Criticizing Susan Rice is not racism

  • Article by: DEROY MURDOCK , Scripps Howard News Service
  • Updated: December 1, 2012 - 5:10 PM

Don't Democrats grasp the concept of scrutiny?

  • 17
  • Comments

  • Results per page:
pumiceDec. 1, 12 5:34 PM

From the article: "Conservatives worry that [Susan] Rice misled the American people about the fatal Al-Qaida-connected attack on the U.S. consulate in Benghazi, Libya." However, they had no such worries that Condoleezza Rice misled the American people about WMD in Iraq. Or that she misled us about Iraq buying yellowcake uranium from Nigeria. Or that she insisted the blame should be laid at the door of the CIA rather than on the shoulders of the would-be Secretary of State. In fact, conservatives who are full throatedly impugning the integrity of Susan Rice agreed that impugning the integrity of Condoleezza Rice was beyond the bar.

kingtutskyDec. 1, 12 6:14 PM

Condaleeza never lied about the cause of American deaths. Did Susan lie? We'll find out.

Jakein08Dec. 1, 12 6:28 PM

kingtutsky says "Condaleeza never lied about the cause of American deaths. Did Susan lie? We'll find out." No, she just lied about why we should go to war with Iraq, stating that America could be under a mushroom cloud if we do not invade Iraq. How many Americans and Iraqis are dead because of that lie. No Americans are dead because of anything Susan Rice said or did. The GOP is on a witch hunt, plain and simple.

goferfanzDec. 1, 12 7:02 PM

Yes, I find it fascinating to see the media and partisan response to the outing of desk jockey Valerie Plame (hoopla and circus) vs the death of CIA assets in this case, plus an ambassador. Even now, the Benghazi story is murky, and nobody knows what the President knew and when he knew it. It truly is mindboggling, but further reveals we have become what 1984 predicted = where a Ministry of Truth exists rather than a media and journalism.

probsolverDec. 2, 12 6:51 AM

Cries of Racism aimed at your political opponents are the new (old?) tactic of the left. It smacks of intellectual laziness. When you run out of talking points and your sincere arguments do not resonate with the populace might as well try to call someone a racist,. Heck, it may make points with the deep thinkers {sarcasm}

chuckdancerDec. 2, 12 6:55 AM

Americans have no clue what the elite political class is talking about. It is obvious to Americans though that when the going gets tough and real action is needed the political elites try to divert attention away from their shortcomings. Now instead of transparently dealing with the pressing issues of the time the elites puff away at each other on a nonissue relavent to nothing. Thanks guys.

ontherecordDec. 2, 12 7:38 AM

kingtutsky: "Condaleeza never lied about the cause of American deaths. Did Susan lie? We'll find out." No, Condoleeza lied and the lie led to the deaths of over 4,000 Americans. Susan Rice didn't lie. She simply delivered the information that the intelligence community gave to her. To use that as some disqualification for Secretary of State is absurd. At very least, the GOP is playing petty politics to attempt to get the Mass. Senate seat in play over, arguably, the second most important post in the administration. If they refuse to confirm her, the GOP is in for a rough ride on their future nominees if they ever get another President in the White House.

stephenkrizDec. 2, 12 8:13 AM

Conservatives are the masters of "false equivalence". So, Democrats opposing the nomination of Clarence Thomas to the Supreme Court is the equivalent of this canard about the Benghazi attacks being foisted against Susan Rice? Horse hockey! Thomas had no constitutional law experience before his nomination and was considered a mediocre middle-level bureaucrat with highly questionable interpersonal skills. Thomas's complete lack of engagement on the bench bears witness to what a poor choice he was. Susan Rice, on the other hand, is a Rhodes Scholar with vast international experience who is respected both abroad and among career State Department employees on both sides of the aisle. Her handling of the embassy bombings in Africa in 1998 was considered exemplary. Anyone who can't see the difference between opposing a man of low character and mediocre intellect being wrongly nominated to the Supreme Court and opposing a brilliant, well-qualified woman to a post she is eminently qualified for, because of something she said on a Sunday TV talk show, is wearing ideological blinders!

davehougDec. 2, 12 9:40 AM

GEE why can't the US have a civil discussion about race?

paulusDec. 2, 1210:05 AM

Brilliant piece Mr. Murdock. You see the race card being played constantly by the Left for any number of reasons. The hypocrisy of liberals never ceases to amaze me. Very refreshing to see that this black journalist isn't fooled by the constant barrage of this garbage from the libs.


Comment on this story   |  


  • about opinion

  • The Opinion section is produced by the Editorial Department to foster discussion about key issues. The Editorial Board represents the institutional voice of the Star Tribune and operates independently of the newsroom.

  • Submit a letter or commentary
Connect with twitterConnect with facebookConnect with Google+Connect with PinterestConnect with PinterestConnect with RssfeedConnect with email newsletters