Opposing Susan Rice isn’t racist, it’s rational

Opposing Susan Rice isn't racist. It's simply acting in a rational and allegiant manner to the families of the four dead Americans and to the American public. Photo: Associated Press

PHOENIX, November 25, 2012 ― “When you can’t answer the question, you attack the questioner. The only color I’m worried about when it comes to Benghazi is red — blood red, the death of four Americans,” said Republican Sen. Lindsey Graham of the absurd claim that opposition to Susan Rice as Secretary of State Hillary Clinton’s potential successor is either racist or sexist, or both.

Now that UN Ambassador Rice is most likely being considered for the top State Department job, detractors to her nomination are being labeled as “racist” and “sexist.”

This should surprise no one, as it is part of a last-ditch, Democratic-led effort to stifle all opposition to Rice’s future role in the Obama administration.

Ambassador Rice could have sailed on to confirmation as Secretary of State without concerted opposition had she not given an inaccurate account of the Benghazi terrorist attack that saw the death of four Americans in September. It was Rice who made a stupendous blunder in her political career when she argued strenuously for a false explanation of the September 11, 2012 Benghazi terrorist attack.

She stuck to the White House “talking points,” either because she didn’t know what was in the classified intelligence briefings at that point, or because she was more interested in being a good soldier than in the truth. Neither speaks well of her.

Rice’s strong assertions about the role of the internet video, made on five Sunday talk shows and directly contradicting the more accurate statements of the president of the Libyan National Assembly, were later shown to be false. Rice was reading from White House talking points, unwilling to temper assertions that she either knew to be false or that she didn’t know to be true. Senior officials with the Office of the Director of National Intelligence had removed the terms “attack,” “Al Qaeda,” and “terrorism” from Rice’s talking points.

Rather than demonstrate caution or honesty, depending on which interpretation you prefer, Rice chose instead to be an obedient pawn for the White House. The lack of integrity in her behavior is especially clear in light of the knowledge that five attacks had been launched in the previous months in the area.

Democrats, who have done nothing to get the truth on Benghazi, are now trying to shut down the investigation as it makes the president and his administration appear ineffectual. This is the main reason that we are seeing accusations of racism and sexism being injected into the Benghazi inquiry. 

The Washington Post and the Congressional Black Caucus are among the many that are calling the Benghazi investigation a “witch-hunt” that has racial overtones. These remarks should worry many, as a major newspaper and elected representatives are deliberately ignoring the many questions that have arisen since of the attack. Why have the Post and the Black Caucus decided to abandon the role of skeptical governmental watchdogs, a role they pursued with considerable zeal when the Secretaries of State were Condoleezza Rice and Colin Powell, both black?

If the Benghazi attack had occurred under a Republican administration, it seems extremely unlikely that the press and Congressional Democrats would consider it unseemly to pursue answers to the questions that have been raised since September 11. Only an element of partisan bias can explain the assymetry between the treatment of Benghazi and the Valery Plame affair.

The Obama Administration knew the attack was not a result of a video. Susan Rice had access to classified information that would better guide her in being the messenger to the American public. Either she chose not to take advantage of it, or she lied. Either way, she plunged herself into this controversy. She has no one else to blame - certainly not John McCain.

McCain, Lindsey Graham, and the many others who are demanding answers and information about Benghazi are not racists. They are simply acting in a responsible and allegiant manner to the families of the four dead Americans and to the American public. 

Henry D’Andrea is a Conservative opinion columnist at the Communities @ the Washington Times. Feel free to email Mr. D’Andrea at writedandrea@gmail.com and follow him on Twitter (@TheHenry)


This article is the copyrighted property of the writer and Communities @ WashingtonTimes.com. Written permission must be obtained before reprint in online or print media. REPRINTING TWTC CONTENT WITHOUT PERMISSION AND/OR PAYMENT IS THEFT AND PUNISHABLE BY LAW.

More from The Conscience of a Conservative
 
blog comments powered by Disqus
Henry D'Andrea

Henry D'Andrea is a Conservative columnist and commentator. He writes a weekly column at the Washington Times Communities called "The Conscience of a Conservative," which features his commentary on current events and political stories from a conservative perspective. He often writes on foreign policy, domestic and economic issues, the conservative movement, and elections.

 

D’Andrea has been a guest on many radio shows throughout the country since writing columns at the Washington Times Communities. His work has been featured in many publications, including Townhall.com, Commentary Magazine, The Wall Street Journal, The Tea Party Review Magazine, Big Government, Big Journalism, The Gateway Pundit, Instapundit, and many more.

 

Feel free to contact Henry D'Andrea at writedandrea@gmail.com and follow him on Twitter: @TheHenry 

 

Contact Henry D'Andrea

Error

Please enable pop-ups to use this feature, don't worry you can always turn them off later.

Question of the Day
Featured
Photo Galleries
Popular Threads
Powered by Disqus