Select quotes from a liberal source, but read the whole thing,
“But the Libya debacle aside, Rice was under increasing scrutiny over her record of militarism, including her support for the invasion of Iraq, her backing of authoritarian African leaders and her description of her post as ambassador to the UN as being intended to provide "unwavering support for Israel".
Rice served in Bill Clinton's administration as a national security adviser and an assistant secretary of state for Africa. She was out of office by the time of 9/11 and the invasions of Afghanistan and Iraq. But she backed the Bush administration's claims that Saddam Hussein had weapons of mass destruction, the false pretext for the invasion.
"It's clear that Iraq poses a major threat. It's clear that its weapons of mass destruction need to be dealt with forcefully, and that's the path we're on. I think the question becomes whether we can keep the diplomatic balls in the air and not drop any, even as we move forward, as we must, on the military side," she told National Public Radio in December 2002.
In other NPR interviews, Rice supported the notion of "regime change" in Iraq, saying it did not require additional UN security council resolutions and reiterated her view that the case was proved that "Iraq has these weapons and is hiding them".
After Rice was appointed as Obama's ambassador to the UN, she strongly backed military intervention in Libya; she has also pressed for American intervention in Syria. Rice has also said that "there is no daylight" between the US and Israel over Iran's nuclear programme. Her supporters say that merely reflects the White House position.”
From a conservative source,
“And, of course, as U.N. ambassador, Rice was a leading force behind the U.S. intervention in Libya, which the administration justified through a series of arguments that bore little scrutiny then and have aged poorly. Contrary to the administration’s claims, there was little indication of impending mass slaughter in Benghazi in early 2011. White House claims that military intervention would help make Libya a liberal country offend what we know about the sources of liberalism and seem even more dubious given conditions there today. Events in Syria and elsewhere have made a mockery of Rice and the administration’s argument that bombing Libya would allow democratic revolutions in nearby countries to proceed without repression.
Because Congress had little interest in debating or authorizing the war and the administration did not ask for permission (except from the United Nations), these arguments avoided scrutiny, especially once Muammar Qadhafifell, which seemed to vindicate the endeavor. Had Congress devoted the attention it is now giving Benghazi to the war itself, it might at least have improved the conduct of the war and its aftermath. Congress’s inaction makes it at least as culpable for what happened in Libya as Rice.
To be fair, Rice’s opinions on all these matters are little different from most Democratic foreign-policy elites, including most of the other people advising Obama about wars. Their Republican counterparts differ only in having less use for multilateralism and being somewhat more belligerent. A small irony here is that, substantively, McCain and Rice differ little on these wars, probably less than he and Sen. John Kerry, who is also a rumored to be in the running for secretary of state. Rice is just a notably successful exemplar of a foreign policy community where supporting war is generally better for one’s career than opposing it.”
Big equivalency, in essence another NeoCon, but of course you don’t see it… Not awesome.
