I reject the notion that the three Senators who questioned UN Ambassador Susan Rice’s professional competence as the next Secretary of State was racially motivated.
I do believe it was unabashedly partisan in nature. It seemed to be a new angle toward side-lining the President’s political agenda for the next four years.
The outrage expressed by Republican lawmakers—spurred by the ambassador reciting intelligence-community-generated talking points that turned out to be partially inaccurate—is very different from their response to another administration official named Rice who was accused of misleading the American public on a matter of national security.
That, of course, is Condoleezza Rice. When George W. Bush nominated Condoleezza Rice as secretary of state, some of the same Senate Republicans who are currently attacking Susan Rice supported Condi wholeheartedly, despite her role in helping to make the case for war in Iraq based on bogus intelligence. Back then, Republicans were much more willing to chalk up Condoleezza Rice’s parroting of flawed intel to well-intentioned mistakes as opposed to outright deception, even when the evidence said otherwise. Here’s how some of Susan Rice’s most vocal critics responded to the Bush administration’s disastrous handling of pre-war Iraq intelligence and the nomination of Condoleezza Rice.
- The hypocrisy of Republicans’ attack on Susan Rice | Michael Williams (guardian.co.uk)
- Rice vs. Rice: What changed for John McCain since 2004? (kaystreet.wordpress.com)
- GOPers Criticizing Susan Rice Over Benghazi Defended Condoleezza Rice From Similar Charges (motherjones.com)
- Republicans Attacking Susan Rice Gave Condoleezza Rice A Pass On Intelligence Failures (alan.com)
- GOP cooks up new excuse to oppose Rice (tv.msnbc.com)
- Hypocrisy Served With Rice (personalliberty.com)
- FRANK J. FLEMING: What’s Wrong With Susan Rice? The Republicans’ opposition to Susan Rice’s … (pjmedia.com)