, a former Clinton administration State Department aide, "and I don't think many informed people doubted that."

So said Rice in an interview with National Public Radio on February 6, 2003.

For the record, that was one day after Powell made his "case" for war to the U.N.

On that day, major newspapers in Europe had already debunked Powell's key arguments.

"Informed people" -- i.e., those who read credible media -- knew that. And they were struggling to avert an unnecessary war.

Unfortunately for the world, Susan Rice was not among them.

Fortunately for Rice, the fact of her failure is not of consequence.

On Barack Obama's foreign-policy team, the fact that someone was wrong on the great foreign-policy debate of one presidency does not disqualify that individual from defining the agenda of the next presidency.

Comments (41)

1. Does any intelligent person disagree that Obama would have voted for the authorization for Bush to attack Iraq? He is Bill Clinton incarnate. A foreign policy hawk. What a shock this must be to those naiive liberals who voted for him. (I voted for Nader.) Obama sucked in all the liberals with his slick weasel words, and now he is tacking hard right. Long live the American Empire!

   Posted by philbq at 12/01/2008 @ 11:45pm

2. Obama is firmly signed on to the imperial project.

   His picks indicate our future: More War(s).

   Posted by sloper at 12/01/2008 @ 11:51pm

3. I second the first two posters, and I also voted for Nader.

   Obama is making me ill already. What a suck-ass he's turning out to be.

   Of course, if his speech at the June AIPAC cluster-fuck had been widely broadcast --indeed, had the entire smarmy affair (Pelosi holding up Israeli dogtags with tears streaming down her face for one absurd example of smack-ass) been exposed-- we might at least have a public more aware and angry at what a bunch of groveling imbeciles our representatives in Washington have become.

   Someday (probably sooner than most of us would like to contemplate), when the wreckage of the American Empire is being picked through, those looking back will do so in astonishment at how incestuous our government became, and how powerless the American citizenry was to do anything about it.

   And we call ourselves a democracy. How tragic.

   Posted by b_kool_66 at 12/02/2008 @ 12:18am

4. Obama fooled so many people into thinking he represented real change. Even Howard Zinn, the beloved author of the classic "People's Histoty of the United States"' supported Obama. I suspect his friend Noam Chomsky argued that Obama was a smooth-talking establishment politician, sure to not upset the power structure. And Chomsky is right. The Democrats are the kinder gentler side of the Empire. But expect no real change. The wars will continue. The military buget will expand. Banks will get all the bailouts they want. There will be no affordable universal healthcare. And Israel will be allowed to oppress Palestine. Thats your Democratic Party. But don't call it change.

   Posted by philbq at 12/02/2008 @ 12:28am

5. But don't call it change.

   ~Phil bq

   How about "Change we can Deceive in"?

   The most "audacious" thing Obama has done thus far in his career is to put the word in a book title --thus branding himself with the exact term that he least represents.

   Bravo, Barack. You've adapted well in the most successfully propaganda saturated society in human history --thus far.

   Posted by b_kool_66 at 12/02/2008 @ 12:36am

6. I've also heard, "Change we can Bereave in".

   Perhaps that's the most appropriate and accurate rephrasing --with some dark humor to boot.

   Posted by b_kool_66 at 12/02/2008 @ 12:46am

7. I wonder about all those millions of young voters who thought they were voting (and working for) someone who represented a new type of politician. And now that Obama has sorrounded himself with the most slimey establishment hacks(Biden,Hillary,Daschle,Gates). this is a good lesson for the young about American politics. This is the supposed good guys: the Democratic Party.

   Posted by philbq at 12/02/2008 @ 01:18am

8. The important thing is that we elected the first black president. Who cares about all this other stuff?

   Posted by Mandaliet at 12/02/2008 @ 03:55am

9. Hey Nichols – errors do not necessarily diminish ere, disqualify one's ability, capability and\or efforts e.g. Feb. 2002\Feb 6, 2003. For 8 years the so called great US was being led by a jackass who was defecating, fumigating and urinating on the world as he\they went along – There's just no comparison!

   Posted by unlettered at 12/02/2008 @ 06:22am

10. And yet another "Nation" "the purists rant" thread....

    joy.

    Posted by Mask at 12/02/2008 @ 07:10am

11. Rice should make a public apology, especially to us "mis-informed" folk that got it right. As should the new Sec of State.

    I will hold my breath.....fffffffffffttttt....

    (Who do you think McCain Palin would have chosen? )

    .....ffffffffftttt....

    Posted by crabwalk at 12/02/2008 @ 07:34am

12. What a load of unhappy folks out there..let's be honest could Obama have made every single one of us happy with his choices????? He is going to be damned if did and damned if he didn't pick people we all thought he should. Can we at least let the man become President and see how things progress from there, all this doom and gloom before the man is even sworn in!!!!

    Posted by Caj at 12/02/2008 @ 08:08am

13. Yup, Obama was as slick as Sarah Palin, suckered us willing fools into believing that someone could become president without owing ...... No one likes to believe that the people at the top, the people running the country, the moneyed and the powerful don't give a hoot about them. Even lefties can't handle the truth. Maybe the next president we elect will actually be the second coming of Christ, but I doubt it.

    Posted by raporter at 12/02/2008 @ 08:14am

14. (Who do you think McCain Palin would have chosen? )---Posted by crabwalk at 12/02/2008 @ 07:34am

    Odd it takes a Naderite to teach his fellows the most important lesson, CRAB!

    Posted by Mask at 12/02/2008 @ 09:18am

15. I disagree with your point about lefties as you put it not facing the truth....there is nothing to face as yet surely!!! How can you judge so quickly about Obama "owing" as you put it...just because of the people he has chosen so far, is that the reason? Do any of us know how all these people are going to affect this country with Obama in charge? The right went along with Bush totally for the last 8 years and he, in their eyes has been the greatest President ever!!! Talk about blind faith. I'm all for giving Obama the benefit of the doubt, I did vote for him and am willing to give the man a chance at least. Obama doesn't profess to be a miracle worker, although with the way things are right now we could do with one.....let's face it Bush has left one hell of a mess for him to clean up!!

    Posted by Caj at 12/02/2008 @ 09:31am

16. Maybe the next president we elect will actually be the second coming of Christ, but I doubt it.

    Posted by raporter at 12/02/2008 @ 08:14am

    err, that was the last one.

    Can lame ducks walk on water? 29% of Americans say he can.

    Posted by crabwalk at 12/02/2008 @ 10:07am

17. I'm all for giving Obama a chance. Perhaps my cynicism is misplaced, time will tell. And you bet, he's inherited one hell of a mess, one that's been developing since Reagan got in. I suppose knowing that he's got to be better then the numb nuts he's replacing is some what comforting, but he is in favor of faith based initiatives, he says he wants to draw down troops in Iraq to redeploy them in Afghanistan, members of his economic team helped get us into this mess and so on....but, OK, I'll cut him a break and wait and see what he actually does.

    I know it shouldn't, but it rankles me that he's spending $30,000 for a ring. The least he could do is purchase an allerca lifestyle hypoallergenic jabari GD dog at 15 K a piece. He'd still have money for a pretty nice ring, and a couple hundred buck donation to help The Nation stay in business. I wonder how long it takes for a community activist to raise $30,000.

    Posted by raporter at 12/02/2008 @ 10:43am

18. Exactly why did The Nation excitedly support Mr. Obama?

    Posted by fragen at 12/02/2008 @ 10:45am

19. HAPP, get a grip, man.

    The woman was deceived by the neocons as was Powell. The were cooking intel and shaping it to fit their hawkish agenda. This is a widely known and acknowledged fact.

    I'm not all that pleased about the Restoration of the Clinton administration either, but let's give these folks a chance to prove themselves before rendering judgement.

    The inauguration is still more than six weeks away!

    Posted by jackwells at 12/02/2008 @ 10:54am

20. Posted by Mask at 12/02/2008 @ 09:18am

    Obama is no Al Gore circa 2000.

    Posted by crabwalk at 12/02/2008 @ 11:00am

21. Check out Minute 14:00 forward of this 15:00 minute campaign ad for Obama by Rice.

    The previous 14 minutes of this clip is all about blaming Bush for foreign policy mistakes. Like the Dems don't share one bit of responsibility for this?

    What are we to think of Obama's message to the world thus far? "Stay the Course" to coin a phrase from the other side of the aisle is Obama's message of change and hope.

    You will get no apologies from Rice (she already has the job). She is a very intelligent woman, but she is on the Washington political ladder - and she will adjust her view(s) accordingly. Remember this woman is a foreign policy advisor. Mislead by Bush? Highly unlikely, just as it was in the case of Clinton who sits on the armed services committee of the US Senate.

    I am expecting continued exercise of US veto power in the interest of special interest groups, particularly AIPAC. The United Nations will not be "united" under Obama.

    http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=1oyhoAM5snY

    Posted by OneVote at 12/02/2008 @ 11:30am

22. Posted by crabwalk at 12/02/2008 @ 11:00am

    Apparently, from the new thread by Ari Berman, Mr Nichols' attack on Susan Rice has stirred up a little "in-house" dust-up.

    Posted by Mask at 12/02/2008 @ 11:42am

23. Here's the thing that I don't understand about the slice of the electorate that "The Nation" appeals to (it's not me):

    You spent two years talking about how smart Obama is and what great judgement he has. Then when you disagree with him it is him who is wrong and sleazy. Isn't it possible that you are the one that is wrong, that he is in fact smarter than you and that he is exercising good judgement? Does disagreement always have to be a moral issue with you people? The name-calling that is starting is exactly what has been going on for the past eight years. Why the juvenille behavior every time someone sees things differently than you? Don't you think you might feel differently if the weight of the country's security and economic problems rested on your shoulders?

    I didn't vote for Obama but I am really warming up to him because he seems reasonable, smart, independent, and not insecure (that is, he respects differing opinions). He's got a tough job to do and he seems to be preparing well for it.

    Posted by WSttl at 12/02/2008 @ 11:43am

24. I agree with WS, what the hell is wrong with you people? Can't you see that the Democratic Party, and the USA for that matter, are larger tents than just the readership of the Nation? Is it time for us Nation readers to now turn on our newly elected leader and tear him to shreds like a pack of wolves? Or perhaps, should we give him the keys and let him take things for a spin? His cabinet can not be made up of Myself, Victor Navasky, Noam Chomsky, and Lawerence Tribe. Under our tent, you are going to have to settle for some people you disaggree with. You want progressivism? Go vote for Nader again. Don't worry we live in a parliamentary system where voting for tiny nobody candidate (albeit an intelligent, well deserving candidate) won't be to the detriment of progressive causes (reference election 2000). The democratic party built a concensus with Obama. A concensus comprising of both the conservative wing of the party, and the liberals. I am a socialist, and am willing to concede Obama some leeway in naming his cabinet, if it means that Obama is elected, and not the GOP. Stow your liberal smug attitudes. I'm sick of hearing you whine because you think you know better than the Constitutional lawyer, and Harvard Grad that we all elected. I'm sure you all voted....but did you pound pavement? Did you knock on doors? Now that the election is over are you just going to bitch? Or will you continue to actively work for the positive change. (Blogging is not active work!) The only thing worse than this is listening to washed out jocks on sunday morning talk about what "the coach" should have done differently.

    Posted by quinndiesel at 12/02/2008 @ 1:27pm

25. Oh right, Obama went to Harvard. As did Bush. And the Clintons went to Yale. And I worked in the cafeteria at HBS in the late 60s. Silly, stupid me to worry. We're in good hands. I guess I'll just bend over and smile, "Please sir, can I have another."

    Posted by raporter at 12/02/2008 @ 1:57pm

26. Oh right, Obama went to Harvard. As did Bush. And the Clintons went to Yale. And I worked in the cafeteria at HBS in the late 60s. Silly, stupid me to worry. We're in good hands. I guess I'll just bend over and smile, "Please sir, can I have another."

    Posted by raporter at 12/02/2008 @ 1:57pm

27. Perhaps Obama is doing all this to help allay fears about needing a divided government for the Georgia Senate election! And getting Jim Martin elected! Seriously, though, this points to an issue many of The Nation's readers appear to miss: Obama's Senate majority is not left wing.

    Mark Warner and Jim Webb here in Virginia, whoever they elected in North Carolina, potentially Martin, and candidates from Missouri, Nebraska, Montana, and any other number of states.

    Not to mention the need to give Republican Senators the political ability to support his agenda while getting themselves re-elected (Fact: Many Senators don't do things that hurt their re-election) and thus gain a larger -- somewhat bipartisan -- majority that encourages more Americans to support his programs on energy, climate, foreign policy, the economy, taxes, health care and the Supreme Court.

    Keep fighting for liberal ideas, and encourage the country to slowly move leftward. But please, please don't give up on President-elect Obama before he's even halfway to the inauguration!

    Posted by georgewfan at 12/02/2008 @ 2:16pm

28. The new President hires Iraq hawks (Biden, Clinton, Gates, Emanuel...) and financial ;asters of the collapsing economic universe (Emanuel, Parsons, Rubin, Mulcahy, Summers, Daley, Tyson, Pritzker...). Why is Rice a surprise?

    Posted by Mistral at 12/02/2008 @ 3:02pm

29. There were many problems with the Bush II administration, but perhaps the root cause of all of them was that no one, from Bush on down, ever believed that s/he ever had or ever could make a mistake. If Susan Rice, Hillary Clinton, et al, didn't know they were making a mistake at the time, they surely know now. I'd rather have people around me who have made mistakes and learned from them, than people who believe they have never made a mistake.

    Posted by firstgentrekkie at 12/02/2008 @ 5:14pm

30. Posted by raporter at 12/02/2008 @ 1:57pm

    Bush did not go to Harvard. Neither of them did. For the record. Both Yalies.

    For the complainers

    I understand the disappointment with BO's appointments, I would long for something more radical too. And having read his books and listened to him a good deal I know he knows that (not about me personally of course), that there are many progressive, left leaning, socially responsible and open minded people out there who are longing for a truly different point of view. But in view of where we are, and what he is coming after, it "is" pretty radical a difference. He hasn't done anything yet except name some names so please lets see what he is going to do before being so critical. Of course criticism is good, but not before anything has been done. I remember thinking how incredible it was when B Clinton was elected and almost immediately after the election, also before taking office, the NYTimes, who had been loving him up pretty much during campaign etc, turned on him like a hurt lover. It sure didn't help anything. Obama is going to change things, he has plenty of material to work with, it may not happen as fast as one might like, although I bet there are some symbolic changes and moves right from the start, but it will happen. I think he is being very judicious and politic in his choices, he is sticking to his campaign promises (which is more than the other side ever does) and his promises have never been all that radical, whatever we all might have dreamed of. I am so incredibly glad he is going to be President, I hope they look after him well, as he is most certainly going to be one million times better than the awful greedy self serving murderous crew who on the way out.

    So lets bite our tongues and toast the New Year!

    Posted by marilynm at 12/02/2008 @ 5:15pm

31. The tactic, advocated by some here, of tolerating a basically conservative Democratic Party in the name slowly pushing leftwards hasn't got an empirical leg to stand on. Recent history, since Reagan at least, has shown the opposite effect. Democrats placating the right-wing power structure, & more contentiously a middle of the road electorate, has only led to a marked shift to the right by both parties over time. A temporary respite from the absolute right of the Republicans is far outweighed by the increasing traction for their right-wing policies the concession affords the Republicans in politically inevitable future Republican administrations.

    The standard of comparison ought to be between successive Democratic administrations, not between incoming Democratic administrations & preceding Republican ones. If Democratic administrations are demonstrably less left, or progressive, than previous ones, then they're not *moving* left, they're doing the opposite.

    You're realpolitiking yourselves to death.

    Posted by rhclayto23 at 12/02/2008 @ 5:53pm

32. I can't believe the stupidity of some of these comments. do you really not understand that we largely got in this mess because of people who voted for Nader in 2000? And do you not understand the concept that the lesser of 2 evils - and in this case I'm not at all convinced that Obama is in any sense an "evil" - is far far preferable to McCain/Palin?

    What part of forming a team with divergent views - as opposed to the teams of "yes" men/women we've been having the last 20 - 30 years - don't you understand?

    Get your collective heads out of the sand (euphemism for what I really wanted to say) and give Obama a chance for Crissakes!

    Posted by aclusupporter at 12/02/2008 @ 6:24pm

33. marilynm,

    you posted: "Bush did not go to Harvard. Neither of them did. For the record. Both Yalies."

    You're incorrect regarding Obama. For the record from WikiAnswers: "After graduating high school from Punahou School in Hawaii, Barack Obama attended Occidental College for two years, then got his B.A. from Columbia University. He later got his law degree from Harvard Law School (where he became the Harvard Law Review's first black president), graduating magna cum laude. Obama was also a lecturer of constitutional law at the University of Chicago Law School."

    Not sure how you could have missed the Harvard education info because it was hugely reported in the various media outlets.

    Posted by chrysanthe at 12/02/2008 @ 7:28pm

34. I think she meant both bush's.

    Posted by stpwarsnow at 12/02/2008 @ 7:56pm

35. And "W" went to Harvard Business School.

    Posted by Stiles59 at 12/02/2008 @ 8:46pm

36. Harvard Yale; Yale Harvard, yadda, yadda, yadda. What difference does it make? The real problem is that you morons thought you were electing a Messiah and instead got a politician. And a damn good one at that.

    Posted by jean22 at 12/03/2008 @ 06:54am

37. Posted by chrysanthe at 12/02/2008 @ 7:28pm

    Sorry, I am correct, when I said "both", I meant both Bushes, not Obama.

    Posted by stpwarsnow at 12/02/2008 @ 7:56pm

    Thanks for understanding.

    Posted by marilynm at 12/03/2008 @ 07:49am

38. Not surprising that knee jerk cookie cutter lefty Nichols attracts knee jerk cookie cutter lefty comments. cant rant.

    Posted by jhall251 at 12/03/2008 @ 10:26am

39. For pete's sake -- Obama is not a leftist. He didn't run as one and he wouldn't have been elected if he had. The question is how the left can best influence what happens next. How is nastiness going to help? I think our role has to be to organize for the change we want and to educate people about what is possible. Trashing Obama before he's even started is counterproductive and doesn't lend credibility to our positions.

    Posted by dwiley at 12/03/2008 @ 10:42am

40. For all the ranting here remember this, it took a lot of Naderites in Florida to get us George Bush et al. These were the people who wanted to go to Iraq before the US was even attacked. Between the neocons and the war is good for business folks the Naderites should really shut up. I too was opposed to the war but this can't be the sine qua non of who can get to serve the American people now. This is not a game of gotcha; there are really serious problems ahead for everyone. Grow up.

    Barbarajoan

    Posted by Barbarajoan at 12/03/2008 @ 11:19am

41. John Nichols clearly did not listen to the whole February 6th NPR interview(http://www.npr.org/templates/story/story.php?storyId=980412) . Susan Rice did say that she was convinced that Colin Powell made the case that Iraq was hiding weapons of mass destruction. However, just after this statement she very clearly says that he did not make the case for war.

    Rice says, "The problem is that many American people are not convinced that going to war against Iraq will actually make us in the United States safer. I think they fear reprisals and attacks and they think that our homeland is not yet secure and that with developments in the Middle East and al-Qaeda still very much on the loose there are many I think may fear that going to war against Iraq may in fact in the short term make us less secure, rather than more secure"

    And later in the same interview, Rice was asked about Bush's assertion linking al-Qaeda to Iraq. She responded that his argument was "tenuous" and that "I don't think he proved that piece conclusively."

    In fact Rice was one of the few policy elites who openly and consistently opposed the Iraq War from the beginning. Susan Rice, contrary to what John Nichols wrote above, is the right-on Iraq nominee and is willing to put clear-eyed analysis above muddied politics.

    Posted by ATS2008 at 12/03/2008 @ 4:56pm