Streams

Dana Milbank on Susan Rice

Tuesday, November 20, 2012

Dana Milbank, opinion writer for the Washington Post , discusses why he thinks Susan Rice is wrong for the job of Secretary of State.

Guests:

Dana Milbank

The Morning Brief

Enter your email address and we’ll send you our top 5 stories every day, plus breaking news and weather.

Comments [20]

Martin Chuzzlewit from Manhattan

Bravo, Gary.

Little Barry Obama is indeed a coward.

Nov. 20 2012 08:16 PM
Eric

The difference between Ambassador Rice and Secretary of State Clinton is that while both have well deserved reputations for toughness, Hillary usually manages to be tough without being abrasive, while Ms. Rice has trouble not being abrasive.

Nov. 20 2012 03:27 PM
gary from queens

everyone must read this article to realize we have a coward in the White House. President Obama is a coward, period.

http://www.nationalreview.com/articles/333696/oh-what-tangled-web-victor-davis-hanson

Nov. 20 2012 02:29 PM
gary from queens

Dear Leo,
I'm sure I read that Obama aided Kaddafy in 2009 sometime. But whatever, he was the good guy until Obama had a choice between the anti jihad forces and the islamic supremacism of the muslim brotherhood.

And I didnt forget McCain. he's not relevant to this discussion. But yes, the neocon idiots who still think nationbuilding (ie Bush's democracy project) is possible in Mulsim majority states were supporting Obama on Libya. They include Samantha Powers and Susan Rice in the Admin, and Romney foreign policy advisors John McCain and Max Boot. Many other cheerleaders among Dems and Republicans.

Nov. 20 2012 01:56 PM
Leo from Queens

Yes Gary.. Your facts are correct. THe US government has always supported terrorists. It does not matter if the administration is Democrat or Republican You also fail to mention the visits to Qadaffi made by Senator McCain.

And there was no aide given to Qadaffi by the Obama administration, unless that was started by the G W Bush administration and championed by McCain.

You also fail to mention that John McCain was rabid in his calls to have the Obama administration send in troops to support the rebels.

Nov. 20 2012 12:21 PM

fyi:

The former leader of Libya = Muammar al-Gaddafi, Muammar Gaddafi or Colonel Gaddafi

...or just plain ol'; Gaddafi.

Nov. 20 2012 12:02 PM
gary from queens

-----QUOTE------
Unlike Condi Rice, Susan Rice is also the following:
a black woman who is intelligent, educated, confident and not submissive AND who uses her intelligence and facts to come to an INTELLIGENT FACT-BASED; REALITY-BASED Conclusion.
------UNQUOTE-----

Oh? You mean concluding that Kaddafy---who received aid from Obama Admin and visits by Hilary to commend his assistance in anti Jihad efforts---had to be toppled? turns out the alleged massacres she hoped to prevent were committed by the islamist muslim brotherhood "rebels."

The support for the Islamist Spring was her hers. She must take responsibility for that folly.

Nov. 20 2012 11:54 AM
Roger from New York

The entire obsession with the Benghazi affair does not pass the "so what" test. This incident will not have a meaningful or lasting impact on U.S. foreign policy, and it warrants a mention, not more, in the context of world events. Once more, we've allowed a political fringe - and an angry, frustrated politician, John McCain - to dictate and define issues for reasonable, thinking people. As to Susan Rice, the attention her comments have received is absurd. She should be judged by her long record of service.

Nov. 20 2012 11:52 AM

Hey, Martin Chuzzlewit from Manhattan!!

Your bitter, delusional psychosis continues to entertain us all. LOL!

dimwit.

Nov. 20 2012 11:47 AM
Leo from Queens

Gary: You are correct. I Failed to mention another quality.

Unlike Condi Rice, Susan Rice is also the following:
a black woman who is intelligent, educated, confident and not submissive AND who uses her intelligence and facts to come to an INTELLIGENT FACT-BASED; REALITY-BASED Conclusion.

To be very honest with you, it just perplexes me how an intelligent, confident woman like Condi Rice can come to totally clueless stupid conclusions when she has all the facts and should be able to come to a rational REALITY-BASED conclusion..

Nov. 20 2012 11:47 AM

McCain and Graham have once again, proven themselves to be doddering old psychopaths.

F*k'n old kooks!!

SERIOUSLY.

Nov. 20 2012 11:45 AM
halloran

@Martin

"Dana Milbank is a longstanding, reliable lefty flack for the Democrats."

Oh, Marty. You have no idea what "lefty" means, if you think Milbank one of them.

By all means, repeat Fox talking points here. But, for gawd's sake, why not acquaint yourself with left-wing thought, since you claim to despise it so much?

This closed world of yours really *is* suffocating, and you have no idea.... If Milbank is a left, no wonder you love Mitt.

Nov. 20 2012 11:43 AM
gary from queens

Hey Leo, you just described Condi Rice!

Do I need to remind you the real racial epithets Dems hurled at her?!

Nov. 20 2012 11:42 AM
Martin Chuzzlewit from Manhattan

Always scream racism/sexism when your candidate is flawed....LOL.

Nov. 20 2012 11:41 AM
Leo from Queens

This is a NASTY HIT JOB on an intelligent person who happens to be:
a woman,
a black (bi-racial) woman,
a black woman who is intelligent,
a black woman who is intelligent and educated
a black woman who is intelligent and educated and confident
a black woman who is intelligent, educated, confident and not submissive

Nov. 20 2012 11:39 AM
gary from queens

The President's nominee must be confirmed by the U.S. Senate. Which means she must be confirmed by the Senate Foreign Relations Committee -- and under oath. QUESTIONS I WOULD ASK HER:

1. Responsibility to Protect is your doctrine. You urged the president to topple Kaddafy. Was that why you were selected to go on sunday news shows to promote the anti-islam video theory?

Rice’s role has been to serve not as an easy target, but as an extraneous target — a briefly anointed expert, whose misleading statements are now excused by the president on grounds that she was no expert at all. Why, out of all the officials in his administration, did he dispatch at that critical moment an ambassador who had nothing to do with Benghazi? What was that meant to achieve?

2. You stated on those shows that the president did everything possible to save the 4 american lives, and many others, in Benghazy. But only PODUS can authorize cross-border authorization (CBA) for military force. And that order had not been given by the President, with forces ready to intervene in just 2 hours. Our people at the consulate resisted for 7 hours.

Fact: Rice's statement on 5 news shows that the attack was "a product of a “spontaneous” mob reacting to the “hateful video,” all of which just happened to get hijacked by “a small handful of heavily armed mobsters” was a grossly misleading message, defying common sense and contradicting information we now know was richly available to the State Department, to others in the administration, and presumably to the president himself.

It fed Obama’s narrative of an al-Qaeda in retreat, while ignoring the realities that a known al-Qaeda affiliate, Ansar al-Sharia, had already claimed credit; that an array of jihadi terrorist groups, including Ansar al-Sharia, had been recruiting and training in the region; that American personnel in Libya had been pleading for better security; and that the attack itself had the hallmarks not of an ad hoc mob, but of an organized assault.

Nov. 20 2012 11:32 AM
Westchestery from Westchester

The Benghazi conspiracy is about disrupting Obama during reelection and now to force his hand on foreign policy (as well as an attempt by McCain to create a new job for himself since he's about to lose a committee chairmanship). Be careful Brian of being sucked in by political BS.

Benghazi was a CIA operation with a State department cover. It is a tragedy but not a political conspiracy. And people who hyper focus on it lose the lens of regional context. If anyone needs to take ownership of errors it is Petraeus.

Nov. 20 2012 11:14 AM
Martin Chuzzlewit from Manhattan

Dana Milbank is a longstanding, reliable lefty flack for the Democrats.

His surprising position on Rice suggests that maybe she really is a poor candidate on her own merits....

...or maybe it was her inflammatory, unprofessional, patently political attacks (on Hillary Clinton!!) during the 2008 campaign in her attempt to win favor with the Obama team in order to get her current UN job.

(I wish that all of these creeepy, vicious Democratic mudslingers were as tough with the bad guys as they are in their domestic politics....then we wouldn't need to worry about them becoming international appeasers.)

Nov. 20 2012 11:13 AM
Leo from Queens

Brian: "EVEN if she was Innocent on Benghazi"? How dare you? Do you have pics/proofs of Susan Rice coordinating the terror attack with the terrorist groups or carrying an RPG on her shoulders?

She was asked to go on the Sunday talk shows and give out the administration talking points that were NOT classified.

If you read the full text of her comments she put a caveat that they did not know everything and that more than likely this was a planned attack.

I can't believe you are using your show to promote an alternative reality for the crazy Republicans

Nov. 20 2012 11:04 AM
halloran

As Dana Milbank is one of the most reliable promoters of the trivialization of political culture -- one of those people described by David Frum(!), as having a great salary and stupdendous health insurance, and consequently no conception of what real life is and the consequence of actual domestic policy -- perhaps Brian might inquire into Dana's own assessment of his contribution to the national discourse, and whether that's a healthy thing or not.

In other words, how much money do have to earn annually, to regard politics as sport? And does Dana Milbank generally recommend that approach to the masses?

Nov. 20 2012 10:13 AM

Leave a Comment

Email addresses are required but never displayed.