View Full Version : Rice new National Security Advisor?
Mauser KAR98K
06-05-13, 09:16
Are you kidding...and it's done.
http://www.nytimes.com/2013/06/06/us/politics/tom-donilon-to-resign-as-national-security-adviser.html?hp&_r=1&
Rewarding her for lying.
Did I just read this right? What happened? How in the he&@ do you get rewarded for lying.
Oh... Government. Had to think for a second.
Apparently, in government, especially this regime, you are rewarded for being loyal to dear ruler.
Army Chief
06-05-13, 09:38
Although I find this choice unfortunate, I am by no means surprised.
Rice's public performance after Benghazi was an affront to the nation, but clearly she is reaping rewards for her loyalty. I'm just left to wonder what it says about the Administration when they choose to elevate an individual in whom the country has zero confidence. Then again, I suppose these same kinds of concerns could be rightly applied to any number of sitting officials. It isn't my place or purpose to be openly critical, but in purely strategic terms, I'm admittedly curious what this reappointment is intended to accomplish.
AC
The "you scratch my back" thing going on. Capitol Hill shirts should be bloody with that much going on. And Benghazi, more people need to be fired .
Chicago style politics as usual.
I'm admittedly curious what this reappointment is intended to accomplish.
I don't know... I just consider this administration one common crook. I don't think it matters what hat any of them wear. They are simply a singular scourge on America the way I see it.
Nothing but blatant cronyism. Anthony Foxx is another example.
Army Chief
06-05-13, 10:20
I don't know... I just consider this administration one common crook. I don't think it matters what hat any of them wear. They are simply a singular scourge on America the way I see it.
I was trying (somewhat unsuccessfully) to take a somewhat more enlightened view, and thinking perhaps the new role is less overtly public, and therefore, less iikely to result in her being seen or regularly-interviewed on television. No real idea, mind you; just considering some possible motives.
AC
montanadave
06-05-13, 10:33
My take is it is just a fat middle-finger to the Congressional Republicans who have been blocking virtually every judicial and agency nominee this administration has sent up to the hill. Obama doesn't need their approval for this appointment and he's selecting someone sure to stick in their craw.
Nothing like a little oil on the waters to soothe relations between the Executive and Congressional branches. :rolleyes:
I was trying (somewhat unsuccessfully) to take a somewhat more enlightened view, and thinking perhaps the new role is less overtly public, and therefore, less iikely to result in her being seen or regularly-interviewed on television. No real idea, mind you; just considering some possible motives.
No need to strain to see motive, IMO. The motive is cronyism. She was being groomed for Secretary of State, which she'll never get due to getting pinched whilst trying blow smoke over Benghazi. She'll never pass Congressional confirmation for any post that requires it. So, the payback is to put her into a position that doesn't require confirmation.
VooDoo6Actual
06-05-13, 11:06
Some good points & thoughts in the above.
Remember Victoria Nuland, the State Department spokeswoman who famously altered the talking points regarding the Sept. 11, 2012 attack ?
She most likely will become assistant secretary of state for European and Eurasian affairs if the nomination clears the Senate.
While it seemingly is a toxic nomination for the POTUS to put forward, particularly as congressional Republicans hammer the administration for lies, failures in readiness and response to the attacks in Benghazi, Libya. It is not if you know your Teflon PTFE man & the outrage from an impeachment is apparently at least as strong as the fear of an uprising for impeaching Obama. Therein-lies the rub. The 'MO' is clear & why would he change the formula if it has been working ?
From a leadership standpoint since he is a radical, I can see where it makes sense to keep the loyal ones since they don't have to pass the litmus test again & they help further his agenda rather than hindering him w/ being concerned about thwarting it.
For me the bigger question & what frustrates me is why is that working when it's a patently clear injustice especially with so much at stake ?
For me the bigger question & what frustrates me is why is that working when it's a patently clear injustice especially with so much at stake ?
Because tarring and feathering is out of vogue...?
sandman99and9
06-05-13, 11:36
A possible sideshow to get everyone talking about this instead of the IRS, Benghazi, AP scandals ??
S.M.
We have an Attorney General who lies under oath and allows firearms to be illegally sold to straw buyers to be supplied to the Mexican drug cartel.
We have a Treasury Secretary who failed to pay his income taxes - several times.
We have an HHS Secretary strong-arming those companies she regulates, asking for "donations".
We had a Secretary of State who couldn't care less about what happened in Benghazi.
We have an out of control IRS, an out if control DOJ, and out to lunch State, and an out to transform the USA into a quazi-progressive police-state White House.
Does this appointment really surprise anyone?
This is what you call DANGEROUS DUMBASS DOUBLE-DOWN by the President...
Next will be appointment of that woman at the IRS to fill Rice's slot (wouldn't put it past him)...
This is what you call DANGEROUS DUMBASS DOUBLE-DOWN by the President...
Next will be appointment of that woman at the IRS to fill Rice's slot (wouldn't put it past him)...
Lerner's husband already got a choice ambassadorship, after raising a metric ton of money for Obama's 08' campaign. :rolleyes:
As for Obama's quadruple down on "confidence in Holder", his unveiled threat to the Senate on his trio of leftist DC Circuit appointees and now this, I'm beginning to wonder if his capacity for "restraint" has worn thin. It also makes me contemplate what other acrimonious decisions will be forthcoming from the Oval Office.
Is Obama coming unhinged?
...and where were all of us again in 2008 and 2012? We really couldn't do anything more to stop this?
Mauser KAR98K
06-05-13, 12:24
...and where were all of us again in 2008 and 2012? We really couldn't do anything more to stop this?
Being spied on by our very government to intimidate us, blown off by the media, and told Romney would never win, so vote third party.
Sound right?
FromMyColdDeadHand
06-05-13, 12:24
Why not just put Robert Ebert in there if it National Security really depends on movie reviews?
The replacement for the paid liar Rice to the UN will be Samantha Power. So you ask who is Samantha Power? She worked for the campaign to elect the current occupant of the White House. She is also the wife of Cass Sunstein. Now we're getting somewhere. Does his name ring a bell? He was the Administrator of the White House Office of Information and Regulatory Affairs, also a professor and writer.
His view on taxes, from wikipedia:
Sunstein has argued, “We should celebrate tax day.” Sunstein argues that since government (in the form of police, fire departments, insured banks, and courts) protects and preserves property and liberty, individuals should happily finance it with their tax dollars:
In what sense is the money in our pockets and bank accounts fully ‘ours’? Did we earn it by our own autonomous efforts? Could we have inherited it without the assistance of probate courts? Do we save it without the support of bank regulators? Could we spend it if there were no public officials to coordinate the efforts and pool the resources of the community in which we live? Without taxes, there would be no liberty. Without taxes there would be no property. Without taxes, few of us would have any assets worth defending. [It is] a dim fiction that some people enjoy and exercise their rights without placing any burden whatsoever on the public… There is no liberty without dependency.
Sunstein goes on to say:
"If government could not intervene effectively, none of the individual rights to which Americans have become accustomed could be reliably protected. This is why the overused distinction between "negative" and "positive" rights makes little sense. Rights to private property, freedom of speech, immunity from police abuse, contractual liberty and free exercise of religion—just as much as rights to Social Security, Medicare and food stamps—are taxpayer-funded and government-managed social services designed to improve collective and individual well-being."
On marriage:
In a recent book, Sunstein proposes that government recognition of marriage be discontinued. "Under our proposal, the word marriage would no longer appear in any laws, and marriage licenses would no longer be offered or recognized by any level of government," argues Sunstein. He continues, "the only legal status states would confer on couples would be a civil union, which would be a domestic partnership agreement between any two people." He goes on further, "Governments would not be asked to endorse any particular relationships by conferring on them the term marriage," and refers to state-recognized marriage as an "official license scheme."
Sunstein addressed the Senate on 11 July 1996 advising against the Defense of Marriage Act.
Lerner's husband already got a choice ambassadorship, after raising a metric ton of money for Obama's 08' campaign. :rolleyes:
As for Obama's quadruple down on "confidence in Holder", his unveiled threat to the Senate on his trio of leftist DC Circuit appointees and now this, I'm beginning to wonder if his capacity for "restraint" has worn thin. It also makes me contemplate what other acrimonious decisions will be forthcoming from the Oval Office.
Is Obama coming unhinged?
Frankly, him "going for broke" may finally convince some of those standing on the fence that he's not the man they foolishly voted for.
Why not just put Robert Ebert in there if it National Security really depends on movie reviews?
Reviewing Rice's curriculum vitae, she has the chops on paper to be appointed NSA. Reviewing her policy positions however, reveals some troubling issues that go way beyond being the Benghazi coverup mouthpiece. She's apparently a solid interventionist. It's rather ironic that her and McCain will probably be in lockstep on Syrian intervention, considering that she's called his foreign policy stances "reckless". I happen to agree with her, but it's the pot calling the kettle black.
She's also apparently butted heads with Donilon, whom she's replacing. Donilon was one of Obama's basketball buddies and closest advisers. I'll bet the internal dynamic of her replacing him is pretty "interesting". Regardless, this is yet another in a long series of troubling calls by POTUS.
LowSpeed_HighDrag
06-05-13, 12:56
A fitting choice for this admin and the current times. Anyone else might even be puzzling to me.
Although I find this choice unfortunate, I am by no means surprised.
Rice's public performance after Benghazi was an affront to the nation, but clearly she is reaping rewards for her loyalty. I'm just left to wonder what it says about the Administration when they choose to elevate an individual in whom the country has zero confidence. Then again, I suppose these same kinds of concerns could be rightly applied to any number of sitting officials. It isn't my place or purpose to be openly critical, but in purely strategic terms, I'm admittedly curious what this reappointment is intended to accomplish.
AC
Strikes me as nothing more than a big middle finger to the GOP I think.
Maybe the making of Clinton/Lewinksy 2.0? Sounds like POTUS and FLOTUS have been on rough terms for a spell lol
The replacement for the paid liar Rice to the UN will be Samantha Power. So you ask who is Samantha Power? She worked for the campaign to elect the current occupant of the White House.
...from which she was booted for going after Hillary Clinton in the press. (Not that I'm against going after Hillary Clinton per se) What it is though, is another appointment of someone who already has a long track record of putting their foot in their mouth and taking off on tangents. Precisely the qualities one would look for in an ambassador.
...from which she was booted for going after Hillary Clinton in the press. (Not that I'm against going after Hillary Clinton per se) What it is though, is another appointment of someone who already has a long track record of putting their foot in their mouth and taking off on tangents. Precisely the qualities one would look for in an ambassador.
Not to take up for the other side, but that could just as easily describe John Bolton. Not one of Bush's finer appointments. :(
Mauser KAR98K
06-05-13, 15:36
Monica Crowley nails it: Failing up.
http://www.theblaze.com/contributions/the-obama-administration-is-all-about-failing-up/
Moose-Knuckle
06-05-13, 20:40
Appalling, but yeah . . . another sign of the times. :help:
FromMyColdDeadHand
06-05-13, 21:29
Not to take up for the other side, but that could just as easily describe John Bolton. Not one of Bush's finer appointments. :(
John Bolton never pissed on and told me it was rain.
This comes down to a very succinct point. Either she didn't know the intel she was given was compromised in which case she shouldn't be NSA because she isn't smart enough to ask the right questions and gets pushed around OR she knew the story was a crock and went and spread it thick and deep on the dark lords orders in which case she shouldn't be NSA because she is too easily swayed by stronger personalities. There are no other options or ways to look at it. She is incompetent or she is a political hack.
brushy bill
06-05-13, 21:41
We have an Attorney General who lies under oath and allows firearms to be illegally sold to straw buyers to be supplied to the Mexican drug cartel.
We have a Treasury Secretary who failed to pay his income taxes - several times.
We have an HHS Secretary strong-arming those companies she regulates, asking for "donations".
We had a Secretary of State who couldn't care less about what happened in Benghazi.
We have an out of control IRS, an out if control DOJ, and out to lunch State, and an out to transform the USA into a quazi-progressive police-state White House.
Does this appointment really surprise anyone?
Nope. No surprise. And I have no problem with Bolton, who repeatedly stood up to the UN on gun control.
She is incompetent and she is a political hack.
Fixed it for you.
Although I find this choice unfortunate, I am by no means surprised.
Rice's public performance after Benghazi was an affront to the nation, but clearly she is reaping rewards for her loyalty.
AC
With the sole exception of the word "unfortunate" you just wrote verbatim what I was going to write.
Not to take up for the other side, but that could just as easily describe John Bolton. Not one of Bush's finer appointments. :(
How so? Bolton was a staunch defender of the US Constitution and US sovereignty in the UN. His assessments of global threats are spot on. He seems like exactly the kind of guy we need in this role.
How so? Bolton was a staunch defender of the US Constitution and US sovereignty in the UN. His assessments of global threats are spot on. He seems like exactly the kind of guy we need in this role.
No kidding. And he would call terrorism "terrorism" and not try and suggest it was a spontaneous demonstration that we provoked.
Probably the best decision Bush ever made.
I'm not tracking on that one. The guy's geopolitical analyses I always find impressive.
FromMyColdDeadHand
06-06-13, 13:26
G2G
Is the comparison based on the fact that they both hold policy positions that are popular with a good part of their respective bases, though those positions are diametrically opposed? Both worked their way up thru multiple admins and are safe picks for their respective bosses?
Powered by vBulletin® Version 4.2.5 Copyright © 2024 vBulletin Solutions, Inc. All rights reserved.