This Susan Rice topic gets more messy by the day. The latest problem of this story is that she and her husband Ian Cameron own $300,000 to $600,000 of stock in TransCanada, the company wishing to build the Keystone pipeline. The problem is, TransCanada is seeking approval from the U.S. State Department in 2013 for the project. If Rice becomes Secretary of State, she is responsible for making that decision. Can you say "conflict of interest?"
Rice and her husband are heavily invested in Canadian energy companies, a third of their net worth is derived from these investments. If she gets the Secretary of State post, she's required to recuse herself from making the Keystone decision or sell her stock in compliance with the Office of Government Ethics. She has not indicated that she will do either.
Who's interests does Rice represent? America's or Canada's?
She reports earning approximately $20,000 in 2011 from the TransCanada stock. If the Keystone Pipeline deal goes through, how much money will Rice and Cameron earn on that deal? With $43 million invested in companies like "Chesapeake Energy, Royal Dutch Shell, Devon Energy, Iberdrola, ATP Oil & Gas Corp. and Rio Tinto Limited", how is it possible for her to make unbiased decisions in the office of Secretary of State?
Interestingly enough, Rice has also been very vocal about supporting U.S. involvement in every Middle Eastern conflict from the invasion of Iraq. As reported by NPR last Feb. 6, 2003, she stated, "I think he has proved that Iraq has these weapons and is hiding them, and I don't think many informed people doubted that", thereby giving UN support for airstrikes in Libya in 2011, using "non diplomatic language" (not surprising from a person who gave the middle finger to someone at a State Department meeting - see the video at the link above) regarding Russia and China and their handling of Syria in 2011. In addition, she is reportedly responsible for "deteriorating" U.S. relations with Iran and is said to be encouraging Israel and Iran to fight. Her morals and her interests are right in sync with Dick Cheney and George W. Bush.
Susan Rice is the epitome of unprofessionalism, nothing more than a common thug looking for a street fight; and there is no place for her on the world stage, let alone in the U.S. State Department.
Image Source: Bebeto Matthews / AP
recommend
Facebook
Twitter
bookmark 
print
Comments: 5
Sad that no conservatives ever gave such frank analysis of the much greater conflicts of interests that both Dick Cheney and Donald Rumsfeld maintained throughout their terms in office. Leave it to liberals to honestly examine those their own leaders appoint.
As a Canadian I do not support the pipeline. The people proposing it have too lax a safety record and the environmental impact of the tar sands extraction is already too great.
It is my opinion that wherever oil is found in quantities large enough to make it profitable to extract, then I believe that a refinery should be built nearby and the raw oil pumped directly to that location for processing.
There is no good reason to destroy the beauty of either country for the benefit of oil companies.
One of the reasons most of the Bush administration should be in jail.
The more I have researched Susan Rice, the more I have become convinced that she would not be a good choice for Secretary of State. In fact, I'm leaning towards the belief that she has no place whatsoever in U.S. Politics, as a government employee or as an appointed representative.
I have found that both Susan Rice and her husband have large monetary holding in six Canadian oil companies, which, when combined, total more than 3.5 million. Addiitionally, they have investments in 5 Canadian Banks, totaling over 11 million. They also hold 1.5 million investment in a Canadian railroad company, which transports mainly oil, coal, and gas.
Not to indicate that I am totally against an American making investments in a Canadian Company, for I am certainly not. But, in my opinion, for an American working for the U.S. government to do so exclusively, ignoring the present desperate need for investments in American companies, that is unconcsionable.
I, also, find it extremely distrubing that Ms. Rice has been a vocal supporter of the United State's involvement in foreign wars and conflicts, including the urging of the DOD to get involved in other regional conflicts during the 1990's in Africa and recently in the middle east "Arab Spring". Even more un-nerving is the fact that she was a staunch outspoken supporter of the Bush/Cheney, 2003 invasion of Iraq.
At first I thought that there were others poeple and/or politicians who should be considered for the post of Sec. of State, now I know that there are others who should be.