Kathianne
11-26-2012, 05:45 PM
Interesting post from Powerline:
http://www.powerlineblog.com/archives/2012/11/of-rice-and-men-part-3.php
Of Rice and men, part 3 Reader Peter Rice is retired from the United States Foreign Service. He spent his first four years with the government as an Army officer, including one year of service in Vietnam. Mr. Rice writes to comment on Susan Rice and the Washington Post editorial “The GOP’s bizarre attack on Susan Rice.” (http://www.washingtonpost.com/opinions/the-gops-bizarre-attack-on-susan-rice/2012/11/22/22c54a10-340a-11e2-bfd5-e202b6d7b501_story.html) As Mr. Rice points out below, the adjective “bizarre” more aptly applies to the Post editorial:
This past Thursday the Washington Post published what I view as its most bizarre editorial ever (http://www.washingtonpost.com/opinions/the-gops-bizarre-attack-on-susan-rice/2012/11/22/22c54a10-340a-11e2-bfd5-e202b6d7b501_story.html). They condemned all who oppose Susan Rice as the next US secretary of state, implying that the opposition is largely racist white men from former Confederate States. In addition to the bizarre editorial, see the 5000-plus comments (http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/post-partisan/post/reactions-to-overriceaction/2012/11/23/deca9a4c-35ab-11e2-bb9b-288a310849ee_blog.html) that it generated.
Ninety-seven members of the House of Representatives sent a letter to President Obama (http://jeffduncan.house.gov/sites/jeffduncan.house.gov/files/Rep.%20Duncan%20Letter%20to%20President%20Obama%20 on%20Ambassador%20Susan%20Rice%20%2811.19.12%29.pd f) concerning the nomination of Susan Rice to be the next Secretary of State. Notably, two black Republican Representatives, Tim Scott and Allen West, as well as a number of female Republicans, also signed the letter. Apparently, the Washington Post considers these black and female Republicans to be typical white male racist bigots.
Over the years I have observed both Condoleezza Rice and Susan Rice. They have been of interest to me partly because they share the same surname as me and also because my beautiful wife of 42 years, Frances, is black. Frances is often asked if she is related to Condoleezza Rice. She is not because I am not. Frances is a lawyer and a retired Army lieutenant colonel, Judge Advocate General’s Corps. She is also active in the Republican Party, serving as chairman of the National Black Republican Association (http://www.nbra.info/). Hence I do not suffer from white guilt.
What makes the Washington Post’s editorial so peculiar? There is NO mention of two former black secretaries of state—Condoleezza Rice and Colin Powell—both appointed by Republican President George W. Bush. Nor is one word written about the multiple and reprehensible racist attacks by the Left against Powell and Condoleezza Rice, including overtly racist cartoons (http://cache.trustedpartner.com/docs/library/NationalBlackRepublicanAssociation2009/Democrat%20Racism%20Against%20Black%20Republicans3 .pdf), some published in the Washington Post.
I reviewed a substantial portion of the comments posted in response to the Washing Post’s editorial, about 90 percent of which supported the idea that it was racist to oppose Susan Rice. I detected only three comments that mentioned Powell and Condoleezza Rice. All three of those comments declared the two black Republicans to be liars. Almost all of the comments struck me as inarticulate and often very nasty–not at all the type of reasonable assessments one would expect from college-educated readers of the Washington Post. Our country is in dire straits if these readers are typical of what is produced by our liberal colleges today.
<!--GooglePanel begin panel-id-1-->How could the editors of the Washington Post proffer the notion that the Republicans who supported Powell and Condoleezza Rice as Secretary of State are now racist for opposing Susan Rice? Obviously, these Republicans are not racist. Rather, they are opposed to having as our Secretary of State a woman who deceived Congress and the American people just to help a Democrat president get reelected. She is a woman whose moral compass is so skewed that she willingly lied about the al Qaeda attack on our consulate in Benghazi, where four Americans including our ambassador to Libya were killed.
I remember Susan Rice from the late 1990s when she was Bill Clinton’s Assistant Secretary of State for African Affairs. To me, she seemed to be an ignorant, typical anti-capitalist Marxist useful idiot whose world view is that America is always wrong. It surprised me to learn recently that she received a Rhodes scholarship. Nothing I observed about her during the late 1990s or over the past four years has impressed me. Her most important attribute appears to be her loyalty to Obama.
Our diplomats, CIA officers and armed forces who go to dangerous places such as Benghazi expect our country’s leader to come to their aid when aid is requested. President Obama heard the three requests from Benghazi, refused to send aid, proceeded to cover up his despicable conduct and got the assistance of Susan Rice with the cover-up. Now our diplomats, armed forces and CIA officers know they cannot expect President Obama to respond to a plea for help. Instead, Obama’s response will be as a corrupt Chicago politician. Factored into his calculation will be what helps or hurts Obama, nothing more. We are stuck with President Obama for four more years, but we do not have to accept the appointment of Susan Rice to be Secretary of State.
<!--GooglePanel end panel-id-1--> <!--GooglePanel begin panel-id-2-->For more on the points addressed by Mr. Rice, see Bill Jacobson’s post “Saturday night card game” (http://legalinsurrection.com/2012/11/saturday-night-card-game-wapo-plays-the-rice-card/) and the New York Post editorial “Race rants over Rice.” (http://www.nypost.com/p/news/opinion/editorials/race_rants_over_rice_lmqIkpiA1JL9XJdgiw5BKI)
http://www.powerlineblog.com/archives/2012/11/of-rice-and-men-part-3.php
Of Rice and men, part 3 Reader Peter Rice is retired from the United States Foreign Service. He spent his first four years with the government as an Army officer, including one year of service in Vietnam. Mr. Rice writes to comment on Susan Rice and the Washington Post editorial “The GOP’s bizarre attack on Susan Rice.” (http://www.washingtonpost.com/opinions/the-gops-bizarre-attack-on-susan-rice/2012/11/22/22c54a10-340a-11e2-bfd5-e202b6d7b501_story.html) As Mr. Rice points out below, the adjective “bizarre” more aptly applies to the Post editorial:
This past Thursday the Washington Post published what I view as its most bizarre editorial ever (http://www.washingtonpost.com/opinions/the-gops-bizarre-attack-on-susan-rice/2012/11/22/22c54a10-340a-11e2-bfd5-e202b6d7b501_story.html). They condemned all who oppose Susan Rice as the next US secretary of state, implying that the opposition is largely racist white men from former Confederate States. In addition to the bizarre editorial, see the 5000-plus comments (http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/post-partisan/post/reactions-to-overriceaction/2012/11/23/deca9a4c-35ab-11e2-bb9b-288a310849ee_blog.html) that it generated.
Ninety-seven members of the House of Representatives sent a letter to President Obama (http://jeffduncan.house.gov/sites/jeffduncan.house.gov/files/Rep.%20Duncan%20Letter%20to%20President%20Obama%20 on%20Ambassador%20Susan%20Rice%20%2811.19.12%29.pd f) concerning the nomination of Susan Rice to be the next Secretary of State. Notably, two black Republican Representatives, Tim Scott and Allen West, as well as a number of female Republicans, also signed the letter. Apparently, the Washington Post considers these black and female Republicans to be typical white male racist bigots.
Over the years I have observed both Condoleezza Rice and Susan Rice. They have been of interest to me partly because they share the same surname as me and also because my beautiful wife of 42 years, Frances, is black. Frances is often asked if she is related to Condoleezza Rice. She is not because I am not. Frances is a lawyer and a retired Army lieutenant colonel, Judge Advocate General’s Corps. She is also active in the Republican Party, serving as chairman of the National Black Republican Association (http://www.nbra.info/). Hence I do not suffer from white guilt.
What makes the Washington Post’s editorial so peculiar? There is NO mention of two former black secretaries of state—Condoleezza Rice and Colin Powell—both appointed by Republican President George W. Bush. Nor is one word written about the multiple and reprehensible racist attacks by the Left against Powell and Condoleezza Rice, including overtly racist cartoons (http://cache.trustedpartner.com/docs/library/NationalBlackRepublicanAssociation2009/Democrat%20Racism%20Against%20Black%20Republicans3 .pdf), some published in the Washington Post.
I reviewed a substantial portion of the comments posted in response to the Washing Post’s editorial, about 90 percent of which supported the idea that it was racist to oppose Susan Rice. I detected only three comments that mentioned Powell and Condoleezza Rice. All three of those comments declared the two black Republicans to be liars. Almost all of the comments struck me as inarticulate and often very nasty–not at all the type of reasonable assessments one would expect from college-educated readers of the Washington Post. Our country is in dire straits if these readers are typical of what is produced by our liberal colleges today.
<!--GooglePanel begin panel-id-1-->How could the editors of the Washington Post proffer the notion that the Republicans who supported Powell and Condoleezza Rice as Secretary of State are now racist for opposing Susan Rice? Obviously, these Republicans are not racist. Rather, they are opposed to having as our Secretary of State a woman who deceived Congress and the American people just to help a Democrat president get reelected. She is a woman whose moral compass is so skewed that she willingly lied about the al Qaeda attack on our consulate in Benghazi, where four Americans including our ambassador to Libya were killed.
I remember Susan Rice from the late 1990s when she was Bill Clinton’s Assistant Secretary of State for African Affairs. To me, she seemed to be an ignorant, typical anti-capitalist Marxist useful idiot whose world view is that America is always wrong. It surprised me to learn recently that she received a Rhodes scholarship. Nothing I observed about her during the late 1990s or over the past four years has impressed me. Her most important attribute appears to be her loyalty to Obama.
Our diplomats, CIA officers and armed forces who go to dangerous places such as Benghazi expect our country’s leader to come to their aid when aid is requested. President Obama heard the three requests from Benghazi, refused to send aid, proceeded to cover up his despicable conduct and got the assistance of Susan Rice with the cover-up. Now our diplomats, armed forces and CIA officers know they cannot expect President Obama to respond to a plea for help. Instead, Obama’s response will be as a corrupt Chicago politician. Factored into his calculation will be what helps or hurts Obama, nothing more. We are stuck with President Obama for four more years, but we do not have to accept the appointment of Susan Rice to be Secretary of State.
<!--GooglePanel end panel-id-1--> <!--GooglePanel begin panel-id-2-->For more on the points addressed by Mr. Rice, see Bill Jacobson’s post “Saturday night card game” (http://legalinsurrection.com/2012/11/saturday-night-card-game-wapo-plays-the-rice-card/) and the New York Post editorial “Race rants over Rice.” (http://www.nypost.com/p/news/opinion/editorials/race_rants_over_rice_lmqIkpiA1JL9XJdgiw5BKI)