Rice Chance for Secretary of State Fades

by John M. Curtis
(310) 204-8700

Copyright Nov. 24, 2012
All Rights Reserved.                                         

        Caught flatfooted giving the press the wrong information on the Sept. 11 Benghazi terrorist attack that killed Amb. Chris Stevens and three other Americans, 48-year-old U.N. Amb. Susan Rice faces stiff headwinds in the U.S. Senate should President Barack Obama pick her to replace Hillary Rodham Clinton as Secretary of State.  When the U.S. consulate was attacked Sept. 11, Rice appeared on Sunday morning TV talk shows blaming the attack on rioting from a U.S.-made video defaming the Prophet Mohammed.  Rice insisted—along with the White House—that she used the best initial intelligence reports.  Instead of emphasizing the tentative nature of such reports, she fended off suggestions that an al-Qaeda-like terrorist attack probably killed Stevens and three other Americans.  Republicans speculated that Rice and the White House tried to cover up the al-Qaeda attack.

            Sen. John McCain (R-Ariz.) and Sen. Lindsay Graham (R-S.C.) have been stirring the political pot suggesting that the administration covered up the real facts to protect Obama's fragile lead in the polls.  Neither McCain nor Graham admit that it took former President George W. Bush nearly two weeks to identify Osama bin Laden as the culprit behind Sept. 11.  Regardless of what Rice said or didn't say Sept. 11, she's not well liked by her diplomatic colleagues at the U.N.  Some unnamed colleagues called her "undiplomatic," sometimes "rather rude," prone toward expletives like "this is crap, "let's kill this" or "this is bullshit."  "She's got a sort of cowboy-ish attitude," said one unnamed Western diplomat.  "She has a tendency to treat other countries as mere [U.S.] subsidiaries," actually winning Rice some points with Republicans, not inclined to placate U.N. officials.

            Rice broke her silence Nov. 21, defending herself against GOP attacks that she deliberately misled the American public on Benghazi.  "I relied solely and squarely on the information provided to me by the intelligence community," Rice told the press at the United Nations.  "I made clear that the information provided to me was preliminary and that our investigations would give us the definitive answers," insisting she made no attempt to deceive anyone.  What the press expected was Rice to qualify her answers as speculative, not disputing press accounts that al-Qaeda most likely attacked the U.S. Benghazi consulate.  "She's not easy," said David Rothkopf, the top manager and editor-at-large for "Foreign Affairs" magazine, expressing reservations about her possible pick to replace Hillary.  While admitting it's Obama's call, Rothkopf noted Rice's abrasiveness.

              Russian U.N. Amb. Vitaly Churkin had some harsh words for Rice after she criticized Russian attempts to get a U.N. investigation into civilian deaths in Libya.  "Really this Stanford dictionary of expletives must be replaced by something more Victorian, because certainly this is not the language in which we intend to discuss matters with our partners in the Security Council," put off by Rice's prickly remarks.  "It's not easy being attacked publicly by people who have their facts wrong day after day," said an anonymous U.S. official.  Rice's abrasive style has nothing to do with how she behaved after the Benghazi attack.  McCain and Graham may have picked up some attitude problems that have been mirrored by other diplomats.  To best represent U.S. foreign policy, Rice has to be respected and well-liked by the diplomatic community, especially on the U.S. Security Council.

            What made former Secretary of State Henry Kissinger so effective was the admiration of his colleagues.  Turning off too many U.N. diplomats puts Rice behind the eight-ball when it comes to selling U.S. foreign policy.  Former Clinton and Bush U.S. National Security czar Richard Clarke noted, "the president has a great record in fighting al-Qaeda, so [Republicans] try to find a way of attacking his record on al-Qaeda."   Rice worked under Clarke during the first four years of the Clinton White House [1992-96].  When Rice took office in 2009, she spoke disparagingly about her predecessors in the Bush administration.  "We have paid the price of stiff-arming the U.N. and spurning our international partners," said Rice in 2009, signaling a new sheriff was in town.  Rice showed strong leadership getting backing of foreign governments for tough U.N. sanctions against Tehran's nuclear program.

            When Barack finally gets down to choosing a Secretary of State, he should carefully pick his battles.  Given the intense negotiations now underway on the so-called "fiscal cliff," Obama can't afford to go to the mat for Rice.  Whatever her academic qualifications, her lack of diplomatic instincts weighs against a promotion to secretary of state, as Graham points out.  When she gave her spiel on national TV about Benghazi, Rice should have made it clear that al-Qaeda-like terrorism was not ruled out.  Republicans, like McCain and Graham, wanted Rice to sound more tentative about what happened to the U.S. consulate in Benghazi.  Whatever happened with Benghazi, Rice has some real attitude problems that could compromise her role as America's chief diplomatic.  More than academic training, diplomats must be well-liked and respected to sell U.S. foreign policy.

 John M. Curtis writes politically neutral commentary analyzing spin in national and global news.  He's editor of OnlineColumnist.com.and author of Dodging the Bullet and Operation Charisma.