Susan Rice opposed the war

[sandnsea]

"..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."

http://www.thenation.com/blogs/state_of_change/387367/don_t_confuse_susan_rice_with_condi

[snowbear]

1. Susan Rice will do a stellar job..

.
.

[FrenchieCat]

2. THanks......

Progressives are starting to give me whiplash!
Its like we are always trying to dig up things,
even if they aren't there.

I guess after having been in opposition for 8 years,
it's hard to do anything else. :shrug:

[sandnsea]

3. It's annoying as hell

Okay, so maybe we've got a center Dem government. Oh well. It's better than the alternative. Give the guy a chance. But this one about Susan Rice, oh for pete's sake. She and Tony Lake opposed the war, it was written numerous times. I don't know what people get out of cherry-picking one comment and then slandering someone's character with it. Or why editors and publishers allow it.

[The Traveler]

4. At some point, we have to give up on perfection.

The left, like the right, possesses voices that praise ideological purity while damning any perceived deviations from their doctrine.

Susan Rice is in every way a lovely woman. Beautiful, brilliant, and warm of heart. She is on the right side. And yet, some of our mates are willing to dismiss all her intentions and accomplishments because of certain isolated statements? Shall we damn the good in our quest for the perfect, which will never be found in any event?

Time to heed the lesson nature has handed out to our fellow citizens of the hard core conservative persuasion. Ideological purity comes at a high price.

Trav

[slipslidingaway]

5. Here are a couple of other quotes...after the invasion many

people started to rethink their positions.

For me it is more important what people said or did before the invasion, that is when our country needed people to pick holes in the information that was being presented.


http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_mesg&forum=132&topic_id=7947534&mesg_id=7948341

"SUSAN RICE

Assistant secretary of state in the Clinton administration, Rice has been a prominent foreign policy spokesperson for the Obama campaign. Here are some of her claims shortly before the invasion of Iraq: "I think he has proved that Iraq has these weapons and is hiding them, and I don't think many informed people doubted that." (NPR, Feb. 6, 2003)

"We need to be ready for the possibility that the attack against the U.S. could come in some form against the homeland, not necessarily on the battlefield against our forces. And I think there, too, is an area where the American people need to be better prepared by our leadership. ... It's clear that Iraq poses a major threat. It's clear that its weapons of mass destruction need to be dealt with forcefully, and that's the path we're on. I think the question becomes whether we can keep the diplomatic balls in the air and not drop any, even as we move forward, as we must, on the military side." (NPR, Dec. 20, 2002)

"I think the United States government has been clear since the first Bush administration about the threat that Iraq and Saddam Hussein poses. The United States policy has been regime change for many, many years, going well back into the Clinton administration. So it's a question of timing and tactics. ... We do not necessarily need a further Council resolution before we can enforce this and previous resolutions. (NPR, Nov. 11, 2002)"

[bvar22]

20. Susan Rice certainly learned how to Cover her Ass.

I wonder where she really stood on the Invasion of Iraq?

[mzmolly]

23. See post # 15

eom

[slipslidingaway]

27. A quick read through the link from sandnsea talks more about

the timing, although she does state that the war on terrorism needs to be job one for the foreseeable future and thought he could continue to be contained from using his WMD's.

What is lacking for me is any question about the WMD's and the idea of regime change.

Some additional snips here...

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_mesg&forum=132&topic_id=7947558&mesg_id=7948890

Direct link to speech

http://www.brookings.edu/views/speeches/rice20021119.pdf


----- More importantly going forward is whether or not we agree with these ideas...

http://www.fair.org/blog/2008/12/01/an-advocate-of-strong-action-against-mass-killing/

"...In an article she penned with Anthony Lake (Washington Post, 10/2/06), she advocated bombing Sudan even outside of the U.N.:

The United States, preferably with NATO involvement and African political support, would strike Sudanese airfields, aircraft and other military assets. It could blockade Port Sudan, through which Sudan's oil exports flow. Then U.N. troops would deploy--by force, if necessary, with U.S. and NATO backing.

If the United States fails to gain U.N. support, we should act without it.... will insist that, without the consent of the United Nations or a relevant regional body, we would be breaking international law. Perhaps, but the Security Council recently codified a new international norm prescribing "the responsibility to protect." It commits U.N. members to decisive action, including enforcement, when peaceful measures fail to halt genocide or crimes against humanity. This genocide has lasted three long years. Peaceful measures have failed. The Sudanese government is poised to launch a second round. The real question is this: Will we use force to save Africans in Darfur as we did to save Europeans in Kosovo?"

[Leo The Cleo]

6. She'll be great

This is a woman with a great resume and great mind. Obama could have chosen a better representative for the United States.

[BeyondGeography]

7. Who's the perfect vessel for the beautiful minds of the left, anyway?

Kucinich? Nader? Instead of carping, maybe they can put forth their version of an alternative government one day, and that would include real people, starting with a real presidential candidate. Or maybe they don't have an alternative that won't be laughed out of the room, so they play the concern troll game instead.

Waste.of.time.

[Occam Bandage]

8. K&R to counter lies.

[slipslidingaway]

9. Can you provide links that support the title of your OP? Statements

made prior to the invasion...thanks.

[mzmolly]

12. I think it's incumbent upon those who claim she supported the war, to do so

first.

:shrug:

I've not seen one quote saying she supported a unilateral, preemptive invasion of Iraq.

[slipslidingaway]

16. See reply #5 or link below for entire quotes

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_mesg&forum=132&topic_id=7947534&mesg_id=7948341


"I think the United States government has been clear since the first Bush administration about the threat that Iraq and Saddam Hussein poses. The United States policy has been regime change for many, many years, going well back into the Clinton administration. So it's a question of timing and tactics. ... We do not necessarily need a further Council resolution before we can enforce this and previous resolutions."


Where are the links to her statements opposing the invasion as claimed in the OP?

"Susan Rice opposed the war"

[mzmolly]

17. Sounds like she questioned the timing and tactics

to me?

Encouraging regime change in the Clinton administration meant that we'd support an uprising, it did not mean that we'd invade Iraq.

[slipslidingaway]

31. Exactly, she opposed the timing. n/t

[mzmolly]

34. The timing as in ~ Hussein is not an immediate threat.

:hi:

[slipslidingaway]

37. Yes, but Iraq was still a major threat with all the WMD's, Powell

laid it all out for us.

:hi:

[mzmolly]

39. Again, a "contained" threat of little immediate

concern according to Susan Rice. The issue was not WMD's, the issue according to Bush/Powell was "Nuklular" weapons.

[mzmolly]

19. I think all the links regarding Rice's support for the invasion, or not ...

are in the same place. ;)

Pardon the duplicate reply.

[sandnsea]

15. It is well known, but here

She's a Brookings Institute Fellow for chrissake.

"With respect to Iraq we face a crisis, though not a threat, that is largely of our own
making. Let me be clear, there is no doubt that Saddam Hussein and his possession of weapons
of mass destruction (WMD) pose a grave threat to the security of the region, to the U.S. and the
larger international community. His decade-long defiance of the UN itself arguably justifies
military action. However, there is no reason to be certain that Saddam Hussein cannot continue
to be contained and deterred from using WMD against his external adversaries, as he has been
for the last ten years."

"Does Iraq pose a more imminent and urgent threat to the U.S. than Al Qaeda? I think
not. If not, then can the U.S. fight two simultaneous wars effectively? Again, I think not.
Having served eight years at senior levels in the White House and State Department, I have seen
first hand many times how single issues can consume, if not overwhelm, the attention of top
policymakers for months at a time. Examples during my tenure included the Middle East peace
process, Bosnia, Kosovo and North Korea. And these were not even full-scale wars. I am highly
skeptical of Administration claims that they can walk and chew gum with two hot wars
underway. One, if not both, will suffer. And if we are in a hot war in Iraq, it will be the colder
war on terror that will take a back seat."

http://www.brookings.edu/views/speeches/rice20021119.pdf

[mzmolly]

22. There it is

end of discussion IMHO. :hi: Perhaps you should send the link to "accuracy.org" ;)

[slipslidingaway]

24. Reading your link, it appears that she opposed a rush to war...

but did not question the intelligence on WMD's or the idea that we should change the regime at some point in the future...just a matter of timing and tactics.

:shrug:


"...First, we need to be absolutely clear and consistent in setting our priorities. Above all,
we need to make the war on terrorism, not Iraq, “Job One” for the foreseeable future.


...Third, we are on the verge of war with Iraq. This war could see Saddam Hussein unleash
weapons of mass destruction on U.S. forces or on Israel, sparking a wider regional conflict. It
could also prompt Saddam Hussein to forge alliances of desperation or convenience with his
erstwhile adversaries like Al-Qaeda, which to date have not substantially materialized...


Despite the return of weapons inspectors, I believe there is a high probability that we will
end up at war – due to Saddam’s deception, American impatience, or both. The real question is
when and how this war will be conducted – sooner and with minimal international support, or
later and possibly with a larger, more committed coalition of international partners. How and
when this war is waged matters greatly to our national security, in that it will influence reactions
in the Arab world, give greater or lesser impetus to would-be terrorists, and impact the cost and
duration of our post-conflict military and financial commitments in Iraq...

...Moreover, if we proceed without UN support (which we will not have at the outset if we
declare foul), we will fuel popular discontent on the “Arab street” and increase instability in
important countries like Jordan. We will also jeopardize the willingness and ability of key states
in the Gulf region to allow us to use their bases, which are critical to any U.S. operation in Iraq.
In addition, we will lose most of our key international partners whose resources we need, if not
their troops, to share the cost of post-conflict reconstruction in Iraq. We will also squander the
fragile international good will we engendered by agreeing to act, in the first instance, under UN
auspices.

I acknowledge there are significant risks to proceeding with caution, but I believe they
are outweighed by the risks of launching a precipitous strike against Iraq without broad
international support and at least regional acquiescence. We should maintain the credible threat
of the use of force against Iraq. Yet, we ought to let good judgment drive the timetable for any
eventual U.S. military action, not the impatience of the civilian hawks in the Pentagon or the
false fear that we must act swiftly because U.S. credibility is on the line. If military action is
deferred even to next year or beyond, it will not necessarily be a bad thing, if the U.S. can then
proceed with sufficient support in the region and UN. Nor would it be bad if we used the
intervening time to make further progress on the war on terror and homeland security.
Moreover, we might then find ourselves fighting against an at least partially disarmed Iraq, if
weapons inspectors are able to obtain even half a loaf of cooperation..."

[sandnsea]

25. Look. She. Opposed. The. War.

Whether she was right or wrong about the WMD isn't the accusation. The accusation is that she supported the invasion. She Didn't. You're Wrong. The End.

[slipslidingaway]

28. At that time ! ....

If military action is deferred even to next year or beyond, it will not necessarily be a bad thing, if the U.S. can then proceed with sufficient support in the region and UN.

It's not that military action against Iraq is wrong, just a matter of the timing.

And not questioning the intelligence presented matters to me and also to the millions who have been affected.

[sandnsea]

29. And if war had been delayed

the inspectors would have continued their work and we would have discovered there were no WMDs, beyond all doubt. She opposed the invasion for a variety of reasons and can speak to a variety of possibilities in foreign policy.

The people who insist that they "knew" there were no WMD are just as wrong as those who insist they "knew" that there were. Nobody "knew" anything for certain. Susan Rice did know that no matter what the situation was in Iraq, it didn't rise to the level of an immediate threat that required unilateral war. She opposed it.

[slipslidingaway]

32. Yes that would have been the ideal situation or we could have

heard that Saddam was not allowing inspectors into certain sites, hiding weapons etc.

As far as knowing anything for certain that is a bit difficult, but there certainly were enough people who challenged the information and more voices along those lines would have only helped to counter those pushing for an immediate invasion.

I do applaud her for saying that we should not rush into Iraq at that time and it would be better to wait.

[sandnsea]

33. No. She. Opposed. The. War.

She did not support the war at some other time unless circumstances changed that would indicate Saddam was no longer contained, WMD were more dangerous, or the international community agreed it was necessary. She did not support the war. At All.

[slipslidingaway]

35. At that time, her words towards the end of the speech...

she left quite a bit of room for a possible invasion in the future, so I do not see her opposition to the idea of war being as strong as you do. As I said earlier I do applaud her not wanting to rush into Iraq.

Then again if a person does not challenge one of the main reasons for an invasion, the WMD's, it is difficult to dismiss the entire idea of fighting a war in the future.


"...I acknowledge there are significant risks to proceeding with caution, but I believe they
are outweighed by the risks of launching a precipitous strike against Iraq without broad
international support and at least regional acquiescence. We should maintain the credible threat
of the use of force against Iraq. Yet, we ought to let good judgment drive the timetable for any
eventual U.S. military action, not the impatience of the civilian hawks in the Pentagon or the
false fear that we must act swiftly because U.S. credibility is on the line. If military action is
deferred even to next year or beyond, it will not necessarily be a bad thing, if the U.S. can then
proceed with sufficient support in the region and UN. Nor would it be bad if we used the
intervening time to make further progress on the war on terror and homeland security.
Moreover, we might then find ourselves fighting against an at least partially disarmed Iraq, if
weapons inspectors are able to obtain even half a loaf of cooperation...


"...Assistant secretary of state in the Clinton administration, Rice has been a prominent foreign policy spokesperson for the Obama campaign. Here are some of her claims shortly before the invasion of Iraq: "I think he has proved that Iraq has these weapons and is hiding them, and I don't think many informed people doubted that." (NPR, Feb. 6, 2003)

"We need to be ready for the possibility that the attack against the U.S. could come in some form against the homeland, not necessarily on the battlefield against our forces. And I think there, too, is an area where the American people need to be better prepared by our leadership. ... It's clear that Iraq poses a major threat. It's clear that its weapons of mass destruction need to be dealt with forcefully, and that's the path we're on. I think the question becomes whether we can keep the diplomatic balls in the air and not drop any, even as we move forward, as we must, on the military side." (NPR, Dec. 20, 2002)

"I think the United States government has been clear since the first Bush administration about the threat that Iraq and Saddam Hussein poses. The United States policy has been regime change for many, many years, going well back into the Clinton administration. So it's a question of timing and tactics. ... We do not necessarily need a further Council resolution before we can enforce this and previous resolutions. (NPR, Nov. 11, 2002)"

[sandnsea]

36. Of course she left the possibility open

A diplomat ALWAYS leaves all possibilities open. They also speak to the reality of the situation and the situation at that time was the likelihood that there would be a war. You suggest she pretend it wasn't likely?

[slipslidingaway]

38. Not much sense going round and round, there are enough links

posted and people can draw their own conclusions.

[Cali_Democrat]

10. Rec'd

Susan Rice is a wonderful choice

Thank you Obama :D

[mzmolly]

11. Context...

always an important consideration. ;) Thanks. :hi:

K and R

[slipslidingaway]

13. And this author fails to to copy the complete paragraph...

http://www.brookings.edu/interviews/2003/0414iraq_rice.aspx

April 14, 2003 —

Tavis Smiley, host: On today's program:...when can the US-led coalition declare victory in Iraq, and what is victory, for that matter? The death of Saddam Hussein, the discovery of weapons of mass destruction and their dismantlement? These are just some of the questions, of course, that are getting harder and harder to find answers to. Joining us now to help answer some of these questions are Susan Rice, a senior fellow of foreign policy at The Brookings Institution and a former assistant secretary of State in the Clinton administration and special assistant to the president. She joins us via phone from Washington. And via phone from Virginia, Loren Thompson, CEO of the Lexington Institute, a public policy think tank. Loren and Susan, glad to talk to you, as always...


Ms. Rice: Well, I think...to a large extent, that we have seen immediate military victory, but we have a long, long road ahead of us. I think that as the administration itself has said that we must find or capture, kill or otherwise account for Saddam Hussein and his closest supporters, we also critically have to come to terms with this issue of weapons of mass destruction. We have every reason to believe that they're there; at least according to our intelligence community. And I don't doubt that. But we sure haven't found them, and that is an issue of great urgency.

And it also calls into question the notion or rationale for war. 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....


listen to complete audio transcript (click on title Iraq Update for audio)

[mzmolly]

14. I don't see where this indicated she supported

the invasion? She appeared to take a position on what to do now that we're in Iraq?

Edited for grammar.

[slipslidingaway]

18. Link ... on regime change, it is just a matter of timing and tactics...

"I think the United States government has been clear since the first Bush administration about the threat that Iraq and Saddam Hussein poses. The United States policy has been regime change for many, many years, going well back into the Clinton administration. So it's a question of timing and tactics. ... We do not necessarily need a further Council resolution before we can enforce this and previous resolutions. (NPR, Nov. 11, 2002)"

http://accuracy.org/newsrelease.php?articleId=1737

[mzmolly]

21. As I indicated in my earlier post

she took issue with the timing and tactics. Clearly she did not urge Clinton to invade Iraq, so I surmise from her remarks that she was opposed to a preemptive/unilateral invasion. She indicated that we could have invaded previously and did not, that going to the UN was nothing but a show. (This is how it appears to me.)

Also I find that link a bit biased:

Director of the Backbone Campaign, Moyer said today: "We've been working to highlight progressive leaders who have bold and visionary ideas for transforming this country and its foreign policy. Seeing this group of advisers, I think people who anticipate real change should feel betrayed. They're being sold this package of 'change' and 'innovation' and what they're getting is a warmed-over Clinton cabinet that does nothing to address fundamental problems haunting U.S. foreign policy, and will do nothing to reform U.S. grand strategy or redirect funds from empire building to building true security. We deserve better, and if Obama has any backbone at all, he'll go back to the drawing board in his selection of advisers and potential cabinet members."

[Uzybone]

26. K&R : She was against the war

believing that Saddam had WMDs did not mean you supported the war. I admit, I did think Saddam had chemical and bio weapons, I just never believed they were a threat to us.

[Tatiana]

30. Thank you for this post. It's gotten a little crazy around here of late.

Susan Rice will do an outstanding job and she'll fit in perfectly at the UN.

I wish folks would look at the complete profile of Obama's pics and not just cherry pick the few things they don't like.