No, not really...but it wouldn’t surprise me. Yet today we are treated to this:
McCain: Susan Rice "not qualified" to be Secretary of State after Benghazi (1)
Where was this guy (and his posse) in early 2008 when the nominee wasn’t just “not qualified” but demonstrably not suitable for “any future position of public or private trust” (2). Let’s go to the transcript of the Senate confirmation hearings…no, I’m not even going to look for a transcript ‘cause I’m pretty sure there weren’t any hearings. Of course, if there were, Senator Rubber-Stamp may have heard testimony such as this from the mid 1970s:
“…she was a liar,” … “She was an unethical, dishonest lawyer. She conspired to violate the Constitution, the rules of the House, the rules of the committee and the rules of confidentiality.” (2)
Or this from the 1990s:
“…her testimony under oath during the Travelgate investigation…you know, the testimony in which her statements, under oath, were patently false…” (2)
So I did happen to watch Ms. Rice on at least two of those Sunday morning chat shows…it was an appalling display. Yet, does that in any way prove that she could be any worse than the current Secretary? (By the way: she’s a joke! Take that Mr. Brooks. (3)) No, I don’t think it does. I suspect this new liar might even be an improvement at that position.
And, if Mr. McCain gets his way, who’s to say we wouldn’t get someone worse…like maybe Vann Van Diepen? (See (4) and (5).)
Finally, (just to follow through on my larger point) don’t expect this kind of principled opposition to a SecDef nomination for an equally “not qualified” Senator Kerry.
Redstate Member since April 2006…?