Steve and Jen bring you this daily review of the news
Premium Advertiser

News Blog Sponsors

News Links

BBC World Service
The Guardian
Washington Post
Iraq Order of Battle
NY Times
LA Times
ABC News

Blogs We Like

Daily Kos
Digby's Blog
Operation Yellow Elephant
Iraq Casualty Count
Media Matters
Talking Points
Defense Tech
Intel Dump
Soldiers for the Truth
Margaret Cho
Juan Cole
Just a Bump in the Beltway
Baghdad Burning
Howard Stern
Michael Moore
James Wolcott
Cooking for Engineers
There is No Crisis
Whiskey Bar
Rude Pundit
Crooks and Liars
Amazin' Avenue
DC Media Girl
The Server Logs

Blogger Credits

Powered by Blogger

Archives by
Publication Date
August 2003
September 2003
October 2003
November 2003
December 2003
January 2004
February 2004
March 2004
April 2004
May 2004
June 2004
July 2004
August 2004
September 2004
October 2004
November 2004
December 2004
January 2005
February 2005
March 2005
April 2005
May 2005
June 2005
July 2005
August 2005
September 2005
October 2005
November 2005
December 2005
January 2006
February 2006
March 2006
April 2006
May 2006
June 2006
July 2006
August 2006
September 2006
October 2006
November 2006
December 2006
January 2007
February 2007
Comments Credits
Comments by YACCS
Tuesday, September 05, 2006

Rice overcooks

Gone but not forgotten

Condi takes historical analogies to an absurd level

Posted 8:29 am | Printer Friendly

Last week, top administration officials, including Bush, Cheney, and Rumsfeld, equated the war in Iraq with fighting Nazis in World War II. As part of this analogy, the Bush gang made its critics out to be Neville Chamberlain — as if troop redeployment in Iraq is the moral equivalent of appeasing Hitler.

As if that weren't quite offensive enough, Condoleezza Rice has upped the ante a bit, suggesting that opponents of the war are the moral equivalent of those who would tolerate slavery in 19th century America.

Secretary of State Rice compared the Iraq war with the American Civil War, telling a magazine that slavery might have lasted longer in this country if the North had decided to end the fight early.

"I'm sure there are people who thought it was a mistake to fight the Civil War to its end and to insist that the emancipation of slaves would hold," Rice said in the new issue of Essence magazine.

"I know there were people who said, 'Why don't we get out of this now, take a peace with the South, but leave the South with slaves?'" Rice said.

Now, I know that Rice, like much of today's Republican Party, is desperate. I realize that this appears to be a challenging campaign cycle for the GOP, and they're willing to engage in whatever demagoguery necessary to survive the next 10 weeks.

But to suggest, out loud, on the record, that critics of the war in Iraq are similar to those who would approve of slavery is perhaps the most breathtakingly stupid remark ever uttered by a Bush administration official. And given the competition, that's no easy feat.

Ironically, Rice was supposed to be the level-headed one. Just today, Eugene Robinson complemented the Secretary of State for her less-reckless language — while Bush, Cheney, and Rumsfeld were drawing on Nazi analogies, Rice also appeared before the American Legion convention and simply referred to the enemy in the war on terrorism as "violent extremists," which, as Robinson noted, "sounds so 2006."

But Rice's decision to use reasonable rhetoric apparently didn't last. Also note the choice of publications: Rice didn't use the Iraq opponents = slavery supporters argument on Meet the Press; she used it in an interview with Essence magazine, which has predominantly African-American readers. It's about as subtle as a sledgehammer — Rice was effectively telling black voters, "Democratic criticism of the war is analogous to opposition to the Civil War. Unless you like slavery, vote Republican."

Maybe Rice thought that Essence's circulation is small enough that these comments wouldn't cause a stir. Maybe she no longer cares. Either way, the Secretary of State needs to apologize for her inanity.

Actually, no. It's being said to what is probably the most anti-war audience in America, working class black women. There is no less receptive audience for such a comment possible. They are not going to accept that analogy. One, because many have relatives in the sandbox and are none too happy about it. Two, because they disdain Bush.

Look at the public spokesmen for African Americans , would anyone consider them supporters of the war? What made Rice think that this argument would be acceptable to black Americans. Slavery? Is she nuts?

The Vietnam War's legacy remains in black America. People do not trust the government and enlistment of blacks into the Army went from 24 percent in 2003 to 14 percent in 2005.

Go into any hair salon serving black customers, you'll see Essence there. These comments will be widespread.

As a historical note, there was plenty of war weariness in 1864. Lincoln was reelected only because the Army voted for him in large numbers and the Union Army managed to win a series of fights outside Atlanta and take the city.

posted by Steve @ 11:00:00 AM

11:00:00 AM

The News Blog home page


Editorial Staff

Add to My AOL

Support The News Blog

Amazon Honor System Click Here to Pay Learn More
News Blog Food Blog
Visit the News Blog Food Blog
The News Blog Shops
Operation Yellow Elephant
Enlist, Young Republicans