Two Ways to Cook Rice

Here are two similar commentaries about a couple of Rice's.   Both are in positions of being spokespeople for Presidents under controversial circumstances. 


Does one of these mindless parrots look particularly ethnic in some way?  A caricaturish way? 


No.  Just my imagination.  Is it my imagination that people that criticize Stacey Dash, Clarence Thomas, and several other black people as "Uncle Toms" and worse somehow don't get excoriated over it?

Hmmm.


Someone else has noticed the "Rice discrepancy" as well.  But I suppose it simply requires a memory of political events, and not particularly long-term at that.



Perhaps one of the unspoken justifications for this is that Condoleeza's commander-in-chief was white.  Maybe?  Check out this frame for "Condi Rice": 

And the famous one that cartoonist Danziger claims wasn't racist because it was inspired by Gone With the Wind.  Which explains why Condoleeza is portrayed as a black mammie.  What about the WMD Iraq controversy was particularly evocative of this aspect of Gone With the Wind?  Anyone know? 

Danziger sho nuff don't know nuthin' 'bout stereotypes.  Maybe Danziger just knew instictively that the media and the NAACP wouldn't give him a hard time about this.  Hmm?

Obama's Orwellian manipulations about Benghazi

An interesting thing happened in response to the Benghazi debacle.  For weeks afterward, people had the impression that it happened because of a mob that got out of control.   A couple of Muslims gathered around an iPad and were horrified at the ill treatment of their holy Prophet, and got together their pitchforks and torches to storm the castle.  Meanwhile, Achmed broke out his stockpile of assault weapons, and Abdul finally found a use for those 150 hand grenades he had been saving for a suicide bombing.

[UN Ambassador Susan] Rice’s account directly contradicts that of Libyan President Mohamed Yousef El-Magariaf, who said this weekend that he had “no doubt” the attack was pre-planned by individuals from outside Libya.  “It was planned, definitely, it was planned by foreigners, by people who entered the country a few months ago, and they were planning this criminal act since their arrival,” Magariaf told CBS News.* [emphasis mine]

What an inefficient State Department to take weeks to figure out that unlike the Cairo event (which didn't result in American deaths) there was no corresponding demonstration.  The administration avoided saying for a long time that it was a terrorist attack because of a supposed ongoing investigation. The Susan Rice narrative instead played out in people's imagination.

How is it that instead of talking about terrorists invading American soil, the administration got everyone talking about a riot that started over a videotape?  If it was acknowledged from the beginning that it was a concerted effort of terrorists, how did the idea take over that it was an angry mob that got out of control?

Could it be because Obama equivocated in his Rose Garden speech that "No acts of terror will ever shake the resolve of this great nation"? That sounds like a warning. It follows a discussion of the events of 9/11/2001 and is general.  The Benghazi events are referred to as "outrageous attack," "brutal acts," and "terrible act." but "acts [plural] of terror" is reserved for America's position on terror (the Obama Doctrine?).

Could this be the reason that the press did not hold  this administration accountable when they subsequently avoided calling it a terrorist attack?  Could it possibly? Or did the press simply forget that it had been called a terrorist attack?