Wrong-headed Rice

Peter Collier’s description (Political Woman) of the tenure of American Ambassador to the UN Jeane Kirkpatrick:

No longer would countries that valued placid relations with the United States outside the organization be allowed to attack it without response inside UN chambers. It courtesy calls on ambassadors from Third World countries that continued to count on foreign aid even as they lined up against the U.S. on every issue inside the organization, she made it clear that notice was now being taken of their behavior, reinforcing this idea with the slogan: ‘We take the UN very seriously. We notice, we care, we remember. ‘

The contrast between Reagan appointee Jeane Kirkpatrick and Obama appointee Susan Rice could not be more stark. Kirkpatrick was outspoken in her criticism of UN members who voted against US interests even as they collected millions in American foreign aid.

Susan Rice, on the other hand, shares the mythical Obama universe in which the UN, to cite Rice’s April 7, 2011 testimony before Congress, “is important to American security.”  Rice argued that America should “meet our financial obligations to the U.N” because doing so  “would make Americans safer.”

Such claims would certainly be news to Kirkpatrick and anyone who has paid attention to the voting record of the majority of member nations sans Rice’s rose colored glasses.

Rice, whose resume’ includes having served as foreign policy advisor to Michael Dukakis in 1988, understudy to Marilyn Albright in various capacities during the Clinton years, and foreign-policy advisor to Democrat candidate John Kerry in 2004, has a record of rendering wrong-headed foreign policy advice.

She helped persuade Clinton to turn down Sudan’s offer to turn over Osama bin Laden because Sudan’s poor human-rights record precluded having any dealings with that nation. That, of course, allowed Bin Laden to move operations to Afghanistan and plan the 9/11 attacks.

According to Ed Lasky at The American Thinker: “One of the major steps Kerry suggested for dealing with the Middle East was to appoint James Baker and Jimmy Carter as negotiators. When furor erupted at the prospect of two of the most ardent foes of Israel being suggested to basically ride ‘roughshod’ over Israel, Kerry backtracked and blamed his staff for the idea. His staff was Susan Rice.”

Rice’s antipathy to Israel is evident. Having cast the lone vote against a resolution declaring Israeli settlement activity to be illegal, Rice undermined US support by saying that her vote against the resolution should not be misunderstood as U.S. support for Israeli settlement activity.

“On the contrary, we reject in the strongest possible terms the legitimacy of continued settlement activity,” Rice told the Security Council after the vote. “For more than four decades, [Israeli settlement activity] has undermined security … corroded hopes for peace and security … it violates international commitments and threatens prospects for peace. “But,” Rice said, “this resolution risks hardening the positions of both sides.”

In a 2005 paper published in McGill International Review, and co-authored by Rice and Corinne Graff, they put forth the thesis that poverty is the cause of  terrorism.  The authors recommend a redistribution of wealth from rich to poor nations to stem its spread. Apparently Islamism’s hatred and violence toward those who not share fealty to Allah is not significant.

Rice’s continued insistence that the attack on the Consulate in Libya and the murder of Chris Stevens and three other Americans “was a “spontaneous demonstration” motivated by an amateurish 14-minute Internet video is ridiculous and became more so after the statement of Libyan President Mohammed el-Megarif.

In an NPR interview Megarif said that over the past few months, foreigners took advantage of the security vacuum and flowed into the country from Mali and Algeria.

Asked if this attack was over an anti-Muslim film that sparked violent protests across the Muslim world. He shook his head. ““The idea that this criminal and cowardly act was a spontaneous protest that just spun out of control is completely unfounded and preposterous.”

The real question, however, is not who is responsible, but why, knowing that the anniversary of 9/11 increased the risk of terrorist attack, the Obama State Department did not fortify the consulate?