A New York Times article published Sunday touches a subject that seemed off-limits for progressive media until now: namely, that Ambassador Susan Rice bears at least some of the blame for certain Obama administration foreign policy snafus.
In particular, the NYT points to Rice's failing role in handling the crisis in the Democratic Republic of Congo. There, where "brutal killings" and "atrocities" are becoming more common place, human rights organizations and United Nations diplomats "say the administration has not put enough pressure on Rwanda's president Paul Kagame."
Kagame is allegedly providing support to M23, the rebel forces which are wreaking havoc at the present time.
The human rights groups and diplomats say that Rice has not only failed to pressure where she can but has actually tried to defend the Rwandan president from criticism.
Moreover, according to the NYT article, Rice has sought "to shield the Rwandan government, and Mr. Kagame in particular, from international censure," even as the U.N. has laid the blame for the ongoing violence squarely at Kagame's feet.
By defending Kagame, Rice has come across as a defender of the rebel forces as well.
In an attempt to salvage things, Rice was openly critical of M23 forces on Dec. 3. But her critics at the NYT and U.N. find no gain in this, because she is still defending the Rwandan president accused of providing support for the rebel forces to begin with.
The NYT has provided Senators who were already concerned with Rice's fumbling of Benghazi an alternate reason to reject her nomination.