Monday, November 30 , 2015, 6:22 am | Fair 39º

Susan Estrich: Susan Rice Not the Villain Republicans, Media Make Her Out to Be

By Susan Estrich |

I have known Susan Rice for decades. We worked together in the 1980s. I followed her career in the ‘90s. She served her country with intelligence and integrity during the Clinton administration and for the past four years as our country’s representative to the United Nations.

So why are Republicans making (very loud) noises about a bruising confirmation battle should President Barack Obama choose his trusted aide to serve as secretary of state?

I’ve seen two reasons.

First and most significantly: because of what she said on a television show. Not because of anything she did wrong at the United Nations. Not because she stood before the United Nations and claimed we had proof of weapons of mass destruction (we didn’t). Not because she presided over the 1983 massacre of 220 Marines that an investigation concluded might have resulted in fewer deaths had there been something more than barbed wire and guards carrying unloaded weapons at the post. That was President Ronald Reagan, re-elected a year later.

Rice went on a television show. She misspoke on a television show. She followed the talking points. If misspeaking on a Sunday television show were grounds for not serving in high office, if repeating talking points were a fatal offense, Washington would be empty tomorrow.

Besides, no one is contending that Rice was responsible for security in Libya, that Rice did the investigation, that this was a U.N. issue. If John McCain wanted to go after someone, the “logical” person would be the most popular politician in America: Hillary Clinton. But that would be political hara-kiri. So he picks on a woman who has yet to build the kind of constituency that made people like Colin Powell (WMDs) and Reagan untouchable.

The other rap on Rice, trumpeted in the media more than in the Senate, is that she is “difficult” — too tenacious, too harsh, picks fights.

Gee. I’ve never met a politician like that. I’ve never seen a powerful man who is rude, difficult, harsh and demanding. In my research, men who behave like that tend to be considered aggressive and commanding. Women are “difficult.” In my experience and research, every successful woman over the age of 40, especially those on the younger side like Rice, is considered “difficult.”

Has Rice made mistakes? Yes. Has she learned from these mistakes? Almost certainly. Do the worst of the incidents being bandied about now date from years ago? Yes. Were it not for Benghazi, would Republicans really be claiming that this was disqualifying?

Is this even an accurate description of the ambassador? Not based on my experience. Back in 2000, one of my very conservative colleagues made a mistake in an interview with Rice that could easily, and not unfairly, be denounced as racist. There were, at the time, two African-American women with the last name of “Rice” who were dealing with foreign policy issues. Susan Rice and Condi Rice do not look alike, work for the same party or have the same views, and are not otherwise easily confused. I introduced her to one of the Fox brass, and the two of us apologized profusely. She laughed it off, saying she was far more interested in substantive debate than playing the race card.

I would not call her difficult. I would call her classy, informed, intelligent and committed — precisely the sort of person we need in government.

A witch hunt over this fine woman would send the message loud and clear that the best and the brightest should look elsewhere to shine. Our loss.

— Bestselling author Susan Estrich is the Robert Kingsley Professor of Law and Political Science at the USC Law Center and was campaign manager for 1988 Democratic presidential nominee Michael Dukakis. Click here to contact her.

comments powered by Disqus

» on 12.03.12 @ 01:42 AM

How ironic that the two loudest Rice critics are also two Republicans with egg all over their faces regarding public statements about foreign intelligence. In the run up to invading Iraq , both Lindsey Graham and John McCain repeatedly crowed about Saddam Hussein and his arsenal of wmd’s.  It is no wonder that the Republicn party has become such a joke with prominent leaders such as these leading the parade.

» on 12.03.12 @ 03:25 PM

SusieQ, she lied. She knew the truth and lied. Now I agree she is a minor player in the scandal that has erupted over this incident, that Hilary Clinton is the responsible party and that Clinton did it so your man could be re-elected. The last time such a scandal occurred at this level a president resigned rather than face impeachment.

Does that mean the GOP should not go after Rice, eh, maybe, but maybe by grilling her in the hot seat long enough some of her supporters like you might want to consider pushing the heat to those responsible. Instead of trying to brush the whole affair under the rug maybe we turn the heat up and catch a couple of bigger fish.

» on 12.03.12 @ 06:04 PM

Estrich is over thinking this one.

Republicans in the Senate are reeling because of their Party of NO!‘s defeat in the national election.

They are looking for any issue they can use to try to blunt Obama’s momentum
coming out of his re-election race, to gain leverage on the Fiscal Cliff talks.

As they seem to have no plan of their own, it’s easier to try the old misdirection
play, where everyone starts pointing, and jumping up and down, yelling at Susan

The reality is that the Party of NO! had (or has) no strategy for Libya or for the
Arab Spring, and never did.

The reality is that if mis-speaking on some national tv news show were a crime,
then all the shills and touts for “Weapons of Mass Destruction” in Iraq would be
in federal prison now. But none of them are:

Rice, Cheney, Rumsfeld, Bolton, Powell, GW and his press flacks. Every one of

Notice that McCain, Graham, Collins, and all these aggrieved senators took no action against their own kind, even their lies led America into a total morass, which cost thousands of American lives (not to mention the Iraqis).

Nor did they have any big problem voting to promote Condi Rice to Secretary of State, as a reward for her dissembling and incompetence.

No, this has nothing to do with Susan Rice, tv talk shows, or the murder of U.S.
Ambassador Stevens, but a lot to do with D.C. power-politics and scapegoats.

» on 12.04.12 @ 12:18 PM

That is all we here from you is the “Party of No!” What was the party to say yes to Publius? Be specific, tell us all what the GOP should have caved to? Higher tax rates? More spending on borrowed money? Please list specifically what you believe the GOP should have said yes to, then be prepared to defend your position, if you have the guts.

Support Noozhawk Today

You are an important ally in our mission to deliver clear, objective, high-quality professional news reporting for Santa Barbara, Goleta and the rest of Santa Barbara County. Join the Hawks Club today to help keep Noozhawk soaring.

We offer four membership levels: $5 a month, $10 a month, $25 a month or $1 a week. Payments can be made through PayPal below, or click here for information on recurring credit-card payments.

Thank you for your vital support.


Daily Noozhawk

Subscribe to Noozhawk's A.M. Report, our free e-Bulletin sent out every day at 4:15 a.m. with Noozhawk's top stories, hand-picked by the editors.