dagblog - Comments for "Susan Rice, America's "See No Evil" Ambassador"

I forgot about this blog. I

Richard Day — Thu, 13 Dec 2012 23:00:55 +0000

In reply to Susan Rice, America's "See No Evil" Ambassador

I forgot about this blog.

I did not weigh in because I felt less than knowledgeable to comment.

But Susan Rice caved in as I indicated in my news item.

This is a sad state of affairs to me anyway.

Susan Rice is a fine stateswoman.

McCain will never receive any kudos from me for anything ever again!

The closet gay Senator from SC will never receive any bona fides from me ever again!

Susan Rice is a great stateswoman and I see good things in her future regardless of the misogynists who say otherwise.

That is all I got!

Yeah, lots of dirty secrets

PeraclesPlease — Tue, 11 Dec 2012 07:22:10 +0000

In reply to Bill Clinton continues to

Yeah, lots of dirty secrets in those bottom drawers. Easier to pretend.

http://www.guardian.co.uk/commentisfree/2011/apr/14/torture-mau-mau-camp...

I think my comment was

PeraclesPlease — Tue, 11 Dec 2012 07:01:40 +0000

In reply to My comment was initially to

I think my comment was supposed to come out more playful & sarcastically humorous than it did. Memo to self: drink more before blogging.

My comment was initially to

acanuck — Mon, 10 Dec 2012 23:53:05 +0000

In reply to Yeah, and what? After we held

My comment was initially to counter the notion that Bill Clinton couldn't have done more. Totally untrue (see my further comment below).

But I had just read the Independent article I cited on In the News (West persuades itself to bomb Syria), so I ended up digressing on Western hypocrisy.

Yes, the UN has been somewhat toothless and pointless in recent decades, but I don't see a mad rush for the exits. Everybody wants international law around so they can cite it when it agrees with them. It also gives countries a place they can look good backing down rather than just caving in to their enemies' superior might.

Russia and China have played a constructive role in saving the West from even worse Mideast follies than its current ones, and the General Assembly reasserted its limited power in the Palestine vote. The UN is a flawed institution, but it's the only game in town. A checkered past, but it is the future.

Bill Clinton continues to

acanuck — Mon, 10 Dec 2012 23:36:40 +0000

In reply to This is a good discussion. I

Bill Clinton continues to spin the excuse that it took time to realize what was happening in Rwanda was genocide. It's simply a lie. Romeo Dallaire, Canadian commander of the tiny peacekeeping force, instantly informed the UN of the facts on the ground. He had witnessed from afar his own Belgian troops being slaughtered.

Clinton's intelligence staff privately called it genocide, but declined to do so publicly and, worse, pressured the UN into taking that stance. Clinton's desire to avoid pressure to intervene prevented anyone else from intervening. The world simply let the murders run their course. And this has been public knowledge for nearly a decade:

http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/2004/mar/31/usa.rwanda

Michael, I don't know if you

Michael Wolraich — Mon, 10 Dec 2012 23:30:45 +0000

In reply to This is a good discussion. I

Michael, I don't know if you noticed my caveat: It is worth letting a brutal dictator escape prosecution, for example, to avoid a bloody civil war.

I agree with Keller about Assad, and I firmly believe that a secretary of state has to be willing to compromise principles for sake of the greater good. But the point is that such sacrifices have to be careful, deliberate, and most importantly, reluctant.

If you calculate that you can save thousands or tens of thousands by allowing a dictator to escape justice, then you should certainly do it. Assad's just desert is not worth those peoples' lives.

But in the East Africa examples, it's not clear what the U.S. gains by sheltering Kagame from criticism. His goodwill? I think it has to something far more concrete. Once you start trying to curry favors with despots or rationalizing that the next guy will be worse, then you've gone down a perilous road.

This is a good discussion. I

Michael Maiello — Mon, 10 Dec 2012 23:07:00 +0000

In reply to Susan Rice, America's "See No Evil" Ambassador

This is a good discussion. I have to admit, I was mostly concerned about Rice because of her Rwanda guilt, as you guys have already discussed. The Rwanda genocide is a terrible atrocity, yes. Rwanda was also Hell on Earth at the time. That Clinton, who had already inherited the Somalia debacle from George HW Bush was reluctant to interfere still shows, to my mind, some wise caution for which he gets no credit. This was not Bosnia, where power could be wielded from high altitude with our soldiers largely (but not entirely) safe from harm.

The criticism that Rice has tolerated dictators seems valid. But on the same day that a Times guest columnist criticizes Rice for this, former editor in chief Bill Keller can be seen arguing in favor of letting Assad escape justice and living a life of (presumably wealthy) exile in Russia. Keller baldly asserts that it is an unfair and unjust outcome. But, he supports it.

Rice is hardly alone in supporting the "stability" supplied by certain tolerable tyrants. But one thing that gives me some confidence is Obama. Dictators have not fared as well on his watch and I don't see that changing in his second term.

If this is who he wants advising him, if this is who he trusts, I can live with it. And, maybe it isn't safe to give the post to Kerry. While it'd be funny to see Elizabeth Warren so quickly elevated to the senior senator role, I'd hate to see Scott Brown jump back in and nab his seat (or would there be an appointment rather than a special election?)

Yeah, and what? After we held

PeraclesPlease — Mon, 10 Dec 2012 22:44:18 +0000

In reply to As I recall it, no one was

Yeah, and what? After we held the UN hostage in the 90's and hosed it with the Iraq invasion and made it our bitch with Libya and unceasing threats against Iran, we're going to play nicely "Mother may I"? As Wolraich points out, the Neocons had a plan, and it's our job to finish it. (okay, maybe that's not exactly what he pointed out, but .....)

Okay, got me, yes, they had

PeraclesPlease — Mon, 10 Dec 2012 22:35:20 +0000

In reply to I think the neocons had a

Okay, got me, yes, they had their own domino theory and picked the countries to knock down in order.

As I recall it, no one was

acanuck — Mon, 10 Dec 2012 22:08:45 +0000

In reply to At the time, it seemed like

As I recall it, no one was asking Clinton to put U.S. troops into Rwanda -- just to allow the United Nations to recognize that mass murder was taking place, and authorize member states to help stop it. Instead, the U.S. -- with the complicity of future secretary-general Kofi Annan -- actively blocked any UN response. The tiny peacekeeping force that was already on the ground wasn't even authorized to fire its guns to stop the killings.

And today, as if to make up for that shameful past inaction, we have many of the same actors perverting the world body's "Responsibility to Protect" into a licence for the crudest form of regime change. The West is about to intervene militarily in Syria, allegedly to "stop the killing," this time without even bothering to get a UN stamp of approval.