I don’t care if this puts me opposite most conservatives, but I think the treatment of Ms. Rice has indeed been racist and sexist.
I don’t see how it can be argued any other way:
Oh, you meant SUSAN Rice!
I don’t think the Republican party is racist now (and, historically, the GOP has a lot less to answer for than the Democratic party does). But that hasn’t stopped a lot of people from slandering Republicans as racist for one reason or another. Right now, many in Washington — particularly the leadership of the Congressional Black Caucus — insist that Republican attacks on U.N. ambassador Susan Rice are racist and, yawn, sexist. The basis for this claim is that some Republicans are calling Rice unfit for the soon-to-be-vacated job of secretary of state. More specifically, they’re cross with Rice for what they contend to be her dishonest and incompetent handling of the Benghazi scandal.
And, because Rice is a black woman, well, bla, bla, bla. Racism! Sexism!
Seriously? Where were they when Condoleezza Rice was being tarred and feathered by the Left?
Imagine a conservative “activist” getting in Susan Rice’s face this way:
As more women and minorities receive keys to the executive washroom, they must learn that sometimes one’s hands get dirty. Ambassador Chris Stevens served at the pleasure of Secretary of State Hillary Clinton, and was murdered (and defiled) for his efforts. He was a sitting duck, a lamb for slaughter. At some level, that’s on her. Neither Condoleezza Rice nor Colin Powell lost any diplomats on their watch—nor did any Secretary of State stretching back to the Carter Administration.
And Susan Rice was paraded before the media to spin a tale that was known to be false from the moment Stevens et al came under fire. It was an invention. Whether she knew it or not merely dictates whether she was a willing co-conspirator or an unwitting dupe. I don’t know whether the latter disqualifies her to be Secretary of State (else why would John Kerry be considered), but the former certainly does.