Anti-Susan Rice Crusade Draws Question on Racism and Sexism

Anti-Susan Rice Crusade Draws Question on Racism and Sexism


Now that the election is over, some Republicans are turning their focus back on the Benghazi, Libya attack.

In  particular, there is renewed outrage over the information UN Ambassador Susan Rice relayed on Sunday news talk shows that conflicts with official intelligence known by the White House and State Department following the attack on the U.S. Embassy in Lbya.  The siege resulted in the death of Libyan Ambassador  Stevens and three other Americans.

Rice told show hosts the attacks were spontaneous and driven by outrage from an anti-Islam YouTube video though by the time she was making those accounts, internally officials were aware the attacks more likely were pre-meditated and planned for the anniversary of the 911 attacks.

Now that Rice’s name is being floated as a possible candidate to replace retiring Hilary Clinton as Secretary of State, five Republican legislators including John McCain have stated they plan to object to Rice’s nomination, if she is indeed nominated.

McCain wrote a letter to President Obama saying that he felt Rice was “unfit to head the State Department” and that she would undermine US credibility abroad if elected as Clinton’s successor.

At a White House press conference last week, President Obama ardently defended Rice calling on McCain and others to come after him for the information breakdown.

Soon after some black leaders in Congress and  House Democrat women cried wolf, accusing the 5 white men objecting to Rice as being racist and sexist.

Rather than simply take the challenge as a political and partisan ploy, perhaps, many credible sources and of course, many people of color, are quickly calling the challenges as being racially-motivated.

Even noted Washington Post columnist Dana Milbank took the bait pointing out racial overtones he saw in how the letter will be perceived.

“You’ve got grumpy old (white) men going after a young accomplished woman of color,” Milbank wrote in a piece this week. “It’s arguable this is not the path to convincing the American people that the GOP is truly a big tent where all races, religions and classes are welcome.”

Accusation of racism and sexism has a way of falling into the category of illegitimacy when overused, in any and all categories of life and criticism, whether valid or not.

Racism exists and is alive and well. Sexism is thriving too. Strong, opinionated, headstrong black women are often called the pejorative “Angry Black Woman”.

However, not every single instance of criticism of women or people of color is an example of the “isms.” Brent Budowsky of The Hill’s Pundit blog agrees, and writes:

“The GOP letter is wrong. It is partisan. It is angry. It is sour grapes. It is inaccurate. It is unfair. It is grossly misdirected against Susan Rice, who did absolutely nothing wrong. But in my humble opinion the letter has nothing to do with race.”

Indeed, when the race, gender and ABW cards are drawn too soon and too often, they have a way of losing their value.  They also can have the impact of neutralizing true instances when they occur.

Meanwhile, the subject of everyone’s protection, pity and outrage is yet to come forth and take a position on the issue.

She could be waiting for the politically right time to do it or direction from superiors, but each day that passes that Dr. Rice opts to stay silent; she may be doing herself a disservice.


  1. What would it take to recognize this Republican behavior as racism? These are the same Republicans who promoted Harriet Miers for the Supreme Court and Sarah Palin as Vice President; women who were universally derided as unqualified. Sure, Dr. Condaleeza Rice was forgiven for repeating bad intelligence during the Bush administration which we can agree is expected from partisans. But Dr. Susan Rice is a Democrat so she is not going to be allowed the benefit of the doubt.

    Sure, I’d like to believe that racism, like slavery, is no longer an issue that most Americans have to deal with – but I’d be fooling and making a fool of myself.

    • Harolynne, But it seems you agree with my point. It is partisanship, not necessarily racism that is the root of the opposition to Rice. And another thing, I did not say racism is no longer an issue and I agree the effects of slavery are consistent and exist today, starting with the wealth gap. However, I do believe that if we continue to allege every single criticism or opposition to blacks is primarily guided by race we will only serve to undermine our own credibly. I do not doubt some of the second-guessing may be race-related but I believe moreso it is partisan nitpicking and that is all.


    Everybody says there is this RACE problem. Everybody says this RACE problem will be solved when the third world pours into EVERY white country and ONLY into white countries.

    The Netherlands and Belgium are just as crowded as Japan or Taiwan, but nobody says Japan or Taiwan will solve this RACE problem by bringing in millions of third worlders and quote assimilating unquote with them.

    Everybody says the final solution to this RACE problem is for EVERY white country and ONLY white countries to “assimilate,” i.e., intermarry, with all those non-whites.

    What if I said there was this RACE problem and this RACE problem would be solved only if hundreds of millions of non-blacks were brought into EVERY black country and ONLY into black countries?

    How long would it take anyone to realize I’m not talking about a RACE problem. I am talking about the final solution to the BLACK problem?

    And how long would it take any sane black man to notice this and what kind of psycho black man wouldn’t object to this?

    But if I tell that obvious truth about the ongoing program of genocide against my race, the white race, Liberals and respectable conservatives agree that I am a naziwhowantstokillsixmillionjews.

    They say they are anti-racist. What they are is anti-white.

    Anti-racist is a code word for anti-white.