These guys continue to show how little they think of Condoleeza Rice. To them, she is nothing more than a racial/sexual category. Sen. Robert Byrd is taking note of Rice's behavior, not her race and sex. The New York Times states, "Senator Byrd asserted that Ms. Rice had helped to make the Bush administration's case for an unconstitutional, unwise and unprovoked war against Iraq -- and had done so, he said, on the basis of faulty intelligence that she represented before the war as far more conclusive than it was. 'Accountability is not a negotiable commodity,' Mr. Byrd said, arguing that to confirm Ms. Rice would be to approve policies that had isolated the United States, made it more vulnerable to terrorism and cost American lives under false pretexts."
Byrd's critics don't seem to be up to defending Rice on the merits, so they are resorting to the Race Card.
I tried to find evidence of Byrd's position on the confirmation of Colin Powell in 2001, but the Senate doesn't list a roll call vote on the matter, leading me to believe that it was passed on a voice vote without objection. I would think that a klansman would be much more threatened by a black man.
UPDATE: Roger L. Simon: "But then I can't imagine having joined anything as wretched as the Klan, so maybe I would have ended up a self-righteous bloviator in the US Sentate. " You are a self-righteous bloviator. And Byrd is criticizing Rice's performance as the quote above shows.
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
4 comments:
It is interesting you accuse me of only thinking about Dr. Rice's skin color, since I didn't mention anything about Dr. Rice. My entire post dealt with the reaction of the media and the reaction of the Democratic party, and my firm belief that if the shoe were on the other foot, the Dems would be accusing the Repubs of racism.
Some of the "liberal" political cartoons are clearly racist attacks on Dr. Rice.
And I am sure Senator Byrd only thought about Dr. Rice's qualifications and her performance as Natl. Sec. Advsr. Just as I am sure that he thought only of Thurgood Marshal's qualifications when he voted against his appointment to the Supreme Court, and the fact that Senator Byrd is the only Senator who voted against both African-American Supreme Court justices is purely coincidence. </sarcasm>
So now I am confused. Either you think that Sen. Byrd is opposing Rice because he is a racist, or you want the Right to be able to manufacture bogus outrage the way liberals used to do alot.
As to the first issue, Byrd may be racist, I don't claim to know. But he didn't oppose Colin Powell, and his attacks on Rice have been based on her record.
Concerning the second issue, I would have had more sympathy with your position twenty, or even ten years ago.
I agree that some of the cartoon depictions of Rice are racist. I am still waiting to see one drawn by Robert Byrd.
The point of the post (and about 8 others in the blog over the last 2 or 3 months) is that the left is quick to condem racism on the right - even when there is none - and slow to condem racism (homophobia, sexism, ....) on the left - even when there is some.
I have no idea what Barbara Boxer thinks - I understand so little of what she does. John Kerry has said one thing and done another for most of his career; I have no way to judge if he really opposes Dr. Rice, or just voted to be politically expedient for his next run for presidency. Senator Byrd talks a good game, but his actions speak louder than his words. That said, I can't prove what he thinks about Dr. Rice. (Or Thurgood Marshal.)
And you can't tell if Byrd voted against Powell because as far as I have been able to determine, Powell's nomination was approved by voice vote on the day of the 1st inauguration. No record of who voted for or against, just the outcome.
Post a Comment