Democrats Oppose Nomination of Rice to Secretary of State

WaPo has run an editorial conspiratorially half-baked suggesting that Democratic opposition to Rice’s nomination are racia

lly motivated:

Rice’s nomination, noted the Washington Post, garnered “the most negative votes cast against a nominee for that post in 180 years.” As the Senate debated her nomination, Senator Barbara Boxer charged that Rice “frightened the American people” into supporting the Iraq War; Senator Jim Jeffords accused her of being part of an effort to “distort information” in the service of “political objectives”; and Senator Pat Leahy, who voted in her favor, endorsed her by saying that her tenure as national-security adviser lacked “strong leadership, openness, and sound judgment.”

Oh, snap! Waitaminute…

Oops! That was back in 2004!!! A different Rice! The one we’re talking about isn’t a Republican but a Democrat. Here’s the WaPo editorial:

The oddity of the Republican response to what happened in Benghazi is partly this focus on half-baked conspiracy theories rather than on the real evidence of failures by the State Department, Pentagon and CIA in protecting the Benghazi mission. What’s even stranger is the singling out of Ms. Rice, a Rhodes scholar and seasoned policymaker who, whatever her failings, is no one’s fool.

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. You’d think that before launching their broadside, members of Congress would have taken care not to propagate any falsehoods of their own.

Get that? Opposition to Susan Rice must be due to race. Forget what even left-wing non-think tank Think Progress notes in regards to Senators John McCain and Lindsay Graham who are high-profile leaders in opposing Susan Rice:

Host Soledad O’Brien challenged Burgess’ opposition to Susan Rice, noting that Republicans had supported Condoleezza Rice’s nomination as Secretary of State in 2005, despite the Bush administration’s role in the massive intelligence failures that led to the Iraq war. Burgess struggled to explain the contradiction. He initially claimed that the media was far more critical of Bush’s intelligence failures than Obama, but when O’Brien laughed away that claim, he told her to take up the question with Sens. John McCain (R-AZ) and Lindsey Graham (R-SC), both of whom supported Condoleezza but now oppose Susan:

If I remember this correctly, Condoleezza Rice’s ethnicity at the time of her nomination was black/”African”-American. Who opposed her nomination back then and who supported her?

Legal Insurrection:

The WaPo Editorial Board must have forgotten the opposition to Condoleezza Rice’s confirmation, which was led by former Klansman Robert Byrd and a guy who left a girl to die:

Leading the charge against Rice on Tuesday were Democratic Sens. Edward Kennedy of Massachusetts, Robert Byrd of West Virginia and Barbara Boxer of California.

Boxer, one of two Democrats to vote against Rice’s nomination in the Senate Foreign Relations Committee, said Rice’s answers to her questions were “completely nonresponsive” and raised more issues about her credibility than they answered.

Page 1 of 2 | Next page