The Republican backed fire that’s been sparked under Susan Rice’s seat has been flaming hot ever since President Barack Obama openly defended the U.N. Ambassador to replace current Secretary of State Hillary Clinton. Right-wing critics have attempted to back Rice into a corner, riding on her bumper about the way she addressed the September 12, 2012, Benghazi attacks in Libya.

Ninety-seven House Republicans signed a letter to the president last week, expressing their deep concerns over Rice’s potential nomination, claiming that Rice’s media comments on Libya five days after the attack—the claim the assaults were caused by protestors who were upset over an anti-Muslim YouTube instead of terrorists—“caused irreparable damage to her credibility both at home and around the world.”

Are the oppositionists to Rice right to shoot the messenger? Or are they just plain haters who are unwilling to watch a black woman rise?

Perhaps we don’t play the race card. Is there a valid argument about Rice’s ability to wear the white hat and sit at the big boy’s table in Washington?

Rice has taken responsibility for the misleading information that first hit the public in the wake of the Benghazi attacks, but says her reason for doing so was to protect the nation’s intelligence and anti-terrorist efforts.

“I relied solely and squarely on the information provided to me by the intelligence community. I made clear that the information was preliminary and that our investigations would give us the definitive answers,” NBC reports of Rice saying to reporters at the United Nations.

Furthermore, former CIA Director David Petraeus recently testified that Rice’s talking points in those crucial days after the attacks reflected a need to help national officials get their work done. Intelligence officers did not want terrorist groups in eastern Libya to catch wind that the United States knew of their involvement in order to access appropriate information.

With these reveals, Republican oppositions have now simmered their tone against Rice—but not without backstabbing efforts to tarnish Rice’s reputation. Beyond Benghazi, her opposition has attempted to paint her as a mad woman by recalling a 2008 standoff with McCain over his “reckless” foreign policies in Iraq and an instance when she flipped her middle finger at a higher up as an assistant secretary of state.

So, sister girl got mad. Big deal. Sister girl got opinions. Don’t we all?

  • Tracy

    Exactly,we get emotional because she a black woman but to me she’s just like condelezza, staying quiet while africa gets destroyed.

  • http://tontonmichel.tumblr.com/ Tonton Michel

    that is very disturbing, i’m not fan of this administration’s handling of Africa, she is little too close to the smoke not to be stained.

  • Nzingha

    Liane membris,
    Please do an arrant background test on Susan Rice’s involvement in Africa , investments, and policies and then come back and write this letter. Your blog post shows how misinformed you are about Ms. Rice. It is not only the Republicans that are lobbying against Ms.Rice it is also liberals. I feel like you are coming to her defense because she is a black woman??!

  • Anthony

    My point is that the endowment for the Rhodes Fellowships was established well over 100 years ago. Using your logic, there are very few older awards black people should accept.

  • Stone

    Wonderful comment on the Rhodes joint…..one of my greatest pleasures was urinating on his sculpture while i visited Zimbabwe….i supported Rice until i was informed of her investments in the pipeline.
    Just another greedy individual

More in opinion, susan rice
Close