The Washington Post reaches for new lows today as their editorial staff tries to take up the fight for Susan Rice against the scores of Republican Representatives who signed a letter warning about appointing her as Hillary Clinton’s replacement as the Secretary of State.
After attempting to make the case for her with such pointless blather as she had nothing to do with the administration’s reaction to the terrorist attack on the Benghazi consulate, so why blame her? (Um, because she was on five Sunday morning news shows spreading the party line?) And “she’s nobody’s fool” because she’s a Rhodes Scholar. So was Bill Clinton and he was impeached for lying, so it’s not like studying at Oxford teaches them not to lie.
So, then comes the thinly veiled charge of racism;
Could it be, as members of the Congressional Black Caucus are charging, that the signatories of the letter are targeting Ms. Rice because she is an African American woman? The signatories deny that, and we can’t know their hearts. What we do know is that more than 80 of the signatories are white males, and nearly half are from states of the former Confederacy.
The Confederacy? Really? 147 years after the Democrat-inspired Confederacy expired? 150 years after the Emancipation Proclamation? Nice. That’s all you’ve got? Racial and geographic profiling? How unenlightened and predictable. Weak sauce. Loose shit.
On the other hand, Dana Milbank, a columnist at the Post, who it should also be revealed that he is a white male who comes from a state where anti-draft protests took place during the Civil War, lists several reasons why Rice is so unpopular in Washington, and none of them have to do with her race;
Back when she was an assistant secretary of state during the Clinton administration, she appalled colleagues by flipping her middle finger at Richard Holbrooke during a meeting with senior staff at the State Department, according to witnesses. Colleagues talk of shouting matches and insults.
Among those she has insulted is the woman she would replace at State. Rice was one of the first former Clinton administration officials to defect to Obama’s primary campaign against Hillary Clinton. Rice condemned Clinton’s Iraq and Iran positions, asking for an “explanation of how and why she got those critical judgments wrong.”
It was Rice’s own shoot-first tendency that caused her to be benched as a spokesman for the Obama campaign for a time in 2008. She unnerved European allies when she denounced as “counterproductive” and “self-defeating” the U.N. policy that Iran suspend its nuclear program before talks can begin. She criticized President George W. Bush and McCain because they “insisted” on it. But, as The Post’s Glenn Kessler pointed out at the time, European diplomats were rattled by such remarks because the precondition was their idea.
Milbanks continues in that vein. It stands in stark contrast to the Editorial Board’s cheap, tawdry and irrelevant charge of racism. Apparently, reasonable people can find plenty of reasons to oppose Rice’s appointment as Secretary of State without spending a moment talking about her race, well, unless you really can’t find any good reasons to appoint her.