Talk:Susan Rice

Brookings paragraph
There has been some discussion of the following paragraph:

"Michael E. O'Hanlon and Ivo Daalder, two Brookings colleagues of Rice at the time, said that Rice consistently opposed the 2003 invasion of Iraq in the run-up to the war. In 2012, columnist Peter Beinart reviewed a series of NPR interviews with Rice in late 2002 and early 2003 and concluded that Rice's position on war was equivocal; at some points, she expressed skepticism about U.S. military action, while at other points taking a more hawkish view. Beinart wrote that two of Rice's then-Brookings colleagues at the time were both unsure about her position on the war at the time. For example, in November 2002, Rice said, "many people who think that we haven't finished the war against al Qaeda and our ability to do these simultaneously is in doubt." In a December 2002 NPR interview, Rice said, "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. ... The George W. Bush administration frankly owes the American public a much fuller and more honest assessment of what the costs will be of the actual conflict, as well as the aftermath, the post-conflict reconstruction. And the costs are going to be huge." Rice endorsed the long-standing U.S. policy toward Iraq of regime change, but not necessarily through military means; regarding Rice's allusion to military action, O'Hanlon notes that "For the Clinton administration, they were typically airstrikes or cruise missile strikes of limited duration and effect, not invasions." In a February 2003 NPR interview, Rice said she she believed Secretary of State Colin Powell "has proved that Iraq has these weapons and is hiding them, and I don't think many informed people doubted that," but also stated, "there are many who fear that going to war against Iraq may in fact in the short term make us less secure rather than more secure." In her memoir, Rice wrote, "From the start, I viewed that war of choice as a dangerous diversion from the main objective of defeating al-Qaida globally and in Afghanistan."   In April 2003, after the war began, Rice said, "To maximize our likelihood of success, the US is going to have to remain committed to and focused on reconstruction and rehabilitation of Iraq for many years to come." Rice said that in the wake of chaos in Iraqi cities in the aftermath of the invasion, the U.S. should act urgently "to fill the security void" and then "transition as quickly as possible these law and order responsibilities to other competent international actors and, of course, ultimately to legitimate Iraqi authorities as quickly as possible.""

I think the organization of this is OK. One IP editor broke up this text into two paragraphs to put the NPR interviews in the first paragraph and everything else in the second, on the idea that everything else is a "retrospective." I don't like that organization for a few reasons - first, I think topic sentences are necessary to summarize and establish the context up front, before delving into long quotations or specific statements, and second, O'Hanlon, Daalder, etc. are not really "retrospectives" because they are talking about Rice's view at the time.

By contrast, I think the length is less than ideal. Should we attempt to shorten this by shrinking the direct quotes and attempting to paraphrase more instead? I generally favor this, but (knowing that the devil is in the details on this sort of thing) I welcome others' views. Neutralitytalk 22:07, 4 August 2020 (UTC)


 * Why is there an entire section parsing whether or not this NPR interview indicates support for a war that Susan Rice had absolutely no involvement in? It's clear people keep adding sentences to make their opinion on the matter seem valid, which is extremely misleading. The Chicago Tribune article from July 2020 looked directly into this issue and put it to bed, she opposed the war. Propose reversion to the below:


 * Rice opposed the 2003 invasion of Iraq. She told National Public Radio in December 2002: "The administration frankly owes the American public a much fuller and more honest assessment of what the costs will be of the actual conflict, as well as the aftermath, the post-conflict reconstruction. And the costs are going to be huge."
 * Kpix44 (talk) 15:32, 10 August 2020 (UTC)
 * Not supporting the war isn't the same thing as opposing the war. The article does not say that she publicly opposed the war. 2601:482:8000:C470:B531:76E7:C82E:7E0F (talk) 17:36, 11 August 2020 (UTC)

Rice is a public figure. This paragraph should feature her contemporaneous public statements. Neutral point of view should be a balance of both her more supportive and more cautionary statements. Her private statements to colleagues are less relevant (and harder to verify). Least important of all are the conclusions drawn by columnists (Beinart or Chapman) who have the same statements that we are summarizing in the paragraph. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Uwhoff (talk • contribs) 20:00, 11 August 2020 (UTC)

Rice isn't currently a diplomat
and the rest of the sentence shows she was.

https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Susan_Rice&diff=971575200&oldid=971574019 soibangla (talk) 00:12, 7 August 2020 (UTC)
 * Not exactly understanding what you want changed. In the WP:LEDE, the reason for a topic's noteworthiness should be established. Rice is notable for being a diplomat, even if she isn't one right now. KidAd (talk) 00:20, 7 August 2020 (UTC)


 * Right, it's established at the end of the sentence that she was a diplomat, but to me a person's background should mention current position first. She works at American University now. soibangla (talk) 00:24, 7 August 2020 (UTC)
 * I still maintain that she is most known for her positions at State, but you could re-order the lede to say is an American academic, diplomat, Democratic policy advisor, and former public official. KidAd (talk) 00:56, 7 August 2020 (UTC)
 * I think diplomat is redundant to "the 27th United States ambassador to the United Nations from 2009 to 2013 and as the 24th United States national security advisor from 2013 to 2017" which is why I took it out a few minutes ago. soibangla (talk) 00:59, 7 August 2020 (UTC)