Susan Rice?

Susan “Youtube” Rice?!!!

Is this the most politically tone-deaf administration in history?

And do they really think that throwing Donilon under the bus is going to make Benghazi go away?

I feel much more secure now that we have a security advisor who doesn’t know the difference between a terrorist attack and a rambunctious movie review.

[Afternoon update]

“Not one, not two, but three flips of the Obama bird:

Susan Rice is no more qualified to opine on matters of national security than a character from The Wizard of Oz. Like Obama himself, she is a highly politicized, over-credentialed Scarecrow, with certificates from Stanford, Oxford, and the Brookings Institution in place of a brain.

He’s being kind, I think.

[Update a few minutes later]

OK, per comments here and elsewhere, how can the administration prevent her from testifying on executive privilege when the thing that she will be testifying about occurred when she was working for the State Department?

OK, let me amend that. How can they credibly do so?

Not that that ever slows them down, either, of course. It didn’t with Holder in Fast and Furious.

And then there’s this. Maybe Bob-1 is right in comments (hey, you know, blind squirrels and all) and it’s not Donilon that’s becoming a bus speed bump:

As for birds two and three, I’ll leave it to my PJ colleagues to unpack the implicit antisemitic and anti-Israel nature of the Power appointment; the Irish-born Ms. Power is married to Harvard egghead Cass Sunstein, proving once again that leftists, like rock stars and supermodels, tend to travel in packs and marry each other because they never meet anybody else. But surely Hillary Clinton, who’s clearly now being fitted for the fall guy jacket regarding Benghazi, must be seething.

Keep the corn popper on standby.

85 thoughts on “Susan Rice?”

  1. Benghazi has already gone away. There was never anything there, and the GOP is too busy with other faux White House scandals.

      1. Nor did it take long to spout the Administration-approved talking point.

        Good little drone.

        Graveyard; whistling past.

        1. Good little drone.

          Think about all the supposed scandals that the right wing media has gotten you worked up about: New Black Panthers, Fast & Furious, the $200 million/day trip to India, Solyndra, buying up all the ammo, death panels, stockpiling coffins, the fake birth certificate, the whitey tape, etc. And none of them have had any effect other than to rile up people who were against Obama to begin with (and to repeatedly make them look foolish for crying wolf).

          Who are the drones here?

          1. “The Black panthers”- where a racially-motivated DOJ dropped a voter-intimidation prosecution against a racial hate group whose conviction was a drop-shot… because they were the RIGHT kind of racists.
            “Fast & Furious”- where the DOJ violated federal law to ship weapons to Mexican drug dealers and then attacked the whistleblowers
            “$200 million/day” vacations- where the Administration complains about Republicans cutting budgets, while spending more on personal entertainment than any previous president.
            “Solyndra”- where the Government pours millions of taxpayer dollars into failed buisinesses that just happen to be run by big-dollar Democratic donors- while complaining about how the Republicans are the party of ‘big money in politics’.
            “Death Panels”- like Sebelius condemning a little girl to death rather than waiving a rule so she can get a transplant a few weeks early.
            “The Whitey Tape”:- which one? The one where a Democratic appointee confessed her deep-seated racism, or the one where the President’s ‘long-time spiritual advisor’ confessed HIS deep-seated racism, or are there more tapes that we haven’t seen yet (trick question: there are).

            But that’s Jim all over. Disgusting failure of character and felonies in office are completely acceptable to him, as long as it’s HIS party doing it. He was born in the wrong place: North Korea or Zimbabwe missed a great citizen.

          2. DaveP: Jim’s a good little Progressive, as we all know, and, as we all know, you can’t get to Progressive eutopia without breaking a few eggs. Not prosecuting the NBP balances out past oppression of blacks, or something. The girl with the lungs, well, we have to make it clear up front that the not-death-panels have absolute authority, and what better way to do that than to kill a kid by inaction?

          3. There was no there there for James Rosen leaking secrets, yet he was labeled a criminal co-conspirator by an affadavit signed by the AG. Interesting how that’s important to the Administration, but transferring arms to Mexican Drug Lords, Murder of an US Ambassador, and IRS abusing its power are not important.

          4. “The hardest thing to explain is the glaringly evident which everybody has decided not to see.”

            Ayn Rand

            And in this case “everybody” is restricted to the left.

          5. When Trent is shilling and lying for the most tyrannical and lawless administration in our nation’s history, we’ll spare some outrage for him.

          6. Lest Rand accuse of me of going off-topic, I think Rice might not be a good choice, just based on her background. It is hard (for me) to figure out what kind of background is best for national security advisor, but I suppose a soldier-diplomat combinations like Colin Powell or James Jones give me, in my ignorance, with greater confidence.

            Samantha Power’s appointment to the UN, on the other hand, is a great idea. Power is well-known for supporting a vigorous use of our military to stop genocides, which is just what needs to continue to be promoted in the UN.

            I just wish you folks would be willing to address a terrorist-sympathizer and anti-American in your midst.

          7. Trent is shilling for the worst domestic terrorist in US history who committed the 2nd worst act of terrorism in US history. And it isn’t like outrage is in short supply around here.

          8. I’ve got an idea. You be outraged about whatever you want to be outraged about, and we’ll be outraged about whatever we want to be outraged about. But I’d prefer that the outrage remain on topic.

          9. I’ll honor your preferences.

            Back on topic: it would be interesting to see if any former national security advisors have stated what an ideal resume for NSA might look like.

          10. Without expressing an opinion about what it might look like, I fearlessly predict that it wouldn’t start to resemble hers. But then, few people in this administration have resumes that would recommend them for their job, the president foremost.

          11. shilling and lying

            What lie?

            for the most tyrannical and lawless administration in our nation’s history

            Are you trying to prove my point? I thought Bush Derangement Syndrome was bad, but Obama Derangement has it beat by a mile.

        2. Nor did it take long to spout the Administration-approved talking point.

          Yeah. Not only that, but last year we had the same talking points generators digging deep into Romney’s past to bring up irrelevancies like dogs in boxes. But four Americans getting killed due to the actions (or inactions) of the Bystander-In-Chief, less than a year ago, that’s no big deal, nothing to see. And all the Useful Idiots fall right in line.

    1. You know, in an argument one really wants to believe that the other person is arguing in good faith. Once that is lost, whatever arguments put forth are dismissed no matter the merits of the argument.

      Jim, for me you passed that point long ago. Your arguments no longer mean anything more than “LOOK A RACIST SQUIRREL!” because you really aren’t arguing in good faith. You *know* that the Obama administration is incompetent and corrupt to the very core. There is no way you cannot understand this.

      1. ” no matter the merits of the argument”

        Once you do acknowledge that a given argument has merit, why ignore it? You can feel loathing toward Jim, just as I feel loathing toward terrorist-sympathizing coldhearted enemies-of-America like Trent Waddington and Ali Saleh Kahlah al-Marri, but there is no need to fall for the ad hominem fallacy regarding their arguments.

      2. You *know* that the Obama administration is incompetent and corrupt to the very core. There is no way you cannot understand this.

        No, I do not know that. I know there is incompetence and corruption in this administration, just as there have been in every administration that came before this one. But on the whole I think this administration is more competent and less corrupt than most. I honestly believe that. The fact that you can not imagine that I am writing in good faith says more about you than it does about me.

        1. On the contrary, Jim, I can believe you DO honestly believe the administration that had an off-the-record meeting to discuss the freedom of the press is the most transparent, ethical, and accountable administration ever.

        2. “But on the whole I think this administration is more competent and less corrupt than most. I honestly believe that.”

          Really.

          Is this the same Jim who wrote on June 5, 2013, 7:01 am: “New Black Panthers, Fast & Furious, the $200 million/day trip to India, Solyndra, buying up all the ammo, death panels, stockpiling coffins, the fake birth certificate, the whitey tape”?

          Jim, admit it, at least to yourself: if *any* of these scandals had occurred in a Republican administration, the press coverage would be rather hostile toward the administration. And yet they all occurred in a single Democrat administration, and Bob Woodward is again a lonely voice.

          You forgot the trampling of the Constitution; one could probably go line-by-line through the amendments and find scandals in almost every one. For example: remember Nakoula, the producer of one of the worst movies ever made? Literal Brownshirts whisked him away with his face concealed in the middle of the night over that film, blaming it for the deaths of four Americans in Benghazi. He’s still in jail. The Associated Press is starting to find out the value of the First Amendment, too.

          You also conveniently didn’t mention some other scandals that ought to scare the bejeezus out of you. The precedent has now been set. To whom will you cry “foul!” when it’s the Republicans in the White House using the IRS to target political enemies of the President? Or the NSA gobbling up Verizon phone calls willy-nilly? Or journalists being treated as spies for committing the act of journalism? Or American citizens abroad being targeted with drone strikes, thus eliminating the need for a trial.

          Who do you think will listen to you when it’s a Republican president forcing all Americans to buy flood insurance? Who will care what you have to say when it’s a Republican president using the myriad federal agencies to circumvent Congress?

          Call it ad hominem if you want, but there is such a thing as credibility and reputation. I actually appreciate having guys like you and Chris Gerrib around; it prevents this place from becoming a total echo chamber. However, for your views to have any credibility, they need to be honest. The more you defend the indefensible, the lower your credibility goes, and right now that credibility is in the negative.

          1. Haven’t heard anything at all about screwing with the Third. 😀

            But they countered by screwing the First clause-by-clause.

            Speech, Press, Assembly, Petition, Establishment, and Exercise. It’s a six-fer.

          2. And yet they all occurred in a single Democrat administration

            The point is that they either didn’t happen (there was no death panels, or fake birth certificate, or $200m/day trip), or weren’t White House scandals (Obama had nothing to do with F&F, Solyndra wasn’t a scandal, the ammo and coffin stories are nothing burgers, etc.). But nonetheless they generated huge coverage from the right wing media, and convinced some — including you, apparently — that Obama was doing terrible things. This scandal industry drives traffic and sells advertising, but it doesn’t tell us anything interesting about the Obama administration.

            remember Nakoula, the producer of one of the worst movies ever made

            Enforcing parole restrictions is not the death of freedom.

            To whom will you cry “foul!” when it’s the Republicans in the White House using the IRS to target political enemies of the President

            I would cry foul if it was Democrats in the White House using the IRS to target political enemies of the President. But there’s no evidence that that’s been happening. The question of evidence doesn’t seem to concern you, but I think it’s rather important!

            Or the NSA gobbling up Verizon phone calls willy-nilly

            I think that’s terrible. But some perspective: Bush was illegally doing this sort of thing without a warrant. At least Obama’s people got a (Republican) judge to sign off.

            Or journalists being treated as spies for committing the act of journalism?

            I think the leak investigations have gone too far. But recall that it’s the GOP that was demanding these investigations. Their outrage today is 100% political opportunism.

            Or American citizens abroad being targeted with drone strikes, thus eliminating the need for a trial.

            Are you really opposed to the strike on Anwar al-Awlaki? Do you think a Republican president would be more reluctant to order such a strike?

            I wish the administration was less focused on military responses to terrorism, but that puts me in a small minority.

            Who do you think will listen to you when it’s a Republican president forcing all Americans to buy flood insurance?

            I may not consider it advisable, but I’ll happily grant that it’s constitutional.

            Who will care what you have to say when it’s a Republican president using the myriad federal agencies to circumvent Congress?

            Then, as now, I will wish for a filibuster-free Congress that can actually pass laws.

            The more you defend the indefensible

            What indefensible thing am I defending?

          3. “…here was no death panels, …”

            you clearly do not pay attention:

            Just this week, Sebelius had the power of decision about the life or death of a 10 year old girl. She chose death….until a court ordered her to choose life.

            Of course the problem with all this is that NO ONE in the federal government should have the power to make these decisions either way.

            But the fact, Jim, that you could make that statement after the ink is barely dry on absolute proof that the death panel does exist, ..a death “panel” that publically rendered a decision…..speaks to your delusional state.

            as for the rest of your screed above…more of the same delusions.

          4. Jim, did you really just type that the IRS had to persecute political dissidents because we have the filibuster? Obama has to operate by the same rules as everyone else, being unhappy with the law doesn’t mean he is allowed to become a tyrant and impose his will by dictate.

            The HHS secretary using extortion to get money from the companies she regulates has nothing to do with Obama’s inability to get legislation through the Democratically controlled Senate. The same is true for using the IRS to persecute average American citizens, the EPA to perseccute farmers or companies Obama views as undesireable, or telling judges that reporters will be charge with espionage to read their emails.

            Obama is responsible for the illegal and unethical actions of his administration, it is not the “system’s” fault.

          5. Just this week, Sebelius had the power of decision about the life or death of a 10 year old girl. She chose death….until a court ordered her to choose life.

            This is a great example of how partisans ignore facts in an attempt to score cheap political points. The lung transplant policy in question has nothing to do with Obamacare, and dates to 2005. I doubt that Bush administration officials had anything to do with making the rule in question — it was made by doctors, in an effort to maximize the utility of scarce donor organs. You may think that policy is wrong, but it has nothing to do with Obama creating “death panels”.

            In fact, by declining to overrule the doctors who set up the transplant policy, Sebelius is acting 180º opposition of your characterization. She is declining the opportunity to abuse executive power for political purposes, in favor of letting impartial policies make the call. If she had made the decision you want it would effectively been a death sentence for someone else on the transplant list, all so she could get some favorable publicity. She made the difficult, correct decision.

            absolute proof that the death panel does exist

            In this trivial sense, there have always been death panels. There have always been panels making rules to decide how to allocate donor organs, with life and death in the balance. That has nothing to do with Obama, or Sebelius, or the Democratic party, or politics. But here you are, using it to advance a partisan agenda, because attacking Obama is priority #1.

          6. Jim, did you really just type that the IRS had to persecute political dissidents because we have the filibuster

            No, I didn’t.

          7. Jim said:
            “This is a great example of how partisans ignore facts in an attempt to score cheap political points….”

            I’m sorry, but did a Democrat just say that? After eight years of attempting to harm American interests and undercut the office of President because a Republican was in it?

        3. “Just this week, Sebelius had the power of decision about the life or death of a 10 year old girl. She chose death….until a court ordered her to choose life.

          This is a great example of how partisans ignore facts in an attempt to score cheap political points. The lung transplant policy in question has nothing to do with Obamacare, and dates to 2005.”

          And this is how witless progressives and commie-symps attempt to distract from the issue by a cheap allegation of politicization. It is also a prime example of how you – yes YOU – conveniently forget what you’ve said countless times in the past:

          The points, Jim, are:

          1) that neither Sebelius nor any other Federal stooge should be making these decisions – where did she get the power to make that decision? How did it come to pass that people were begging her to help save the life of a child by allowing an operation she SHE HAD THE POWER to allow?

          Where did she get that power?

          Why does she have that power? The point, knothead, is that neither she, nor any other Federal stooge in that position regardless of party affiliation, should ever have that power. THAT is what true conservatives have been saying all along.

          And THAT is why your allegation of cheap politicization is just so much gasbaggery and codswallop.

          2) You were explicitly told by Palin (and others) that if Obamacare passed Federal bureaucrat stooges would be making those decisions and you – YES YOU – explicitly said there *are not any* death panels and there *will not be* any death panels.

          Well you were wrong then and you are wrong now…

          The evidence that you were and are wrong is so incontrovertible that it would take a true ostrich to not see it.

          I do not expect you to recant your previous statements as they are all stated to defend the issue of the moment and have nothing to do with consistency or principle.

          Except the principle to defend the Dear One to the hilt.

          3) Yes organs are a limited commodity and so choices have to be made. But they should NOT be made in DC. Like most things, that is a local decision. If the State she lives in or the municipality wants to give her the set of lungs they should be able to do so without some ignorant, clueless DC bureaucrat interfering. This has nothing to do with Federal power.

          4) One reason the Feds should not be in the business of making these decisions is for the exact same reason that the IRS should be shut down right now:

          the ability to use such decision to aid political friends and hurt political enemies (if they come with a knife we’ll come with a gun – Obama).

          I doubt any of this will sink into that head of yours but hopefully someone who is open to reality and is hungry for the facts and for the way to look at these things will see.

  2. “JIM”: what a fucking idiot you are. It’s not a “faux” scandal. People DIED and Obama LIED to save his own miserable political skin. But you’re okay with lies and betrayal as long as it’s your dreamy Chicago Machine Messiah who’s doing it.

    Obama has corrupted every aspect of American government. He has turned revenue and regulatory agencies into his political einsatzgruppen. His economic policies are looting the middle class (and America’s future) to bribe the poor and reward his billionaire campaign donors. His foreign policy is a mix of clueless arrogance and craven appeasement, all informed by faculty-lounge Marxism and racial resentment.

    You, and idiots like you, elected this corrupt narcissistic shell of a man to the highest office in the land. You are to blame for the corruption and incompetence on display. The fact that you are desperately lying and flailing about, trying to deny reality and blame the people trying to stop the madness, indicates that you are completely corrupt to the core.

    You are a worthless piece of garbage just like the one you voted for. I hope someday you begin to understand just how badly you are lying to yourself, but I doubt it. You are loathsome and despicable, and you have given up your integrity and your soul to a political party even more loathsome and despicable than you are.

    1. Our beloved Jim is a commie-symp, lefty Kool-aid drinker and Obama apologiste….

      but I think you’ve gone slightly over the top.

    2. You are a worthless piece of garbage just like the one you voted for.

      Is ad hominem really all you’ve got?

      1. It’s all you have Jim: “Are you trying to prove my point? I thought Bush Derangement Syndrome was bad, but Obama Derangement has it beat by a mile.

        1. Touché.

          What I should have said to Rand is: This is totally over the top. I get that you don’t like Obama, but “the most tyrannical and lawless administration in our nation’s history”? Really? We’ve had presidents commit genocide, put thousands of citizens in camps, commit dozens of felonies against their political opponents, and Obama is worse than all of them? This hyperbole undermines your position.

      2. Hey he called you a name but its not like he called you a racist then said a bunch of racist things about you. C’mon he isn’t acting like a Democrat cut him some slack.

        I mean calling someone a name is pretty bad like ordering the IRS to audit you costing tens of thousands in legal fees and questionable taxes.

        Its not like he leaked confidential information to your competitors or anything.

    1. Sure, he wanted to spend more time with his family, never heard that one before. Whatever the reasons for him leaving, it isn’t the boilerplate response. Besides how can we trust anything this administration says? They lied about Benghazi, IRS persecution, EPA corruption and many other things large and small, why should we take anything at face value?

      You going to tell me Obamacare will lower costs and the stimulus will fund shovel ready infrastructure jobs next?

  3. I don’t think the administration is acting out of tone deafness in this particular case. I think they know very well what they are doing and are banking on the MSM to remain pliant lap dogs and not challenge him on this.

  4. Brazening it all out is just the modus operandi. Jim is an example. The key phrase…

    Rice’s selection as national security adviser does not require her to be confirmed by the Senate.

  5. Donilon is rumored to be the most notorious serial leaker of information favorable to the Obama adminstration. It will be interesting to see whether there are changes in the availability of such information, which would tend to confirm that. Beyond that, he’s part of the small army of syncophants and ideologues within the current administration that don’t know excrement from shinola when it comes to actual governing, national security issues, advocacy of American interests, developing consensus or compromise with people of differing political views, etc.

    I wonder if his leaving government would make him more “available” to Congressional investigators? Would he still fall under the umbrella of Presidential immunity?

  6. Lapdog rewarded with treat for doing what was asked of her. Punishing her would just motivate her to tell the full story. This way, she has reason to remain silent.

    1. “Who are the drones here?”

      K. T MacFarland has a similar take on it. Not only does she have reason to remain silent but……

      ……her new position ALLOWS her to remain silent:

      “By appointing Rice to NSA job means she can invoke executive privilege and doesn’t have to testify on Capitol Hill. And she will certainly be a loyal soldier if she is now sitting 40 yards from the Oval Office.

      Hmmm….is Obama now taking Rice out of the running to be a key witness in the inevitable Benghazi hearings? Once she’s on the White House staff, she can hide behind the veil of executive privilege. ”

      http://www.foxnews.com/opinion/2013/06/05/real-reason-obama-tapped-susan-rice-for-national-security-adviser/#ixzz2VMfOSFmx

      1. Actually, she can still be called to testify on matters that happened before she became NSA, just as Hillary can be called to testify. Rice can’t be called to testify on matters from this point forward but the past is wide open.

  7. It is comical to describe Samantha Power as antisemitic in the same sentence as she is described as married to Cass Sunstein.

    I understand why she is described that way, and it really truly is heartwarming that “antisemitic” is used as a slur. I’d start explaining why, but you won’t believe me. So listen to the anti-defamation league, which is quite quick to point out anti-semitism regardless of politics:
    http://www.adl.org/press-center/press-releases/united-nations/adl-welcomes-nomination-of-susan-power-un-ambassador.html#.Ua-sQOAQh95

    As for anti-Israel, Samantha Power believes what former Israeli prime ministers, former Mossad chiefs, former IDF generals, and, most importantly,what a sizable portion (often the majority) Israeli voters believe. Israel uses a coalition-building parliamentary system, so you’ll see odd bedfellows in power, and Israeli voters aren’t single-issue voters, so politics are complicated, but Power is in the mainstream of Israeli political thought, and isn’t anti-Israel to the extent that she cares about Israel (I’m quite sure she puts the USA first). Ha’aretz gave her their blessing. Her wikipedia page has links to numerous well-known American Jews and Israelis who vouch for her with regard to Israel.

    1. Moreover, prevention of further Holocausts is her number one issue and it is what she is famous for. She would have bombed the tracks leading to the death camps. I think that’s what Jews want.

      1. So taking out Saddam was a good thing? You want a person who will advocate going to war on humanitarian grounds?

        Does that mean we will be going to war with Egypt or any number of other Arab Spring countries for genocide against Jews and Christians? What do your Islamist apologists sites say about the slaughter of religious minorites in muslim countries? Do you even know what is going on in the countries that Obama has intervened in?

      2. Oh and another thing, remember your claim that being married to someone from a specific group prevents them from being anti that group. Democrats are tirelessly claiming people are racist, like Lou Dobs and Mitch McConnel, who have mixed race marriages.

          1. Get well soon.

            (This line added to make the comment long enough to be accepted by the spam filter)

  8. Benghazi outrage kept Rice out of the Secretary of State position, but nothing we’ve learned about Benghazi since then has reflected badly on her. Rather, it’s become clear that the most controversial part of the talking points — linking the Benghazi attacks to the demonstrations in Egypt over the “Innocence of Muslims” video — came from the CIA in the very first draft. But the GOP doesn’t see any political benefit in going after David Petreaus, so they try to make it all about Rice and Hillary Clinton.

    And Rice, of course, had absolutely nothing to do with the failure to protect those men in Benghazi in the first place. This is supposed to be a big scandal because people died, so why is the focus on Rice, who only came on the scene afterwards? The GOP isn’t satisfied with a simple story of bureaucratic failure on the part of the CIA and State Department leading to an avoidable loss of life, so they overreached for a political cover-up story that didn’t pan out.

    In six months I expect to be seeing Benghazi in the papers about as much as I see Fast and Furious or Obama’s birth certificate in the papers today.

    1. “Benghazi outrage kept Rice out of the Secretary of State position, but nothing we’ve learned about Benghazi since then has reflected badly on her.”

      She either knew the talking points given to her were lies – in which case she’s a liar, lying about deaths and their cause and therefore unfit for the office of dog catcher – or she was completely unaware, in which case she’s mortally incompetent.

      As McFarland wrote (bother to read the article?) many people higher up than she were in town and totally available to appear on those 5 shows. But they didn’t. Why her? She should have asked that question of herself.

      “….so they overreached….”

      Ahh good little obedient drone..that talking point came out just this week, simultaneously, on a multitude of Kool-aid MSM, Journolistsas, and Obamanoid talking heads…

      and you are right on cue.

      The focus is on Rice, silly man, because Obama picked her for his National security adviser. You know, the person that coordinates all of the agencies of the national security executive.

      Rice doesn’t have the chops for that job. But as Rand said….neither does her boss have he chops for his job.

      1. Lying in public about deaths related to national security makes you unfit to be the president’s national security advisor? She might not be the right oerson for the job, and ultimate accountability to the voters is important, but I don’t expect complete candor in public when it comes to national security.

        1. After eight years of Democrats chanting “Bush lied…!”, and repeating that canard about every person associated with his administration, Democrats are expected to display ABSOLUTE candor in public office, and any less should result in termination.

          If they were honest, that is.

      2. The lack of candor had nothing to do with protecting it national security, it had to do with protecting Obama and his incompetent appointees from blame a month prior to an election.

        1. Indeed.

          In addition, if you have to lie about something for national security reasons, you could come up with something that’s a little less a transparent lie. And you can come up with one that does not require arresting someone on a charge which you wouldn’t ordinarily roust him about.

          Also, the shape of the lie fits with the overall administration approach to terrorist attacks and terrorism:

          Lone wolf

          don’t jump to conclusions about it being related to jihadism

          workplace violence (that’s a real doozy)…

          etc.

          it fits the well established pattern.

      3. or she was completely unaware, in which case she’s mortally incompetent

        Would you say the same of Petraeus or Donilon, both of whom had a lot more background on the question, and signed off on those talking points before Rice ever saw them? If the talking points are so important, why wasn’t the GOP demanding Donilon’s resignation?

        1. Petraeus did no such thing.

          From ABC’s Jonathan Karl (one of endless statements from all sorts of commentators):

          “KARL: Yeah, this is fascinating. Because Mike Morrell, who was the deputy director, was the one that ultimately signed off on this one. Petraeus finally saw the final version of the talking points. This is the Saturday afternoon before Susan Rice’s appearances on the Sundayshows. He looks at these and says they’re essentially useless. And direct quote from his e-mail. He says, I would just as soon not use them. But it’s their call, meaning the White House’s call.”

          “Morrell signed off…”
          “The White House’s call”….

          Once again your delusions betray you.

          I don’t expect you to recant your obvious, glaring failure to grasp reality….but this is for anyone who thought it might be wise to pay the slightest attention to what you say …

          Donilon works for Obama directly and therefore will do what he is told…

          until, of course, he is thrown under the bus as he was this week.

          1. Petraeus signed off on the first draft, which starts by blaming the protests in Egypt. He wasn’t happy with the last draft because it removed a sentence that again referred to the protests in Egypt. The CIA was totally responsible for the parts of the talking points that have the GOP most upset.

        2. Everyone you listed is a hand picked member of the Obama administration not sure why you would think Obama bears no responsibility for them.

          We do know the white house and state department, both under the control of Obama, made significant changes to the talking points initially created by Obama appointees in the CIA. You claim Obama said it was an act of terrorism but then he ordered Rice to go out and claim it was a video.

          Oh, and he threw a guy in jail for making a video.

          1. We do know the white house and state department, both under the control of Obama, made significant changes to the talking points initially created by Obama appointees in the CIA.

            Those changes did not have to do with describing the attack as a spontaneous reaction to protests in Egypt — that talking point originated at the CIA, and was in every draft.

            he ordered Rice to go out and claim it was a video

            Rice used the talking points, which (for the nth time) originated at the CIA. And yet it’s Rice, not Petraeus or Donilon, who bore the brunt of GOP anger.

            Oh, and he threw a guy in jail for making a video.

            The guy was thrown in jail for violating his parole. Do parole regulations not apply to hate mongers?

  9. When you look at the last 2-3 foreign policy/national security picks, what you get is a deep dedication to incompetence on the part of the Obama administration:

    Chuck Hagel? Totally incompetent and way over his head. Everyone knows this (well with the possible exception of Jim)

    John Effing Kerry? Totally incompetent, no credentials for the job.

    And now Susan Rice – yet another light resume.

    It is as if Obama wants his gauleiters to be as ineffectual as possible. Now why would he want this?

    Because he wants the US to have NO foreign policy? Just ignore the rest of the world? His track record supports this to some degree.

    Because like hires like? He’s totally incompetent and so is inclined to choose incompetents?

    And by corollary, because smart capable people frighten the daylights out of him?

    All of the above?

    1. I don’t understand why they picked Hagel, other than a misguided belief in bipartisanship.

      John Effing Kerry? Totally incompetent, no credentials for the job

      Huh? John Kerry has decades of experience on the Senate Foreign Relations committee. He has better credentials than Hillary Clinton did when she was named.

      Susan Rice – yet another light resume

      Her resume is stronger than Donilon’s was when he was named.

      I don’t know how well Kerry and Rice will do, but it’s transparently political to attack them for not having credentials that they obviously have.

      1. After electing Obama, you should not be speaking about credentials and saying someone has better credentials than Hillary doesn’t help your cause.

      2. Name Rice’s credentials.

        Name Kerry’s credientials. Kerry’s Senate committee experience counts for exactly nothing.

        Not. A. Thing.

        Diplomacy is an entirely different universe than being in the Senate.

        Why do you drag in Hillary? Ok so drag her in and I agree with you – her credentials were miserable. She was not qualified for that job.

        Then compare Rice’s/Kerry’s credentials to, say, Henry Kissinger (who held both posts).

        List them side by side for us all to see.

        The only transparency here (I give fact – you ignore them) is that you continue to be the good little obedient drove.

        Transparently political? hahahahahaha please.

        1. Name Rice’s credentials.

          She was at the NSC (director of international organizations and peacekeeping, senior director for African affairs), Assistant Secretary of State, and Ambassador to the UN. Her qualifications are similar to, if not better than, those of Condoleezza Rice when C. Rice became NSA.

          Kerry’s Senate committee experience counts for exactly nothing.

          I disagree, the members of the Foreign Relations committee get lots of practice dealing with foreign leaders. He certainly has more foreign relations experience than James Baker did (and Baker was an excellent Secretary of State).

          Why do you drag in Hillary? Ok so drag her in and I agree with you – her credentials were miserable. She was not qualified for that job.

          And yet she got good reviews for the way she handled it.

          Then compare Rice’s/Kerry’s credentials to, say, Henry Kissinger).
          List them side by side for us all to see.

          Before becoming NSA Kissinger was an academic. His only government role was as a consultant. He had much less experience in actual diplomacy or formulating of foreign policy than Susan Rice has today.

          Which is all to say: there are valid reasons to oppose Rice and Kerry, their resumes aren’t among them.

          1. She was at the NSC (director of international organizations and peacekeeping, senior director for African affairs), Assistant Secretary of State, and Ambassador to the UN. Her qualifications are similar to, if not better than, those of Condoleezza Rice when C. Rice became NSA.

            Jim, figging the hole deeper, I see. If the Secretary of State position required experience, then neither Rice would have been in the office.

            And what’s with the “but Bush did it too” argument? I seem to recall he isn’t exactly your guiding light.

  10. The apolitical consensus view is that Obama wants to run foreign policy out of the White House. Read Foreign Policy magazine.

    As for ignoring the rest of the world, that’s silly. What will Obama be doing in California this weekend? Talking to the leader of China about North Korea. What would you have him do instead?

    “His track record supports this to some degree.”

    Ok, what foreign policy achievements would you have liked to have seen since Obama assumed office that you didn’t see? Please be realistic. For example, I’d like to see one or more Israeli-Arabs peace agreements, but neither side has the right leaders for that right now (and Netanyahu is too wishy-washy to do things unilaterally the way Ariel Sharon did), so that has to wait. (Or do you disagree?)

    1. “Ok, what foreign policy achievements would you have liked to have seen since Obama assumed office that you didn’t see?”

      I am always realistic. For example Obama has zero chance to solve the Israeli-Arab situation because both sides have sized him up as an incompetent fool – a useful stooge at best.

      Here’s a couple right off the top of my head:

      1. Support the revolution in Iran when the revolutionaries took to the streets (first term).

      2. Support domestic drilling on all Federal lands thusly cracking the back of the Middle East oil dependency we have. This alone could have been done 4 years ago and we would have absolute autonomy in what we choose to do over there. Instead the bastige bowed….

      3. Heavy political and foreign policy investment in South America (and I don’t mean with the commies) to preclude the massive Chinese encroachments in the region.

      4. A “negative” acheivement of sorts: It would have been nice to not alienate our closest historical friends and allies such as Great Britain.

      There’s more than a couple. I could go on. It would be easy. Why don’t you try thinking up a few yourself?

      The moron in the WH can’t be bothered with such things. His dalliance with China is only to give away more of the store (see useful stooge above).

    2. The Arab Spring is going great, thanks Obama. You realize there is genocide taking place right now in countries where Obama helped overthrow the governments?

      Arming and training Islamic militants is incredibly foolish to say the least but Obama’s paradigm is based on Islamic militants being oppressed good guys, or in other words it isn’t based in reality. Every time he tries to say AQ is on the run, they or a franchise do something like storm embassies in multiple countries or take over a couple cities.

      But Obama’s foreign policy mistakes extend far beyond his handling of Islamist militants. His efforts with Russia have been terrible despite his missile defense shenanigans. China and North Korea policies equally as bad, probably why he told a judge that he was going to bring a Fox news reporter up on charges for spying. Obama leaked classified plans for an Israeli military base and offends our other close allies like the UK on a regular basis.

      Now, you could blame underlings like Hillary but remember it is the Obama administration and he is the one in charge despite what he wants people to think everytime the EPA or IRS or DOJ target political opponents for persecution and as you claim in your post, Obama wants to run it out of the white house.

      1. You realize there is genocide taking place right now in countries where Obama helped overthrow the governments?

        Which countries are you talking about here?

        His efforts with Russia have been terrible

        Worse than Bush looking into Putin’s soul? Relations with Russia aren’t great, but I don’t see how they’ve gotten any worse under Obama.

  11. Our Obedient Little Drone Jim marches lockstep with the list of talking points crafted by the WH and obediently spewed by the MSM….trying to convince us all that the Benghazi issue is dead and buried…

    Move along; nothing to see here…..

    That’s what they want you to think.

    That is not what *is*… Nile Gardener:

    8. The Benghazi scandal has been extremely damaging

    Much as the Obama administration tries to downplay the significance of the Benghazi scandal, it refuses to go away, with 46 percent of Americans believing “the administration deliberately misled the American people about the events surrounding the death of the American Ambassador to Libya” according to Quinnipiac. Like the IRS scandal, the Benghazi debacle has undermined trust and confidence in the Obama presidency. 58 percent of Americans in the most recent NBC News/Wall Street Journal survey agree that that the State Department’s handling of the Benghazi attack raises doubts “about the overall honesty and integrity of the Obama administration.”

    http://blogs.telegraph.co.uk/news/nilegardiner/100220493/the-stunning-decline-of-barack-obama-2013-ten-key-reasons-why-the-obama-presidency-is-in-meltdown/

    1. Last month’s flurry of Benghazi coverage did take a toll on the administration, especially because it hit at the same time as the IRS and AP revelations. But the story that set off that flurry has been discredited. Benghazi will fade from view unless there are new revelations with some legs. How much is Fast and Furious hurting the administration today? Or the birth certificate?

      Now the media has moved on to the Verizon and Prism surveillance stories, which are much bigger stories than Benghazi, but they are policy stories, not scandals.

      1. ” But the story that set off that flurry has been discredited. Benghazi will fade from view unless there are new revelations with some legs.”

        Oh I see now it’s “will fade…”

        Before it HAD faded.

        It’s true that F&F isn’t getting so much air time as before but it’s not forgotten. It’s just that there’s only so much air time and your beloved Dear Leader is now reeling under one scandal after another. Hard to cover them all. And there is still a bunch of MSM that take their talking points from the WH – as you do.

        Keep trying to convince people that Benghazi is forgotten. Ignore the fact that the polls listed were recent.

        Graveyard; whistling past.

  12. Jim states as fact:

    “Now the media has moved on to the Verizon and Prism surveillance stories, which are much bigger stories than Benghazi, but they are policy stories, not scandals.”

    Good thing for the Republic that Jim is not the arbiter of what is and is not a scandal.

  13. Right here, you see the future of the country. Democrats are presented with as clear-cut and as massive a case of malfeasance in office by a member of their own party as can be imagined, and asked to act as citizens should.
    Instead of acting like Americans, they choose to act as Democrats- first, last, and always.
    Don’t ever forget that, folks.

    1. Thing is, Dave, they are willing to pay any price – especially if YOU pay it – to achieve the goal.

      To people like Jim all that counts is how they vote on issues that matter to them. They can rape the treasury (endless QE’s), cause people to die (Benghazi), use the IRS as a bludgeon to silence opposition (starting with Joe the Plumber and continuing on), tap the phones and emails of reporters they don’t like (AP and Rosen), run guns to Mexican Drug cartels causing the deaths of hundreds of Mexicans and one US border agent (cheap price to them), and even put up with an Imperial Presidency, so long as condoms, birth control pills and abortions are free and easy.

      1. I dig all that, Gregg; I’m just hoping that more people pick up on it- that the Blues aren’t ‘part of the whole’ any more, but instead a separate faction intent on domination by any means necessary.
        The longer our side continues treating the Howling Peoples as if they were civilized, honorable opponents (and continues treating their apologists and useful idiots in our own ranks as if they were our “…eighty-percent friends”), the worse the damage will be- and worse our position will be- when the music finally stops.

Comments are closed.