Written by Thomas Magstadt   

Once again, the Republicans have raised a false alarm with the aim of embarrassing Obama and obstructing the policy process. This time, it's foreign policy and the object of Republican bile is UN Ambassador Susan Rice, rumored to be at the top of Obama's short list to succeed Hillary Clinton as Secretary of State. The turmoil surrounding Ms Rice is totally trumped up and the media, once again, is acting like a parade of willing propaganda puppets.

The "controversy" involves the tragic attack in Benghazi, Libya last September. The incident resulted in the death of four US citizens, including US Ambassador J. Christopher Stevens. When the attack occurred, Ms Rice was given the unenviable task of explaining what happened on morning talk shows. Her account, based on talking points supplied by intelligence agencies, portrayed the Benghazi siege as a spontaneous protest exploited by extremists. For whatever reason, she failed to say it was a premeditated terrorist attack. "Within days," writes New York Times reporter Mark Landler, "Republicans in Congress were calling for her head."

Why? A cover up, what else? A conspiracy to bamboozle the American people into believing that President Obama, an African-American whose Kenyan father was raised in a Muslim family, was trying to hide his complicity in the attack. And who else would he pick to be his accomplice but Susan Rice, another African-American? NOW do you see the perfidy in this evil plot? WELL, DO YOU?

A word about Susan Rice. She's a Rhodes scholar, earned degrees from Stanford and Oxford, and possesses "a Rolodex of contacts and a relationship with Mr. Obama sealed during his 2008 campaign." Oh, and did I mention that she's African-American, like Barack Obama? Not that it matters, of course. But it's true, she's not…you know…of European extraction.

Folks, this is not a news story. This is a lynching. There's no story. No there, there. Let's say the attack WAS planned and executed by Al Qaeda. First, flaks like Rush Limbaugh and Sean Hannity wouldn't have a clue because, according to usually reliable sources, they don't have top secret clearances… Second, even the best foreign intelligence is far from perfect, and it's rarely good enough to prevent terrorist attacks. That's because, third, the most crucial foreign intelligence is called HUMINT in the business (meaning human intelligence operations) and it often takes place in hostile environments. It's both dangerous for the operatives, hard to get, and often harder to evaluate. The closely guarded secrets in the secret world of foreign intelligence involves "sources and methods". Again, the media and the general public know next to nothing about spy tradecraft. And that's a very good thing.

The nation's intelligences services, however, are required to keep congressional oversight committees in the loop. That, too, is a good thing. Members of these committees – Republicans and Democrats alike – are sworn to secrecy. Another very good thing.

Back to the Susan Rice non-story. What happened in Benghazi on September 16 is still murky, but one thing is crystal clear: It's not the UN ambassador's fault. It's not the President's fault or Hillary Clinton's either. And it's not the fault of CIA or the Pentagon. Sh** happens. It always has and always will. Remember 9-11? Was that the fault of George W. Bush? Dick Cheney? Donald Rumsfeld? Although it creates a lump in the throat to say it, the answer is probably "no". (A nod to Richard Clarke who maintains that Bush and his cronies ignored certain signals; still, hindsight is always 20-20.)

In truth, the 9-11 attacks were not the fault of the white Republicans running the government any more than Benghazi was the fault of African-American Democrats running the government. And the same goes for two African-American women named Rice.

Colin Powell and Condoleezza Rice (note: both African-Americans) were arguably George W. Bush's very best Cabinet appointments. But imagine having to try to conduct foreign policy surrounded by rich, white guys like Dick Cheney, Donald Rumsfeld, John Ashcroft, Tom Ridge, Henry Paulson, and Andrew Card.

As Secretary of State, Susan Rice would have Obama's back – and vice-versa. When the critics go beyond Benghazi in the search for bogus reasons to discredit Susan Rice, they focus on her personality and leadership style. She's abrasive, they say. We're told, "Diplomats praise her energetic negotiating style, though her peremptory manner has bruised some egos" and "…some in the State Department are wary of her, recalling her blustery style as assistant secretary for African affairs in the Clinton administration…". (Lander, NYT, 10/17/2012).

Do you suppose the newspaper that boasts "All the news that's fit to print" would publish a news story suggesting that abrasiveness is a reason not to promote a prominent white guy to a high position in the government? I think not.

Since when is it news that people in powerful positions tend to be peremptory, blustery, or just plain a**holes, anyway? The fact that a professional journalist writing in one of the few "liberal" newspapers still in existence felt compelled to report derogatory comments about Susan Rice's style rather than any actual evidence of unfitness for the job speaks volumes. Conclusion: racism and sexism continue to thrive just beneath the surface of Washington society and politics.

Senator John McCain in his wisdom declared Ms. Rice "not qualified" for the top foreign policy post. That alone is a high qualification. But the best reason for President Obama to make her the next Secretary of State is that there's no good reason not to.

Note: This article appeared in Nation of Change (11/19/2012) under another title.