Current U.N. Ambassador, and possible secretary of state nominee Susan Rice, has come under fire recently from Senate Republicans who vow to block her nomination if she were to receive Presidents Barack Obama’s nomination as secretary of state. This is largely because of Rice’s role in relaying incorrect information of the Benghazi attacks. But while the Obama administration’s faulty handling of information in the Benghazi attacks does deserve some scrutiny, it is not fair for Republicans to deny Rice’s nomination solely because of this reason. In doing so, Republicans would be denying a qualified and experienced diplomat who is clearly the best candidate for secretary of state.
It’s hard to dispute Rice’s experience in foreign affairs which began in the early 1990s under the Clinton administration. Beginning in 1993, Rice served as a member of the National Security Council, director for International Organizations and later became senior director for African Affairs in 1995. During this time Rice offered significant support to efforts by a multinational army which invaded Zaire and removed the corrupt dictator, Mobutu Sese Seko. Rice was later appointed to assistant secretary of state for African Affairs in 1997.
When Obama was elected to the presidency in 2008, he appointed Rice to her current position as U.N. ambassador. As an ambassador, Rice led the charge against former Libyan leader Muammar Gaddafi supporting a U.N. Security Council resolution to freeze Libyan government assets and military aid to the country. Working with Secretary of State Hillary Clinton, Rice overcame internal opposition and gained the Obama administrations’ support of a U.N. act to implement a no-fly policy over Libya and authorize other military force as needed. Ultimately, it was efforts like these which Rice championed that led to Gaddafi’s demise. Thus, it’s evident that Rice’s role in liberating Libya as well as her prior experience under the Clinton administration makes her a qualified candidate to fulfill the position of secretary of state.
But many Republicans including Sens. John McCain and Lindsey Graham argue that Rice’s involvement in the Benghazi incident make her unfit for the job. Specifically, Rice went on several talk shows and misinformed viewers, saying that what had transpired at the Bengahzai consulate was a spontaneous event and was in part a reaction to a controversial video. We now know that was not true and although Rice did relay faulty information, this error should be attributed to the State Department as a whole, not solely on Rice. I’ll admit that these inconsistencies in information do deserve some critique, but to say that Rice is not qualified to be secretary of state just because she passed along bad intelligence is completely ludicrous.
Coincidentally, former Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice passed along bad intelligence to the American public almost a decade earlier by claiming that Saddam Hussein did indeed have weapons of mass destruction. But when Condoleezza Rice came under fire when it was discovered that no weapons of this sort actually existed, Graham and McCain were quick to defend her with Graham even saying “to attack her personally is way over the line.” Even more ironically, like Condoleezza Rice, McCain and Graham themselves also made similar claims of weapons of mass destruction, meaning they themselves are guilty of passing along bad intelligence. Therefore, McCain and Graham’s allegations that Susan Rice is not qualified for the position of secretary of state simply because she reported incorrect information are not only unfair but extremely hypocritical.
Thus, I believe that Rice has proven herself to be a competent and effective leader in handling foreign affairs and should be granted approval by the Senate if in fact she is appointed to be the next secretary of state.
Please send all feedback to opinion@dailycardinal.com.
