Don't Confuse Susan Rice with Condi

They share the same last name, but don't confuse Susan Rice--Barack Obama's nominee as ambassador to the United Nations--with Condoleezza.

My colleague John Nichols cherry picks one statement Rice made about Iraq--praising Colin Powell's presentation to the United Nations about Iraq's supposed WMDs--as evidence that she's part of the "wrong-thinking that characterizes Barack Obama's foreign-policy team."

That's ridiculous. Unfortunately a lot of people praised Powell at the time and "good progressives" like Henry Waxman, John Edwards and Chris Dodd voted for the war and later came to regret it. One vote or statement on Iraq should hardly be a litmus test for serving in government.

We should evaluate Rice based on her entire portfolio and areas of expertise. She's been a forceful advocate for improving failed states, doing more to combat global poverty and putting an end to the genocide in Darfur. She was a foreign policy advisor to Howard Dean--an outspoken opponent of the war in Iraq--and bonded with Obama in part because of his early opposition to the war, she told the New York Sun. Rice, it should be noted, also opposed the war, despite her praise for Powell. As she told Tavis Smiley on April 14, 2003: "The issue wasn't whether they had the weapons; it was whether, in fact, they would use them in such a way that would pose a threat to the United States. And the fact that they were never employed in combat when the regime was on its last legs, in my mind, begs the question of whether they would have used them under other circumstances long before we poked the hornet's nest."

Obama's appointment of Rice to the UN shows he's serious about putting diplomacy and multilateralism back at the center of US foreign policy and focusing on those areas of the world, like Africa, that the Bush Administration has badly ignored. It's a good sign, not a bad one.

Comments (49)

1. well...it WAS a kick ass power point..lots of cool videos, animated gif and jpegs, fade in text...

   solid power point! A+!!!

   bullshit, but still good PP...

   Posted by ibbleblibble at 12/02/2008 @ 11:22am

2. John Nichols...cherry-picker and "ridiculous", Mr Berman?!?!?!?

   Uh-oh, hope we aren't going to have any fights at the office Christmas party this year, with Peter Rothberg and Ari Melber pulling you two off each other after too much nog!

   heheh

   Posted by Mask at 12/02/2008 @ 11:40am

3. Posted by Mask at 12/02/2008 @ 11:40am

   My money is on John.

   Until KVH walks in the room.

   Posted by Benchrest at 12/02/2008 @ 12:08pm

4. I hope The Nation is more open to various points of view than The National Review. Over there even being the son of the Creator was not enough to keep Young Chris on board after he decided Palin was too great a risk. From what I read here, I think Ari and John will still have a place to store their "Nietzsche is dead-God" organic free range coffe mugs. I actually see no reason the writers here should not offer up contrary opinions wthin the group.

   Once again, Ms. Rice II appears to be COMPETENT. That alone is CHANGE we can believe in.

   We could be getting another John Ashcroft as AG, Rumsfeld as secDEf and "heckuva job Brownie" to oversee FEMA. SO we don't get Bonior as Labor Sec, right now I will take those trade offs. Come Dec 2009, I reserve the right to change my mind, like any good wishy washy leftist.

   Posted by crabwalk at 12/02/2008 @ 12:16pm

5. Until KVH walks in the room.

   Posted by Benchrest at 12/02/2008 @ 12:08p

   In her Pirate outfit. Gives me the heebie jeebies when that ad pops out from behind a web page. (shudder)

   Maybe advertising a cruise with pirate outfits isn't the best topical campaign?

   Posted by crabwalk at 12/02/2008 @ 12:19pm

6. Posted by crabwalk at 12/02/2008 @ 12:19pm

   LOL!

   Posted by Benchrest at 12/02/2008 @ 12:23pm

7. Obama's appointment of Rice to the UN shows he's serious about putting diplomacy and multilateralism back at the center of US foreign policy and focusing on those areas of the world, like Africa, that the Bush Administration has badly ignored. It's a good sign, not a bad one.

   'When Rice left for the State Department after five years in the White House, a colleague gave her a Zulu shield. She would need it, the friend explained, to fight the entrenched foreign-service bureaucracy. In fact, the flak started flying even before Rice had moved to Foggy Bottom. She filled a job that for decades had been held by a series of middle-aged career Africanists. Longtime bureaucrats griped that she was too green, that she was a political hire. Some complained that she had the same problem as many Clinton appointees: youthful arrogance. "She doesn't know what she doesn't know," says one Africa expert who deals with her. "And she doesn't tolerate dissenters." Some of the African press suggested that Rice would have little influence with traditional African male leaders. "It may be splendidly progressive of Clinton to place his Africa policy in the care of relatively young women," wrote Simon Barber in the South African Business Day. "On the other hand, he's utterly ignoring a cultural reality." Rice dismisses that concern. "They have no choice but to deal with me on professional terms. I represent the United States of America," she says. "Yeah, they may do a double take, but then they have to listen to what you say, how you say it and what you do about what you say."[2]'

   Wikipedia - Query: Susan Rice

   Multilateralism.....ah....the velvet fist. Much better.

   Posted by OneVote at 12/02/2008 @ 12:28pm

8. "Don't Confuse Susan Rice with Condi"? How can we help it:

   http://www.counterpunch.org/scahill12022008.html

   Posted by john lowell at 12/02/2008 @ 12:35pm

9. Nation Cruise Pirates take over National Review Cruise.

   Somali coastline

   UPI-Dec 2, 2008

   After receiving a subsidy from Cuba, The Nation editorial board was able to secure the bridge of the ship hired to carry The National Review annual cruise. Several NR staffer were overheard talking about how they should stuff KVH down the laundry shoot on deck 5, but not one was willing to step forward and challenge a swashbuckling, elegantly clad Ms KVH. Rich Lowery was heard whispering to Bob Novak "pssst, go ahead, it will be a cakewalk!" Novak cowered behind the poop deck latte machine muttering about elitists and the lack of a good Madagascar Cinnabon aboard the ship.

   Also overheard was a comment from an un-named free lance writer from NR-Online- "What the hell happened to Titan Security! They cashed the check months ago!" One person questioned whether due diligence had been conducted in the hiring of Titan. The reponse from David Frum was "Due what...?"

   Posted by crabwalk at 12/02/2008 @ 12:51pm

10. Posted by Mask at 12/02/2008 @ 11:40am | ignore this person | warn this person

    fight club, "the nation" style...

    battle of "the nation" all stars!!!

    Posted by ibbleblibble at 12/02/2008 @ 1:04pm

11. battle of "the nation" all stars!!!

    Posted by ibbleblibble at 12/02/2008 @ 1:04pm

    Eye cuts will be tended at the free clinic, basement of the CITI-Group Center. (soon to be known as The Socialist Bailout for People Making $10,000,000/year Center. GM employees need not apply)

    Posted by crabwalk at 12/02/2008 @ 1:07pm

12. Posted by crabwalk at 12/02/2008 @ 1:07pm | ignore this person | warn this person

    betting IS allowed though, right?

    Posted by ibbleblibble at 12/02/2008 @ 1:13pm

13. "Obama's appointment of Rice to the UN shows he's serious about putting diplomacy and multilateralism back at the center of US foreign policy..."

    Another vailed attempt by Obama to allow the UN to dictate our foreign policy through Dr. Rice. The UN would salivate at the prospect of controlling our millitary forces for it's own purposes.

    "...and focusing on those areas of the world, like Africa, that the Bush Administration has badly ignored."

    This is such a dishonest statement. Clinton ignored Rhwanda, Sudan and host of other African countries, yet Bush gets all the criticism.

    Posted by ACook at 12/02/2008 @ 1:17pm

14. Posted by ACook at 12/02/2008 @ 1:17pm

    1. The UN apparently DOES run our military, ACOOK. After all isn't "He violated 17 UN resolutions and we had to enforce them" one of the reasons YOUR guys keep giving on why we had to invade Iraq?

    Seems the UN passes some resolutions, and neo-cons (on CERTAIN occasions) are happy to use our blood and treasure to enforce them, huh?

    2. I think folks would blame Clinton for Rwanda....but again, wasn't one of the reasons we went into Iraq "Saddam was killing his own people"...

    yet Dubya and the neo-cons don't seem to care when it's Omar al-Bashir and Darfur, do they???

    Posted by Mask at 12/02/2008 @ 1:25pm

15. I don't really know what Condoleezza Rice ever achieved anyway, she was always going all over the place and what was the outcome did we ever find out? I think Susan Rice will have a lot more going for her, trying diplomacy first should be a good start!!!! I think in the end Condi was just seen as a puppet for Bush anyway and she really had no influence. Anyway, we will have to wait and see how things turn out....they must all be given the chance to prove themselves in these top positions.

    Posted by Caj at 12/02/2008 @ 1:30pm

16. S.Rice all that different from C.Rice?

    Yet another cheerleader from the invasion of Iraq.

    Posted by sloper at 12/02/2008 @ 1:37pm

17. hi, larry.

    here's a thank you note from the government of iraq:

    IRAQ SUPPORTS OPEC OUTPUT REDUCTION

    Sat, 29 Nov 2008 13:02:46 GMT

    Iraq's oil minister has said his country would support an OPEC output reduction so that the oil produced is not stored in world stocks.

    "We have to make sure that produced oil is used for consumption and not for storing," Hussein al-Shahristani said Friday on arrival in Cairo to attend an OPEC extraordinary meeting.

    "Iraq would support a decision by OPEC to cut output either here or in Algeria," the Iraqi minister told reporters.

    Posted by frosty zoom at 12/02/2008 @ 2:24pm

18. S.Rice all that different from C.Rice?

    Yet another cheerleader from the invasion of Iraq.

    Posted by sloper at 12/02/2008 @ 1:37pm | ignore this person | warn this person

    sydney rice is a former south carolina wide out now playing for the vikings - kind of a jack of all trades type that modern, salary cap hobble nfl teams love.

    so lay off sydney rice, man!!!

    ;)

    Posted by ibbleblibble at 12/02/2008 @ 2:31pm

19. Posted by lvliberty1 at 12/02/2008 @ 1:42pm

    Thank you LVLIBERTY. It's libs like him that can't fathom the idea that we are not attached at the hip to the UN.

    Posted by Mask at 12/02/2008 @ 1:25pm

    "but again, wasn't one of the reasons we went into Iraq "Saddam was killing his own people"..."

    Yeah and?! It's one thing to oust a dictator with whom you have a beef with, but it's entirely different when you get between the middle of some else's civil war. If anything, it should be the Chinese who should step in and quell the hostilities over there, not us. Afterall, it's their interests that are at stake.

    Posted by ACook at 12/02/2008 @ 2:31pm

20. Posted by lvliberty1 at 12/02/2008 @ 1:42pm

    LVLIB, I am quoting YOUR side on that. AMONG the reasons given for why we had to invade Iraq is always "He was violating 17 UN resolutions"....okay, well, that would mean that those neo-cons think that "UN resolutions" hold some authority...and we need to shed blood to uphold that, doesn't it?

    I didn't say it was the ONLY reason...in fact, I listed another "Saddam was killing his own people!"....and the "odd" ignoring of when that happens in Sudan.

    List your list of "reasons why we needed to invade Iraq"...and let's see if Bush and Bill Kristol aren't ignoring most if not all in other countries.

    Posted by Mask at 12/02/2008 @ 2:39pm

21. Posted by ACook at 12/02/2008 @ 2:31pm

    ACOOK, please explain...in detail...why the Kurds uprising against Saddam was NOT a civil war (note the "gassing his own people" charge)...

    but the Sudanese wiping out civilians in Darfur IS a "civil war"?

    Posted by Mask at 12/02/2008 @ 2:40pm

22. 1. The UN apparently DOES run our military, ACOOK. After all isn't "He violated 17 UN resolutions and we had to enforce them" one of the reasons YOUR guys keep giving on why we had to invade Iraq?

    Posted by Mask at 12/02/2008 @ 1:25pm | ignore this person | warn this person

    Works well the other way too.....military runs UN....

    UN is great to have around when you need lofty justifications for US military action where there is no demonstrable threat to the US. The "coalition of the willing" thing is the fly in the ointment for our jingoists and UN detractors.

    Posted by OneVote at 12/02/2008 @ 2:42pm

23. ACOOK, please explain...in detail...why the Kurds uprising against Saddam was NOT a civil war (note the "gassing his own people" charge)...

    but the Sudanese wiping out civilians in Darfur IS a "civil war"?

    Posted by Mask at 12/02/2008 @ 2:40pm

    For Pete's sake man, a couple of small uprisings from the Kurdish people does not constitute a civil war. Their attempts at free themselves from Saddam's reign of terror collapse more quickly than it began.

    The Darfur conflict (as you put it) is "one side of the armed conflict composed mainly of the Sudanese military and the Janjaweed, (a militia group recruited mostly from the Arab Abbala tribes of the northern Rizeigat, camel-herding nomads.) The other side comprises a variety of rebel groups, (notably the Sudan Liberation Movement and the Justice and Equality Movement), recruited primarily from the land-tilling non-Arab Fur, Zaghawa, and Massaleit ethnic groups." - From Wikipedia

    Now you tell me why in God's good name should the US go over there?

    Posted by ACook at 12/02/2008 @ 2:56pm

24. For Pete's sake man, a couple of small uprisings from the Kurdish people does not constitute a civil war. Their attempts at free themselves from Saddam's reign of terror collapse more quickly than it began.

    Posted by ACook at 12/02/2008 @ 2:56pm | warn this person

    Slightly more complicated than that.

    'If Iraq splits, he said, "the United States has a moral obligation to defend the advancement and the development that has taken place in the Kurdistan region."

    Talabani and others noted that Washington has a history of abandoning the Kurds. In the 1970s, the CIA helped arm Kurdish rebels to fight Saddam Hussein, but abruptly withdrew support when Hussein cut a deal with the US-backed Shah of Iran.

    In 1991, after the first Gulf War, President George H. W. Bush encouraged Kurds and Shi'ites to rise up against Hussein, but then failed to stop him from crushing those rebellions. It took months for the United States to help institute the no-fly zone, Xulam said, and that only came after CNN broadcast footage of Kurds who had fled Hussein living in miserable conditions.'

    Iraqi Kurds seek promise of protection from US With instability, criticism grows By Farah Stockman, Globe Staff | February 15, 2007 - Boston Globe

    Posted by OneVote at 12/02/2008 @ 3:13pm

25. Faulty intelligence and fear

    That's all the reason that was sufficient for me and for millions of Americans.

    Posted by lvliberty1 at 12/02/2008 @ 2:58pm

    Posted by crabwalk at 12/02/2008 @ 3:30pm

26. Maybe we should switch to "Wheat" or "Soy" for the last name of the Ambassador to the United Nations.. Rice is yucky and looks like little maggots when dropped on the floor.

    Posted by chaoszen at 12/02/2008 @ 3:31pm

27. Please excuse my irreverent humor. That's what happens when a shipment of Peyote hits town.

    Posted by chaoszen at 12/02/2008 @ 3:35pm

28. "Another vailed attempt by Obama to allow the UN to dictate our foreign policy through Dr. Rice. "-ACOOK

    heeeheee

    Gotta love this stuff. Soon the UN will be marching down YOUR street, handing out copies of Maos L'il Red Book, signed by Obama.

    Jones, Gates, Clinton, Goldman Sachs watching the treasury....

    Still President elect Obama is hell bent on fulfilling the leftist Agenda?

    Posted by crabwalk at 12/02/2008 @ 3:48pm

29. Posted by ACook at 12/02/2008 @ 2:56pm

    I'm not saying we should go into Darfur, ACOOK.

    I'm saying by the rationale offered up by neo-cons, THEY should support doing that.

    Posted by Mask at 12/02/2008 @ 4:01pm

30. Posted by lvliberty1 at 12/02/2008 @ 2:58pm

    Well, Larry, obviously, I'm not talking about YOU.

    You're a "Presidential perogative" authoritarian who believes the POTUS is able to declare war and attack whomever he/she pleases at any time and to question it is to be disloyal and "hate the troops".

    And in fairness, you've even said you'd support that kind of unitary executive authority for OBAMA. So you've been quite consistant in your "elected war dictator" paradigm for US Presidents.

    Posted by Mask at 12/02/2008 @ 4:03pm

31. "If Iraq splits, he said, "the United States has a moral obligation to defend the advancement and the development that has taken place in the Kurdistan region."

    Posted by OneVote at 12/02/2008 @ 3:13pm

    OV, who said that?!

    Posted by ACook at 12/02/2008 @ 4:03pm

32. Rice is yucky and looks like little maggots when dropped on the floor.

    Posted by chaoszen at 12/02/2008 @ 3:31pm

    Eewww.....

    Posted by ACook at 12/02/2008 @ 4:04pm

33. I'm saying by the rationale offered up by neo-cons, THEY should support doing that.

    Posted by Mask at 12/02/2008 @ 4:01pm

    No, they shouldn't.

    Posted by ACook at 12/02/2008 @ 4:06pm

34. OV, who said that?!

    Posted by ACook at 12/02/2008 @ 4:03pm | warn this person

    Qubad Talabani - Kurdistan Regional Government representative to US - son of President of Iraq President Jalal Talabani.

    Posted by OneVote at 12/02/2008 @ 4:15pm

35. Posted by ACook at 12/02/2008 @ 4:06pm

    Well, yes, they SHOULD...if what they said was what they actually believe.

    Which I don't think it is. I think they care little for "violated UN resolutions" (despite claiming they do) or "genocide" (despite claiming they do) or even "fostering democracy" (now they simply want a STABLE Iraq, and the Sunnis have to lump it).

    Posted by Mask at 12/02/2008 @ 4:16pm

36. Posted by ACook at 12/02/2008 @ 4:04pm

    Actually if we eat processed meat we are eating maggots and a host of other insects. As well as a certain amount of feces.

    How about a bologna sammy? I grossed myself out.. Lets go Macrobiotic, perhaps Hippocrates was right.

    Posted by chaoszen at 12/02/2008 @ 4:36pm

37. Posted by lvliberty1 at 12/02/2008 @ 4:32pm

    Still trying to rationalize the illegal invasion of Iraq? Thats O.K. I watched "Morning Joe" on MSNBC this morning and Joe Scarborough was giving a heartfelt speech about how President Bush will be looked at as a great leader in 10 years. And about how history will see that the poor man did the best he could.

    I went to the porcelin horse and lost my breakfast. These repugs are already trying to re-write history before it's even historical. Disgusting.

    Posted by chaoszen at 12/02/2008 @ 4:45pm

38. We need closure on the Bush crime family. They should all rot in Prison or be executed for high treason. I do not support Capital Punishment, but in their case I would have to make an exception.

    We need closure. We need justice. We will not get it with Obama. That leaves the door open for more malignant abuses by future power brokers. If there was ever an adminstration that needed to be made an example of. This one is it. Sad.

    Posted by chaoszen at 12/02/2008 @ 4:53pm

39. Which I don't think it is. I think they care little for "violated UN resolutions" (despite claiming they do) or "genocide" (despite claiming they do) or even "fostering democracy" (now they simply want a STABLE Iraq, and the Sunnis have to lump it).

    Posted by Mask at 12/02/2008 @ 4:16pm

    And you think the left CARES more? I don't and neither do you. Look, from my pov, UN resolutions do little in the way of helping resolve conflicts and the idea of "fostering democracy" is a running joke both parties are guilty of spreading.

    And as far as Iraq and the Sunnis go, they've dished out a lotta lumps over they years, so it's only befitting they receive a few of those lumps too.

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

40. I went to the porcelin horse and lost my breakfast.

    Posted by chaoszen at 12/02/2008 @ 4:45pm

    You ate the bologna sammy, didn't you?!

    Posted by ACook at 12/02/2008 @ 5:20pm

41. Posted by lvliberty1 at 12/02/2008 @ 5:02pm

    What history? What lefty history am I trying to rewrite?. There is none. And Twenty years from now your kind will be reviled. Reviled to the point that you will have to hide your sick minds behind a facsimile of sanity, in order to survive.

    Reviled to the point that you will have to deny yourself. Beware of the hubris that drives your diseased mind. Get help now or forever perish in the flames of your own self interest.

    Posted by chaoszen at 12/02/2008 @ 5:20pm

42. Posted by ACook at 12/02/2008 @ 5:20pm

    Ya. Silly me.

    Posted by chaoszen at 12/02/2008 @ 5:21pm

43. Posted by lvliberty1 at 12/02/2008 @ 5:32pm

    Yes, you are correct. It is cyclical. And it is on the verge of cycling from a center right Obama administration into a left center progressive movement. Which will leave your kind in a dusty forgotten bin of political ignorance.

    You see, you are a little like a political Neanderthal. Who through evolution will be made obsolete. And years from now the stories will tell of a beast who wanders the woods. Like the Abominable Snowjob Man.

    Good luck in your obsolescence.

    Posted by chaoszen at 12/02/2008 @ 6:00pm

44. Pointing out her ties to Howard Dean does not prove your position. Before he ran for President, Dean had a record as a conservative Democrat. He was always a militarist, and if you will look at his comments during the Presidential campaign, you will see that. That he tried to appeal to progressive Democrats doesn't change who he was and is.

    I don't know why people think Democrats will be less warlike than Republicans. If you look at a century of history, you will see it is more like the reverse. Democrats are more likely to engage in wars, particularly major wars.

    But with so many "progressives" it is always the triumph of hope over experience. Of course Obama ran on "hope" without any substance of change. He has been consistently militaristic. His appointments just confirm what some of us have been trying to tell people all along.

    Posted by Bill Samuel at 12/02/2008 @ 9:06pm

45. Twenty years from now, Bush will likely be esteemed as one of our top 10 presidents (depending on what future presidents do in reaction to events). Posted by lvliberty1 at 12/02/2008 @ 5:02pm |

    Better than Colbert!!

    You should send him some of your stuff.

    I love the caveat... IF future presidents don't screw up the good works done by Bush! Of course, like the cons blaming this recession on Obama before he even hits office, anything that goes wrong will be the librools fault, as Chimpy McFLightsuit laid a good groundwork of fiscal responsibility and a sound peace framework in Iraq. On to Jerusalem, through Baghdad!

    Smoke em if ya got em, Larry.

    Posted by crabwalk at 12/03/2008 @ 07:33am

46. No, what I said has been confirmed by documentation seized after the invasion and the interrogation results obtained through questioning Saddam and others. Those were Saddams plans. Posted by lvliberty1 at 12/02/2008 @ 4:32pm

    IF sanctions were lifted

    IF weapons inspections ceased

    IF he had the money

    IF he could build 3000 centrifuges out of rocket parts.

    IF he convince Islamist groups he hated to carry a bomb to the US

    Lottsa IF's to declare war over, lottsa if's to decide to kill several hundred thousand people and drive 2 million from their homes.

    BOO!

    Posted by crabwalk at 12/03/2008 @ 07:37am

47. That's what happens when a shipment of Peyote hits town. Posted by chaoszen at 12/02/2008 @ 3:35pm | ignore this person | warn this person

    I must assume this is just a rhetorical flourish.

    when consuming the peyote cactus buttons, what happens first is that you puke your guts out. the visions come later.

    Posted by emile duBois at 12/03/2008 @ 10:02am

48. Twenty years from now, Bush will likely be esteemed as one of our top 10 presidents (depending on what future presidents do in reaction to events).

    Posted by lvliberty1 at 12/02/2008 @ 5:02pm | warn this person

    LOL!

    lv, a heartfelt thank you for the good laugh. It's been quite a morning and I needed that!

    The only way Bush ends up in the top 10 is if you flip the list. Then, nevermind top 10...he may just be right at the top.

    Posted by bizona at 12/03/2008 @ 11:10am

49. Twenty years from now, Bush will likely be esteemed as one of our top 10 presidents (depending on what future presidents do in reaction to events). Posted by lvliberty1 at 12/02/2008 @ 5:02pm | warn this person

    too bad you won't live long enough to see this, even if you lived as long as Methuselah.

    Posted by emile duBois at 12/03/2008 @ 11:26am