In what purports to be a definitive statement of the case against Susan Rice’s hypothetical appointment as Secretary of State, a Wall Street Journal op-ed by Anne Bayefsky and Michael Moukasy goes ponderously through the jesuitical arguments for getting outraged by Rice’s recitation of administration talking points on Benghazi in the solemn venue of a Sunday Show, and then gets to the real objection: Rice has faithfully represented the Obama administration’s evil point of view on middle eastern policies generally. My God, she’s dissed Benjamin Netanyahu! She’s been critical of Israeli settlement policies! She’s failed to treat the Iranian nuclear program as an immediate existential threat to world peace!
In other words, Rice bears the Scarlet D of being a member of the political party that won the last two presidential elections, as becomes evident from this comment about the most likely alternative to her nomination to run State:
Amazingly, the other person most frequently mentioned as a possible secretary of state is Sen. John Kerry, who in the 1970s not only threw away his military medals and testified that his fellow soldiers in Vietnam were war criminals, but also said during a 2004 presidential debate that the U.S. shouldn’t use its military power without invoking a “global test” and garnering international approval.
Tragically, the rejection of Rice could lead to the appointment of another Democrat to the post! Quelle horreur, as Mitt Romney might say.
I suppose if you are in the habit of denouncing Barack Obama as an America-hater (and Israel-hater) who spends most of his time apologizing for his country, sucking up to Muslims, and seeking to place the United States under the thumb of the United Nations, then it makes sense to reject as Secretary of State anyone who won’t expose Obama’s nefarious plans and denounce him at every opportunity. Other than indicating that the alleged Republican period of self-criticism has quickly yielded to a renewal of four straight years of partisan warfare, though, the Rice-bashing adds nothing to political discourse; it’s more hot air from a limitless supply.