Susan Rice gives useless advice on North Korea

Susan Rice, the national security adviser for Obama from 2013 to 2017,  in an article for the New York Times on August 10, 2017, said in the first sentence:

North Korea's substantial nuclear arsenal and improving intercontinental ballistic missile capacity pose a growing threat to America's security[.]

Rice should have stopped at the first sentence, because it was all downhill from there, with the usual Obama-Clinton-Rice pabulum and attacks on President Trump.

Rice is famous for appearing on five TV shows on September 16, 2012, in her position as U.N. ambassador, to lie for Obama that the Benghazi attack was not premeditated, but was a spontaneous reaction to a film.  She said:

Our current best assessment, based on the information that we have at present, is that, in fact, what this began as, it was a spontaneous – not a premeditated – response to what had transpired in Cairo.  In Cairo, as you know, a few hours earlier, there was a violent protest that was undertaken in reaction to this very offensive video that was disseminated[.]

Does Rice still believe that the Benghazi attack was caused by a video? Did she ever believe it?

Rice is also famous for using her position as national security adviser to "unmask" the identities of Trump associates who had contacts with foreigners.  She does not deny that she did it, but she suggested that her race and gender were the cause of the criticism of her unmasking.

A rational person would believe that Rice, given her record of lying and using her position to unmask Trump associates, would just go away and be quiet.

But she is back on the N.Y. Times (where else?), lecturing Trump on how to handle North Korea.  And the N.Y. Times actually published this drivel.  This is the same Rice who with Obama and Kerry gave Iran 150 billion dollars and did nothing about North Korea during Obama's eight years.

Rice wrote:

We have long lived with successive Kims' belligerent and colorful rhetoric – as ambassador to the United Nations in the Obama administration, I came to expect it whenever we passed resolutions. What is unprecedented and especially dangerous this time is the reaction of President Trump.

And:

[T]o avoid blundering into a costly war, the United States needs to immediately halt the reckless rhetoric.

And:

Finally, we must begin a dialogue with China about additional efforts and contingencies on the peninsula, and revive diplomacy to test potential negotiated agreements that could verifiably limit or eliminate North Korea's arsenal.

Rice believes that Kim's threats are "colorful," but she is more concerned about Trump's reaction.  Rice believes that Trump's rhetoric is the problem, not North Korea's nuclear weapons.  This is the same nonsense spewed by McCain, Schumer, Feinstein, and other Democrats.

Rice advises that "we must begin a dialogue with China[.]"  Why didn't Obama begin this dialogue?  Why didn't Rice have a dialogue with China?  She was too busy playing politics to unmask Trump's associates, and Obama was too busy campaigning for Hillary.

Rice concluded with the following:

History shows that we can, if we must, tolerate nuclear weapons in North Korea — the same way we tolerated the far greater threat of thousands of Soviet nuclear weapons during the Cold War.

Rice does not understand the history of the Soviet Union and United States during the Cold War, where we had a policy of massive retaliation, and Russian leaders had been through a devastating war with Germany and did not want another devastating war with the United States.  It would take book to describe the Cold War and the differences between the Soviet Union and North Korea.  One big difference is that we did not give the Soviets four billion dollars, as we gave the Norks, and did not give the Soviets 150 billion, as we gave Iran.  But all that matters to Rice is that the Soviets had nuclear weapons, and the Norks have nuclear weapons, so what's the big deal?  We can assume that Rice, speaking for Obama, has the same view about Iran.  If the Soviets had nuclear weapons, then why not Iran?

Rice's article sums up the Clinton-Obama view of a nuclear Iran and nuclear North Korea: don't use any words that would upset the Iranians and Norks, and live with it.

Rice, without knowing it, has just told us why Obama did nothing about the Norks.

Susan Rice, the national security adviser for Obama from 2013 to 2017,  in an article for the New York Times on August 10, 2017, said in the first sentence:

North Korea's substantial nuclear arsenal and improving intercontinental ballistic missile capacity pose a growing threat to America's security[.]

Rice should have stopped at the first sentence, because it was all downhill from there, with the usual Obama-Clinton-Rice pabulum and attacks on President Trump.

Rice is famous for appearing on five TV shows on September 16, 2012, in her position as U.N. ambassador, to lie for Obama that the Benghazi attack was not premeditated, but was a spontaneous reaction to a film.  She said:

Our current best assessment, based on the information that we have at present, is that, in fact, what this began as, it was a spontaneous – not a premeditated – response to what had transpired in Cairo.  In Cairo, as you know, a few hours earlier, there was a violent protest that was undertaken in reaction to this very offensive video that was disseminated[.]

Does Rice still believe that the Benghazi attack was caused by a video? Did she ever believe it?

Rice is also famous for using her position as national security adviser to "unmask" the identities of Trump associates who had contacts with foreigners.  She does not deny that she did it, but she suggested that her race and gender were the cause of the criticism of her unmasking.

A rational person would believe that Rice, given her record of lying and using her position to unmask Trump associates, would just go away and be quiet.

But she is back on the N.Y. Times (where else?), lecturing Trump on how to handle North Korea.  And the N.Y. Times actually published this drivel.  This is the same Rice who with Obama and Kerry gave Iran 150 billion dollars and did nothing about North Korea during Obama's eight years.

Rice wrote:

We have long lived with successive Kims' belligerent and colorful rhetoric – as ambassador to the United Nations in the Obama administration, I came to expect it whenever we passed resolutions. What is unprecedented and especially dangerous this time is the reaction of President Trump.

And:

[T]o avoid blundering into a costly war, the United States needs to immediately halt the reckless rhetoric.

And:

Finally, we must begin a dialogue with China about additional efforts and contingencies on the peninsula, and revive diplomacy to test potential negotiated agreements that could verifiably limit or eliminate North Korea's arsenal.

Rice believes that Kim's threats are "colorful," but she is more concerned about Trump's reaction.  Rice believes that Trump's rhetoric is the problem, not North Korea's nuclear weapons.  This is the same nonsense spewed by McCain, Schumer, Feinstein, and other Democrats.

Rice advises that "we must begin a dialogue with China[.]"  Why didn't Obama begin this dialogue?  Why didn't Rice have a dialogue with China?  She was too busy playing politics to unmask Trump's associates, and Obama was too busy campaigning for Hillary.

Rice concluded with the following:

History shows that we can, if we must, tolerate nuclear weapons in North Korea — the same way we tolerated the far greater threat of thousands of Soviet nuclear weapons during the Cold War.

Rice does not understand the history of the Soviet Union and United States during the Cold War, where we had a policy of massive retaliation, and Russian leaders had been through a devastating war with Germany and did not want another devastating war with the United States.  It would take book to describe the Cold War and the differences between the Soviet Union and North Korea.  One big difference is that we did not give the Soviets four billion dollars, as we gave the Norks, and did not give the Soviets 150 billion, as we gave Iran.  But all that matters to Rice is that the Soviets had nuclear weapons, and the Norks have nuclear weapons, so what's the big deal?  We can assume that Rice, speaking for Obama, has the same view about Iran.  If the Soviets had nuclear weapons, then why not Iran?

Rice's article sums up the Clinton-Obama view of a nuclear Iran and nuclear North Korea: don't use any words that would upset the Iranians and Norks, and live with it.

Rice, without knowing it, has just told us why Obama did nothing about the Norks.