A Story Of Two Black Women Who Would Be Secretary Of State

When Senators McCain and Graham said they didn't consider Susan Rice a qualified candidate to be Secretary of State, the Democrats circled the wagons to protect Rice.  The women of the Congressional Black Caucus concluded that the McCain/Graham objections could only have been made on the basis of racism because no one is more qualified than Rice to hold the State Department's highest office.  After all she was a Rhodes Scholar.

Well, how easily those same women of the Congressional Black Caucus forget that another black woman by the name of Rice, Condoleezza, was similarly treated by the Senate Democrats when George Bush nominated her to be Secretary of State.  In fact, it wasn't just two senators who objected to Condoleeza's nomination. It was 13.  And, as far as being qualified, she was not only the youngest Provost at the prestigious Stanford University; she was the first minority in a world dominated by men.

So, you have to ask yourself why it is racist to potentially block Susan Rice's nomination when, in fact, no one made that same claim when Condoleezza was being nominated to that very same position?  Once again, with Democrats, racism is just another political tool.  If they were truly anti-racist, they would have afforded Condoleezza Rice the same arguments of racial protection that they are now affording Susan Rice.

You Can't Criticize Susan Rice Because She's Black

As soon as Senators John McCain and Lindsey Graham criticized the U.N. Ambassador, Susan Rice, for trotting out an obvious lie about the Benghazi attacks on that following Sunday's talk show circuit, it was clear that the left would ultimately use calls of racism to defend her.  Apparently, no black individual n this country can be criticized.  Not for lying.  Not for bad judgement. Not for anything.  In a 2009 blog entry, I wrote this:

"When a person on the political left digs down into their bag of arguments and the only thing they can come up with is a handful of air, then its time for them to use their tired, old, if-all-else-fails tactic of calling someone a racist..."

One has to wonder why Rice, not connected in any way to U.S. consulate operations, was sent out to explain the cause behind the Benghazi attacks.  Was it because the President and his Administration knew that Ms. Rice's lies would be protected by the color of her skin?  Obviously, the President made a choice to send Rice out to tell the story when, in fact, it should have be done by those more intimately involved with the Benghazi situation; like Hillary Clinton, James Clapper, or General Petraeus.  Yet the President "used" Rice.  And, "used" is probably the operative word.

References:

---  Congresswomen: Criticizing Susan Rice For Giving Incorrect Information Is Sexist And Racist: http://nation.foxnews.com/congressional-black-caucus/2012/11/17/congresswomen-criticizing-susan-rice-giving-incorrect-information-sexist-and-racist

--- Clyburg: Republicans Use Racial 'Code Words' To Attack Susan Rice:  http://videocafe.crooksandliars.com/david/clyburn-republicans-using-racial-code-words-

Lindsey Graham Makes A Fool Out Of Eric Holder Over NY/Gitmo Trials

One of the better "gotcha" moments in political history came yesterday during the Senate Judiciary hearings over the Obama Administration's decision to try Gitmo detainees in a Federal criminal court in New York City (Click to See Full Story: "Republican senators, Holder clash over terrorism trials").

As you will see in the video below, Lindsey Graham clearly exposed Eric Holder's lack of consistency in his decision to prosecute someone like Khalid Sheikh Mohammed in a criminal court rather than by military tribunal. Further, in the best of the best moments, Graham exposed the fact that this will be the first time in U.S. history that an enemy combatant, caught on the battlefield, will be tried in a criminal court. Senator Graham aptly referred to that fact as "making bad history".




I think it is obvious that Holder's stammering and lack of consistent policy shows an intent that is more political than prudently judicial. One can easily conclude that this trial is simply a show, whose primary purpose is to put the Bush Administration (And America!) on trial.

From that video, it is being implied that someone like Khalid Sheikh Mohammed won't ever be released; even if he is acquitted in a criminal court. From this, I would ask: Isn't the purpose of these NY-based trials to prove that America is a country that is firmly grounded in justice? So, based on what was said yesterday, all the peoples of the world have now heard that, in our judicial system, some people will be locked up for life; regardless of the results of their trial. Again,this just confirms that these will be show trials.

Lastly, Obama, himself, has predicted convictions in each of the NY-based criminal trials. While I'm not a lawyer, I would think that a statement like that, coming, from the President of the United States is, in itself, prejudicial to these defendants getting a fair trial and could be the grounds for a mistrial. Isn't Obama a lawyer specifically trained in Constitutional law? Again, it seems like we have another careless comment from Obama; just like his "acting stupidly" comment that he made when talking about arrest of his friend by the Cambridge police. I think the President would have been better off saying that we believe we have a solid case and that he wouldn't comment any further.