Despite harsh criticism of Rice from Republicans, Obama is leaning hard toward her because she’s been one of his closest advisers since 2007, and “she and the president are on exactly the same page on all foreign-policy issues,” said an Obama team official who is privy to the transition discussions. “She represents Obama’s foreign policy in a way that Kerry doesn’t, in other words a new way of being a Democrat on foreign policy.” It was a reference to Obama’s carefully cultivated self-image as a tough commander in chief willing to apply diplomatic leverage to get what he wants and use power aggressively, especially covertly.That doesn't sound "genuinely conflicted," so the question is why does he want to be seen as "genuinely conflicted"?
In addition, Obama is developing an ambitious foreign-policy agenda for the second term, including nuclear nonproliferation, and “it would be clear to foreign leaders that when Susan Rice is speaking she’s speaking for the president,” the official said. At the same time “he really respects John Kerry, who did an amazing job on debate prep. He respects Sen. Kerry as a leading figure in our party,” said this official, who like others spoke only on condition of anonymity about transition deliberations. Both this official and a senior administration official used the same words in describing the president as “genuinely conflicted” over the choice, which could come as early as next week.
५ डिसेंबर, २०१२
"President Obama is 'genuinely conflicted' about whether to nominate his favored candidate, U.N. Ambassador Susan Rice, or Sen. John Kerry as his next secretary of State..."
Why are we being told this?
याची सदस्यत्व घ्या:
टिप्पणी पोस्ट करा (Atom)
पोस्ट्स
१३६ टिप्पण्या:
He's getting ready to throw Rice under the bus.
At first I thought you wrote "genuflection" but it was an Emily Litella moment....
-XC
Anyone who will lie for Obama is an important asset to Obama.
I don't share the general Republican anger at Rice.
I thought she did the job of being a good soldier doing what she was told to do when she went on all those TV shows.
She had a dirty job to do, and she did the best she could.
I can't see much to criticize in that.
Wait, I just digested the "Kerry did a great job on debate prep."
Wow.
-XC
We're being told this because it's now clear to EVERYONE, including the lick spittle MSN, that to cover his ass on Benghazi Obama sacrificed Susan Rice to buy time. He sacrificed a friend for his political gain, and it's sinking in to his fanbase just what a shit this man can be.
If he sends Rice before the Senate for confirmation, she becomes the can opener to open up the can of worms that is the Benghazi debacle. For right now, the Senate is busy with other things, and Benghazi may just pass into history. But not if Rice gets nominated to be SoS, it won't.
No, he is getting ready to nominate Rice, but does not want to alienate the Senate Democrats just yet.
For myself, I would say that Rice, as bad as he is, would be vastly preferable to Kerry. She is smarter, and would presumably play with the Administration, while nobody can predict where Kerry would go, with that ego.
...Obama’s carefully cultivated self-image...
How carefully do you have to cultivate your self-image?
"Obama is developing an ambitious foreign-policy agenda for the second term" He should start small and try not to look like a dumbass.
"she"
Although Susan Rice, being a black woman, I am told, is the most qualified person for the job and to oppose her is racist and sexist, Obama being half black does not have that burden. I think the temptation to frame any opposition to her as reflecting the desire of republicans to put black women back in the kitchen with chains, will prove to hard to resist for the permanently in campaign mode administration.
Well, I'm not conflicted. Both are poor choices who would follow a poor choice.
Or, he may be so "conflicted" between the two that he nomiates someone else entirely. Much the better course.
I would say that Rice, as bad as he is, would be vastly preferable to Kerry. She is smarter, and would presumably play with the Administration, while nobody can predict where Kerry would go, with that ego.
Smarter than Kerry isn't exactly a high bar. Choosing between Lurch and an Obama sock puppet is like picking which venereal disease you'd like to contract.
I'd be conflicted, too!
When you compare Susan Rice and John Kerry, each one sucks worse than the other.
"Anyone who will lie for Obama is an important asset to Obama"
And Obama suspects that Kerry will only lie for himself. This is probably astute.
bpm is correct, she is toast.
Trey
W. wanted Harriet Miers on the Supreme Court, too. But it wasn't worth the political capital to push her through.
Obama wants to appoint Rice but knows there is bi-partisan opposition to her and she's not worth the fight.
This conflict has been resolved. Kerry will be the next Secretary of State. And Rice will be the next Harriet Miers.
@TMink, Yep. And YoungHegelian has the reason why.
That was quick.
Obama will pick Rice, and Kerry will have to swallow it. This will be another in what will be a long line of white male liberals who will discover that a "diverse" America doesn't want them even though they are the liberal-est of the liberal. They are white men...that's all that matters.
And we can't have a white male Secretary of State. We haven't had one since the early 1990s. The new America must be represented in the most public position by those who are not white males. Selecting a white male, even a far-left white male with impeccable anti-American credentials like Kerry, would be symbolically a step back into the dark, oppressive past. Only a woman or a non-white can show the world the real face of the new America.
Kerry is the most dangerous for the nation. A rogue Secretary of State can really create a lot of mischief!
Hellooooo Bitterland!
This is all misinformation propaganda. All of it. This is one of the worst presidents I've ever seen in my life. Jimmy Carter has been absolved at this point. Truly.
A little Haiku:
It's not about State
It's about 2016
Beating Hillary
In the 2012 game of Racial Rochambeau, Black beat Woman. But is 2016, Woman will beat Black, because we already did the Black thing. That means Hillary wins.
The only way to beat Woman in the 2016 game of Democrat primary Rock/Paper/Scissors is to throw Woman Plus Black.
But if you start looking for Black Women of stature in the Democratic Party, the pickings are pretty slim. So they have to pluck Susan Rice from obscurity and make her Secretary of State so she has the standing to go up against Hillary in 2016.
"He sacrificed a friend for his political gain, and it's sinking in to his fanbase just what a shit this man can be."
Agree with the former, have doubts about the latter. :)
Kerry is an awful choice.
Where this guy gets a chance to play a real role in foreign policy he can do nothing effective. He seems useless for any position with executive responsibility. This article relates P.J. O'Rourkes view of incident much better covered by the Philippine press at the time, but those are not online. All agree on the revealed character and abilities of Kerry
-
http://www.weeklystandard.com/Content/Public/Articles/000/000/003/947nzczv.asp?page=2
"YoungHegelian said...
For right now, the Senate is busy with other things, and Benghazi may just pass into history. But not if Rice gets nominated to be SoS, it won't."
Similarly, if he passed Rice over without consideration, it would add credibility to the attacks against her, and potentially bolster the claims of those who are pushing the Benghazi story.
So, he has to appear to be looking at her as a legitimate choice, but there's also no way he can choose her. And, it's all about Benghazi.
Kerry's white & male. BWAAAAAAAAAA
As the ship of State heads toward the rocks at full speed, now is not the time to put anybody competent at the helm. Rice or Kerry would serve.
If he could get Screamin Jay Hawkins to actually arise from the coffin (he died in 2000 in France) that would make an interesting appointment, and I'm sure he could pass the nominating process easier than Rice, if not as easily as Kerry.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=7kGPhpvqtOc
We will be left defenseless. Here comes "more flexibility."
machine: "Hellooooo Bitterland"
Bitterland is probably located near "Gasland" and is probably just as "accurate" of a description.
We used to have chant in the Bleachers when the Yankees played the Red Sox in the 1970's.
"WHAT COMES OUT OF A CHINAMANS ASS?"
"RICE, RICE, RICE!!!!!!"
Sounds like another of those "likeability" articles.
Poor Barry, he can't make up his mind, just like any one of his peasants.
PS I'll always like what Ralph Peters said about Lurch, "So what if he's a combat veteran. So was Benedict Arnold".
It is seared into my memory.
ElPresidenteCastro said...
"Obama is developing an ambitious foreign-policy agenda for the second term" He should start small and try not to look like a dumbass.
I'd say trying to not looking like a dumbass is pretty ambitious.
“it would be clear to foreign leaders that when Susan Rice is speaking she’s speaking for the president”
I want to know if she was speaking for him before.
--
Another potential cause of the 60s is lead poisoning from gasoline or paint. Kevin Drum has an upcoming article in Mother Jones arguing that the rise of crime and illegitimacy in that era resulted from increasing levels of lead in the environment, which lowers IQ and impulse control. (He previews some of his evidence here.) --
Daniel Moynihan was unavailable for comment.
Please share this article by using the link below. When you cut and paste an article, Taki's Magazine misses out on traffic, and our writers don't get paid for their work. Email editors@takimag.com to buy additional rights. http://takimag.com/article/birth_of_the_victory_riot_steve_sailer/print#ixzz2EClWLeud
My take is a bit more cynical re SOS--its a nothing position and has no real clout. Doesnt make any difference who sits in the chair.
--
In turn, this closure of the biggest fissure in the white majority opened a space for the Generation Gap. People need divisions around which to organize themselves, and in that mostly racially homogeneous era, age differences briefly became central. (In more diverse cultures, such as 21st-century America, people cleave more to their kin.)
Tribal!
E Pluribus Unum no more. Balkanization worked so well before, it'll work now.
Please share this article by using the link below. When you cut and paste an article, Taki's Magazine misses out on traffic, and our writers don't get paid for their work. Email editors@takimag.com to buy additional rights. http://takimag.com/article/birth_of_the_victory_riot_steve_sailer/print#ixzz2ECmcaO00
Smells like another trial balloon being launched.
"Jimmy Carter has been absolved at this point."
He looks like the camp counselor that all the girls liked right about now. Without the wrinkles and bad accent.
The Orderer of the Universe-in-Chief is entertaining to watch, if nothing else. Its simply the personification of our fake, corrupt government and society.
The people have spoken. They want a cult leader, they got it. Grape juice and cookies for everyone.
OT: Bill passes House to give lifetime Secret Service protection to all ex-Presidents. Currently, protection is for 10 years post leaving office. Bill headed to Senate.
We've elected the Politburo.
EMD: of course, one could look at that proposed legislation as job protection for the current crop of whoremongers what constitute the secret service.
Try to think about it long enough and you'll figure it out.
Hint: he wants to do something but circumstances are indicating it might not be a good idea.
God, Wisconsin must be desperate to put such idiots in tenured professor positions.
Since this post is, essentially, meaningless (let's face it, if HC can do it, anyone can, and if it was important, Bark would not have picked her), why not appoint Mitt Romney. He's competent, has studied up on world events, and isn't really doing anything else at the moment. And, think of the healing, the vast claims of bipartisanship, etc. A slam dunk. I'm sending my pal Bark an EMail right now. Woof.
Shouting Thomas said, "She had a dirty job to do, and she did the best she could."
There will be many dirty jobs to do in Obama's next term and she has proven she can be trusted to do them. I'd give even money that she will be the next Secretary of State.
@Roger J.
You aree wrong. The Obamas have something on Hillary! to make sure she will behave or they would never have nominated her, but the position is still there and someone imagining himself to be a latter-day Jefferson or George C. Marshall could make some real messes, while being very hard to remove.
I'd prefer the job be left vacant. "Better than nothing is a high standard." Especially in this administration.
Here's an interesting article about Susan Rice. She's far from a novice in foreign relations but her experience is largely a series of fuck ups. The confirmation hearings would be interesting, indeed.
Ms. Rice's misadventures in Africa began nearly two decades ago when, as a 28 year-old McKinsey consultant with an Oxford Ph.D. (her dissertation was on Zimbabwe), she joined Bill Clinton's National Security Council. The president, who had been badly burned by the Black Hawk Down episode in October 1993, was eager to avoid further African entanglements.
So when a genocide began in Rwanda the following April, the administration went to great lengths to avoid any involvement—beginning with the refusal to use the word "genocide" at all. Giving voice to that sentiment was none other than Ms. Rice:
"At an interagency teleconference in late April [1994]," writes Samantha Power in her book "A Problem From Hell," Ms. Rice "stunned a few officials present when she asked, 'If we use the word "genocide" and are seen as doing nothing, what will the effect be on the November [congressional] election?' Lieutenant Colonel [Tony] Marley remembers the incredulity of his colleagues at the State Department. 'We could believe that people would wonder that,' he says, 'but not that they would actually voice it.' "
Does it matter?
Either will fail.
America will be weaker, more vulnerable, and less respected in 2016 than it is now, regardless of who Obama appoints Secretary of State (or Secretary of Defense, for that matter).
Try to think about it long enough and you'll figure it out.
Hint: he wants to do something but circumstances are indicating it might not be a good idea.
God, Wisconsin must be desperate to put such idiots in tenured professor positions.
--OT: Bill passes House to give lifetime Secret Service protection to all ex-Presidents. Currently, protection is for 10 years post leaving office. Bill headed to Senate.
We've elected the Politburo.
OTOH, the world has changed and they'd be a trophy.
"She's far from a novice in foreign relations but her experience is largely a series of fuck ups."
Larry, lest we forget the myriad of 'resume enhancers' (failure) the left value. Ideologically, anything they can do to gum up the works is a good thing, and rewarded with the opportunity to spread more liberalism.
So when he does not appoint Rice he won't be called a racist or sexist on MSNBC?
Well, Red, the world is teeming with people who want to kill US presidents and their families. Why would we not grant the protection?
Obama wants a picture of himself as arduously sweating the pros and cons of each so that which ever side gets disappointed he can pretend to stayed awake at night worrying over the appointment when in reality he said, "Yeah, I pick Kerry/Rice. See you in the morning after my round of golf."
He wasn't conflicted when Amb. Stevens was murdered. He just went to bed and Rice on the same page." Maybe Kerry would add something to little closed circle devoid of productive ideas.
Obama simply is using a trial balloon with this 'conflicted' BS.
Everyone sees through it but are afraid cause he is black.
David, the modifiers apply only to non-believers.
Alternative reality networks like MSNBC would never criticize the messiah.
Either will fail.
C'mon. there is literally not a person on this earth who Obama could nominate that cons would agree with. Even a conservative.
He's going to nominate Rice. She will do exactly what she is told to do.
John Kerry, on the other hand, is an arrogant, foolish egotistical loose cannon who will do whatever he wants to do, regardless of the administration's directions.
I particularly like the fact that these aides felt it was important to say that Obama's feelings in this matter were "genuine".
I had the same reaction as when someone says "I'll be honest with you...."
So when he does not appoint Rice he won't be called a racist or sexist on MSNBC?
On MSNBC, Republicans/conservatives will be called racists and sexists because they forced Obama, the Great Compromiser (and Great Everything Else), to nominate an old white man of a "certain age."
there is literally not a person on this earth who Obama could nominate that cons would agree with. Even a conservative.
We all support you as ambassador to Libya.
Government is one of the few organizations where you can advance even when you have a nearly unblemished record of failure. This is one of the primary reason why income taxes are so counter productive. Why would anyone think it smart to give such an organization their hard earned money. I would prefer to send it to a name in the phone book, but of course there is a much better alternative. Leave it with the people smart enough to have produced it in the first place. There are few things you can do with money that are more foolish than giving it to Washington D.C., yet that is where we send more than to any other single destination. Imagine where we could be right now as individuals and a nation if we didn't waste so much that way.
Cabinet positions in the Obama white house are for toadies and places to stash political rivals. Real work on his policies is done through his czars.
The one exception to this is Secretary of Defense because Obama hates it but understands that he has to have some competant in there.
The military will openly rebel against John Kerry as Secretary of Defense, not in the guns and shooting way, but they will undermine his authority to the point Obama would have to fire him because Kerry's actions and results will embarrass Obama.
What's going on recently with the bottom half of Kerry's face. He looks quite different than he did earlier this year. Not in a good way.
Shouting Thomas said...
I don't share the general Republican anger at Rice.
I thought she did the job of being a good soldier doing what she was told to do when she went on all those TV shows.
She had a dirty job to do, and she did the best she could.
I can't see much to criticize in that.
==================
Then again, you probably thought the same back in your prime about Haldemann, Erlichman, Colson, etc.
Just good soldiers lying and covering up, as ordered.
Government is one of the few organizations where you can advance even when you have a nearly unblemished record of failure.
And, the successful are deemed unsuitable. Just look at our last election.
Cedarford said...
Then again, you probably thought the same back in your prime about Haldemann, Erlichman, Colson, etc.
Just good soldiers lying and covering up, as ordered."
They were just being good Germans. If anyone you should understand that.
"The one exception to this is Secretary of Defense because Obama hates it but understands that he has to have some competant in there."
He is in the process of dismantling the military. When something blows up and we can't do anything about it, say China invades Taiwan, the Sec Def will be a bad place to be. Kerry might just be smart enough to avoid that.
Re: bpm4532
He's getting ready to throw Rice under the bus.
And members of the administration are worried about a man like Kerry ending up in charge of State. So they're trying to prepare the ground such that Obama's vanity will push him to chose Rice.
RE: garage:
C'mon. there is literally not a person on this earth who Obama could nominate that cons would agree with. Even a conservative.
John R. Bolton.
--C'mon. there is literally not a person on this earth who Obama could nominate that cons would agree with. Even a conservative.---
All politics, all the time.
ChiCom, Islamofascist or Armed Camps, enjoy the world, GM.
Niall Ferguson will be correct.
Garage: Wrong again. I am OK with Rice. They will toy with her during confirmation hearings but she will scoot in with little trouble She is fine. Very smart. Rich. Very rich in fact. 30 plus million rich. Will be curious if we discover how she earned that during her career as a government employee, etc. But my hat is off to her.
--He is in the process of dismantling the military. When something blows up and we can't do anything about it, say China invades Taiwan, the Sec Def will be a bad place to be. Kerry might just be smart enough to avoid that.---
Couldn't even handle Sandy.
It's all just "bad luck" now.
China will not invade Tawain. They will however assert their hegomany over most of Asia and there is jack shit we can do about it.
China will dominate the region though its economy as witness the new "Regional Comprehensive Economic Partnership" which excludes the United States. It includes India, South Korea, Australia, New Zealand, Japan and several other countries that will be in China's sphere of influence. This new trade partnership is a slap in the face to Obama who had proposed a free trade group that excluded China. These countries prefer to go with China.
What does that tell you?
Once again it's all about Obama.
He's suffering angst over having to make a decision.
Poor baby.....
He is "genuinely conflicted" because he promised Kerry a big-time plum in return for Kerry's help on debate prep and then he foolishly let himself get backed into a corner about Rice before he realized that Kerry wanted State.
It's a Freudian thing. Conflicted / convicted.
Kerry was one of the first to endorse Obama and throw Hillary under the bus for the Democratic nomination the first term. Kerry let it be known he wanted to be SOS but Obama gave it to Hillary, keep your enemies closer? Kerry has been waiting patiently since the first term to be Secretary of State. Hillary recently said she favors Kerry for the job. He's been loyal and even helped Obama with his debate prep. Kerry has been on the Senate Foreign Relations Committee forever and is the Chairman.
But Obama wants his friend, Susan Rice, and that's who he's going to pick, but he's "genuinely" conflicted, sniff sniff. So John, don't be mad?
Never forget, the mess that was Rwanda in the 90s has Susan Rice's name all over it.
Roger J. said...
EMD: of course, one could look at that proposed legislation as job protection for the current crop of whoremongers what constitute the secret service.
Doubtless, they have something on enough people to get the bill through.
The up side is that Willie and Barry will be protected by the Praetorians. That should make them feel safe.
/sarc
Wasnt Ms Rice leading the charge on aiding the Darfurians? how, exactly, did that work out for them?
Nonapod, I laughed when I read what you wrote. I hope you don't mind me sending that to some friends.
"genuinely conflicted"
As opposed to most of the time when he just pretends to be conflicted for political effect.
This time he really means it.
Too bad there is not a third choice.
Will be curious if we discover how she earned that during her career as a government employee, etc.
Rice's investments may be her Achilles' Heel. Keystone Pipeline and Iran for starters.
http://www.humanevents.com/2012/11/30/susan-rices-foreign-investments/
He operates on manipulation of perception to realize his preferred reality. He's uncertain which candidate is capable of supporting a narrative that presents him in a better light. This decision will inflate or deflate his ego. It is critical.
How many ways do I have to say this to you Althouse? Obama and his admin are incompetent, unqualified amateurs.
"Once again it's all about Obama.
He's suffering angst over having to make a decision."
It's scary at first.
And he had the nerve to accuse ROMNEY of offshoring American jobs!
Choosing between Lurch and an Obama sock puppet is like picking which venereal disease you'd like to contract.
Nonapod FTW!
So what exactly has Kerry shown in his awful Senate career that warrants such consideration for a position?
Government is one of the few organizations where you can advance even when you have a nearly unblemished record of failure.
Hollywood and advertising, too!
"C'mon. there is literally not a person on this earth who Obama could nominate that cons would agree with. Even a conservative."
There is some truth to this, in that whoever Obama appoints, that person is going to do as Obama wants, NOT what they think is correct.
Where it isn't true is in the possibility of an appointee giving Obama strong advice counter to Obama's fairytale view of the world (outside of his kill list for drones); we all know that neither Kerry nor Rice is that person.
So, yes, by 2016, the US will be weaker, less respected and more vulnerable than it is now.
"China will dominate the region though its economy as witness the new "Regional Comprehensive Economic Partnership" which excludes the United States. It includes India, South Korea, Australia, New Zealand, Japan and several other countries that will be in China's sphere of influence. This new trade partnership is a slap in the face to Obama who had proposed a free trade group that excluded China. These countries prefer to go with China.
What does that tell you?"
All the obvious things.
Strong horse.
Dimming future.
Like I said. By 2016, we'll be weaker, less respected and more vulnerable than we are now, or even in 2008, despite all the whinging from the limp-wristed, hand-wringing bed-wetters that make up the Obama electorate.
But Obama's voters doubled down on failure, so they'll mos' definitely get what they voted for.
Re: Baron Zemo:
China will dominate the region though its economy as witness the new "Regional Comprehensive Economic Partnership" which excludes the United States. It includes India, South Korea, Australia, New Zealand, Japan and several other countries that will be in China's sphere of influence. This new trade partnership is a slap in the face to Obama who had proposed a free trade group that excluded China. These countries prefer to go with China.
I think one can read too much into that. Yes, it's kind of embarassing that the US went into the East Asia Summit with TPP and China went in with RCEP, and China came out with a commitment to, well, to begin negotiations next year. But TPP negotiations have been going on for ages. So it's kind of China playing catch up. On the other hand, there's lots of countries that have been dickering around on the outside, observing negotiations, but not formally joining. And a lot of them have been more willing to commit to negotiations on RCEP, so it's kind of +1 China. Kind of.
But RCEP doesn't necessarily mean those countries are going to be part of China's sphere of influence. Japan, for example, is not going to become part of China's sphere of influence any time soon, but they're happy to joing RCEP negotiations (and have been dragging their feet on TPP negotiations). Many countries, Japan included, have domestic issues that just make TPP difficult.
--So what exactly has Kerry shown in his awful Senate career that warrants such consideration for a position?--
He speaks fluent French.
Another potential cause of the 60s is lead poisoning from gasoline or paint. Kevin Drum has an upcoming article in Mother Jones arguing that the rise of crime and illegitimacy in that era resulted from increasing levels of lead in the environment, which lowers IQ and impulse control.
So we've become smarter and have better impulse control?
If I recall correctly, The Amateur had some information about Susan Rice's policial philosophy that I found disturbing. I just tried to search The Amateur on Amazon and the 3 pages of the book that refer to Susan Rice are not available. The Obama administration sure knows how to cover all of the bases!
I literally can't stomach the thought of Lurch as defense sec. What a slap in the face that would be to the military. Which is why I think Kerry will go to defense and Rice to State.
As for the Rwanda fiasco, I remember clearly that my husbands unit was slated to go there. He had just returned home from Somalia. Than the Blackhawk down incident happened (part of my husbands unit) and all talk of Rwanda faded. In my opinion, Clinton didn't think he could afford something like that happening again.
So, yes, by 2016, the US will be weaker, less respected and more vulnerable than it is now.
The GOP has been working hard at the past four years, you should be happy about that outcome.
The GOP has been working hard at the past four years, you should be happy about that outcome.
I'm rubber and you're glue. Whatever you say bounces off of me and sticks to you.
RE: garage:
The GOP has been working hard at the past four years, you should be happy about that outcome.
No, that's all Obama.
I wonder what analytics company test drove this drama from Obama. People are being manipulated left and right. The lack of seriousness in governing from this WH and Obama is breathtaking.
"The GOP has been working hard at the past four years, you should be happy about that outcome."
That's a curious sentiment.
Let's look at this.
Your president has been in office for four years.
Your party has run the Senate for six years, including the same four years your president has been in office.
Your party ran the House for four years, including the first two of your president's first four years.
And, despite the balance of power decisively tilting in favor of the Democrats...the troll concludes, stupidly, "The GOP has been working hard at the past four years, you should be happy about that outcome."
Trolls gotta troll.
lol
"People are being manipulated left and right. The lack of seriousness in governing from this WH and Obama is breathtaking."
Hmmmm, not so breathtaking anymore, if one has been paying attention.
He still is, after all, the least experienced man ever elected president.
If we're lucky, he always will be.
Neither candidate is particularly palatable. Rice is at best a dupe. Kerry is a disgrace who has managed remain in public service because, well, he's a Massachusetts Democrat.
garage mahal said...
The GOP has been working hard at the past four years, you should be happy about that outcome.
In the mind of mahal (and others here to be fair), minority party opposition to majority party policy is just obstructionism. This why I believe those who say that the Democrats seek complete and absolute power (which will absolutely corrupt them). Even then they will bitch and moan about the presence of one lonely heretic.
This why mahal applauded extraordinary measures like the fleebagging in Wisconsin. Compromise was out of the question.
John R. Bolton.
Good one.
The GOP has been working hard at the past four years, you should be happy about that outcome.
It's as if the Presidency is irrelevant.
"If he sends Rice before the Senate for confirmation, she becomes the can opener to open up the can of worms that is the Benghazi debacle. For right now, the Senate is busy with other things, and Benghazi may just pass into history. But not if Rice gets nominated to be SoS, it won't."
I'm genuinely conflicted about this. Last night I heard in passing, on Fox news, Obama say (paraphrase) I'm considering Susan Rice, but I haven't made my choice yet." My immediate thought was she was going under the bus.
On the other hand, he is so amazingly arrogant, and he wants Rice. (I think; maybe she has been used to the max as a tool to first tell the lie, and then have her name floated to engender outrage and distraction and Benghazi frenzy.)
Ultimately, he MAY really want her to help him carry out a ME policy vision that would look well for his legacy. But I have read that she is blunt and can pointedly get her points across with swearing. Maybe not so ladylike for that part of the world.
The thought of Kerry makes my heart sink. I feel sorry for him, but thems the breaks, and it's basically karma for endorsing Obama.
I wonder how Samantha Power would do? What if this was the plan all along? Does she have enough background?
In the mind of mahal (and others here to be fair), minority party opposition to majority party policy is just obstructionism.
No. The opposition is just all so predictable. And boring.
No, you're just a shallow thinker.
And your use of your avatar's image a great disservice, both to him, and the greater dialog.
It's Obama's press team talking to women.
Men don't believe anything he says.
Here's why Barry doesn't want to nominate Kerry:
-Lurch isn't really qualified.
-It's not a merit hire, it's a lifetime achievement award solely for longevity in office.
-Taking Lurch out of the Senate means Scott Brown might beat Martha Coakley again in a special election. (Really! Coakley is keeping her options open.)
-Lurch is an old, rich white guy. Barry hates those guys.
-One unqualified old, rich white guy (Biden) is enough for Barry.
So the only reason he hasn't tapped Rice yet is Benghazi, pure and simple. And this is a very bad commentary on our current press. She knowingly lied again and again and again on TV, yet Barry and his Jolly Band of Czars and Czarinas get so little pushback from the press and enough of the public that he's actually still considering nominating her. She lost all credibility that day. And don't give me this crap she was being a useful idiot. Even military commanders can disobey unlawful orders. In fact, they are supposed to disobey unlawful orders. And since when is lying to the American public so lawful?
No. The opposition is just all so predictable. And boring.
During college, I often heard inferior intellects complain about being bored in the classes they couldn't fully comprehend. I still here this from those, such as you, of limited intellect. If you can't grasp the subject matter, wrap you mind around the ideas, or garner any useful insights return to your mother's basement and resume playing video games.
deborah said...
I wonder how Samantha Power would do? What if this was the plan all along? Does she have enough background?
Wasn't Samantha Power the one who advised Obama on his Libya intervention strategy?
Doesn't sound promising.
If you can't grasp the subject matter, wrap you mind around the ideas, or garner any useful insights return to your mother's basement and resume playing video games.
Wow. How original.
Wow. How original.
So, you hear that a lot. Interesting. I'm not trying to be original, btw. However, you must enjoy boredom to visit and post here so frequently. If you really want to be bored, try reading you own comments. I'm killing time during the commercials while watching "The Green Mile." I get a small pleasure out of taunting small minded libs. I'll check back in about 12 minutes. Maybe you can get Inga or Alpha to chime in. I was surprised to see Alpha earlier. He's been gone quite a while.
bucksnort.
No. The opposition is just all so predictable. And boring.
As if Democrats aren't boring and predictable.
In their goals. Their means are unpredictable.
Rice's investments don't matter. Democrat's investments, political faux pas, sexual misbehavior, corruption, or criminal behavior will never matter; because no one will never know about it until it is too late, if ever. You know why.
Bucksnort, TN Spent the night there once while on a trip.
Garage,
"... Even a conservative. "
John Bolton.
Lydia, from what I heard it was Power and Hillary advising him on Libya. Thing is, Lybia, Egypt, and now Syria look like part of an overarching plan to restructure the ME. Obama is now calling for regime change in Syria and has warned Iran they'd better fall in line by March or there will be consequences.
Syria is now being used for a proxy war between the US, Britain, and France, versus Iran, Russia, and China. The Syrian people are divided along religious lines with the Shia and Alawites aligning with the Iranian coalition, and the Sunni elements aligning (begging for help) with the US coalition.
The large problem with us supporting the Sunni element, which is chock full of Salafi and Wahabi, who practice a primitive form of Islam, and al-Qaeda, are all very bad actors. Who will end up in charge of Syria?
Ultimately, in order to deprive Iran of an important ally, Obama wants to turn Syria into an American ally, thereby being able to buy them off, as we do Egypt, so they will keep the peace with Israel. Syrian regime change will also stick in the craws of Russia who has a ties with Syria, e.g. a Russian naval base at the Syrian port of Tartus, and China, who buys oil from Iran.
As far as Power, I'm going to look at Wiki now, just for fun.
Yes, and now all the talk from the administration about Syria is about "chemical weapons activity" oh yeah, they're priming the pump.
The Nobel peace prize committee must be so proud of its favored son.
re Power, I guess not:
"Alongside her advocacy for Barack Obama's candidacy, Power is best known for her efforts to increase public awareness of genocide and human rights abuses, particularly in the Darfur conflict. In 2006, she contributed to Screamers, a movie about the Darfur, Armenian, and other genocides of the 20th and 21st centuries. Power has become a leading voice calling for armed intervention into humanitarian crisis situations.[13]
Her advocacy of humanitarian intervention has been criticized for being tendentious and militaristic, for answering a "problem from hell" with a "solution from hell."[14]
Power has been accused by a number of conservative publications, such as FrontPage Magazine, of being hostile towards the state of Israel.[15] This due to comments such as the New York Times being insufficiently critical of Israel, and advocating that American send armed military forces, "a mammoth protection force" and an "external intervention", to impose a settlement between Israel and the Palestinians.[16] In an interview with Haaretz, Power discussed her views and past statements on Israel and insisted that she takes threats to Israel's security (such as the potential nuclearization of Iran) very seriously.[17]"
-Wiki
Levi, yes, you'd think they could show a little more creativity, out of respect for the rubes paying attention.
I would ask each one who wants to be on the hot seat when Iran gets the bomb?
Has Kerry actually had any foreign policy experience? Negotiating with the North Vietnamese during his VVAW days doesn't count.
Revenant said...
Has Kerry actually had any foreign policy experience? Negotiating with the North Vietnamese during his VVAW days doesn't count.
If you look at the sterling foreign policy accomplishments of this administration up til today you'd realize that who the president chooses hardly matters. Things will continue to go to shit no matter who he puts in charge.
So we have a choice between a left-wing Democrat political hack who is a plutocrat, and a left-wing Democrat political hack who married a widow of a plutocrat.
Some choice!
"She had a dirty job to do, and she did the best she could."
The best she did wasn't very good, and that's the problem.
Devising and delivering plausible lies is an essential skill for a high-level diplomat. Yet even with the assistance of a compliant media, Rice's lies were not plausible.
When one is called upon to lie for one's superiors, a competent professional has a responsibility to devise a plausible lie. Sometimes this even requires telling the boss that his preferred lie just isn't going to work.
टिप्पणी पोस्ट करा