22 Responses to What Do You Expect

  1. Scott in Oklahoma says: 1

    Good morning Skook. In answer to your first question, I suppose we must expect too much, and we are sadly outnumbered by those who are satisfied with the path we’re on. It will be interesting to watch, when the liberals that think a great job is getting done in Washington, finally realize bad things don’t just happen to “the other guy”, and we conservatives turn our backs to them while reminding them they got exactly what they wanted.

    ReplyReply
  2. Wm T Sherman says: 2

    Susan Rice’s history shows that she is a cold-blooded enabler of murder. Rwanda:

    http://www.weeklystandard.com/weblogs/TWSFP/2008/12/susan_rice_bystander_to_genoci.asp

    It’s all about the politics with her. People are just insects to such an individual. She’s actually something of a monster. In this administration she fits right in.

    In Libya, forty of our people at the unguarded consulate were abandoned to their fates by this administration, and only saved by two contractors who disobeyed their orders and went over from the CIA annex to rescue them. We ended up losing two people at the consulate, but if not for these men we would have lost twenty times as many. The two rescuers died later that night defending the CIA annex.

    Abandoned to preserve a pretty illusion of non-existent progress and competence. Lied about afterwards for the same reason. Rice’s recent behavior is completely consistent with her history back in the Clinton administration. She’s happy to be a tool.

    ReplyReply
  3. Skook says: 3

    Top of the morning to you Scott. The lead question was a rhetorical question, of course. However, we seem to have lowered our expectations for the Obama Bunch; the political lackey will by definition never measure up if we expecting the reactions of a statesman from people in positions of authority and influence. We accept mediocrity as the highest level of competency, ignorance, hypocrisy, and corruption are accepted. We have lowered our standards in order to be considered politically correct. People in the most infamous Leftist regimes were sent away to Gulags to be reeducated until they were considered to be politically correct. A more appropriate might be whether we fear being politically incorrect for the direction of our statism and the inevitable end result of the journey. Is this the threat that causes our politicians to cower at the thought of calling out Obama and his stooges on their transgressions, are they afraid the racist and misogynist names will brand them as enemies of the state. We seem to forget the villainy used to defame the other Rice during her nomination, but Democrats have a huge media complex to cover for them, so what.

    ReplyReply
  4. Wm T Sherman
    in the sequestration files, they put cuts on DIPLOMATS EMBASSY even more,
    is in it terrible, to have witness the 4 death in BENGHASI
    and for-see more death of DIPLOMATS where they leave the protection of their EMBASSY, by locals who are underpaid and hate AMERICANS, and run away at the first danger.
    bye

    ReplyReply
  5. Skook says: 5

    @Wm T Sherman: Great link on Rice and her true feelings of fake compassion:

    At an interagency teleconference in late April, Susan Rice, a rising star on the NSC who worked under Richard Clarke, stunned a few of the officials present when she asked, “If we use the word ‘genocide’ and are seen as doing nothing, what will be the effect 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.” Rice does not recall the incident but concedes, “If I said it, it was completely inappropriate, as well as irrelevant.”

    ReplyReply
  6. Wm T Sherman says: 6

    Bees, the attacks in Libya were not from lack of resources to provide security. There were abundant security resources available to the State Department but they were prohibited from service in Behghazi in the months before the final attacks, despite a series of smaller attacks leading up to the September 11 disaster.

    Also, beware that one of the Leftist talking points post-Benghazi was that Republicans introduced legislation to cut the State Department’s budget and therefore are responsible for the disaster. Simply not true. For one thing, it’s irrelevant because the Senate hasn’t passed a budget in four years; the government runs on monthly resolutions that help to obfuscate total spending. But mainly, the fact is that State is generously funded but they choose to squander money on things like providing electric cars to embassy staff.

    http://www.breitbart.com/Big-Government/2012/10/11/Austrian-Embassy-Kept-Marines-and-Got-More-Budget-for-Chevy-Volts-While-State-Dept-Cut-Libyan-Security

    High spending and Marine detachments for safe embassies in Europe, but a shoestring budget and no Marines for a dangerous station in Libya.

    ReplyReply
  7. Wm T Sherman says: 7

    @Skook:

    If I said it, it was and I am completely inappropriate, as well as irrelevant.”

    Fixed it.

    Rice for Secretary of State!

    (Hillary needs more time to pursue her Muslim Brotherhood outreach program, ably assisted by Huma Abedin.)

    ReplyReply
  8. Skook says: 8

    @Wm T Sherman: While taking a shower, I was wondering what the politically correct phrase for tens of thousands of murders and hacked up body parts is now. Is it man-made disaster? We should call in Napolitano to give us the correct term for homicidal maniacs running amuck and causing untold death and destruction.

    ReplyReply
  9. Nan G says: 9

    Lots of Americans who held European energy mutual funds were inadvertantly invested in companies that did business with Iran.
    Even other politicians, like John McCain held some of those stocks.
    So, that, in itself, should not be the disqualifier.

    What Rice did in front of cameras should be the disqualifier.
    And, what Rice did in advising Bill Clinton about the genocide of 500,000 people in Rwanda should be the disqualifier.
    Obama looked around for his highest-ranked yes-man and chose her.
    Bill Clinton called following her advice on Rwanda (vote present) the biggest mistake of his 8 year presidency.

    Her race, her sex have nothing to do with it.

    ReplyReply
  10. Scott in Oklahoma says: 10

    Nan G wrote… “Her race, her sex have nothing to do with it.”
    Awww geez Nan, we can’t just point out her real actions, can we? Really, everyone knows we conservatives are only bitching because the government is over-run with minorities and females and all of our complaining and gnashing of teeth has nothing to do with what’s really going on…

    ReplyReply
  11. Skook says: 11

    Yes, Nan, they should be held in blind trusts and the oil companies should be environmentally aware; otherwise it is dirty money from “oil”. Democrats are above things like oil money and sugar in Ketchup. Don’t tell Bloomberg that Heinz uses sugar as a main ingredient of Ketchup. It is the hypocrisy of the whole situation starting with the first Rice nomination. That is the trouble with playing stupid politics, your former actions come around to haunt you in the future.

    Obviously, when you have the reins of the politically correct vehicle it is an advantage, but history is just a page or two behind you.

    ReplyReply
  12. Wm T Sherman
    yes, and also there is the fact that OBAMA BELIEVED THE LIBYAN LEADER WHO ASK for not visible AMERICANS security, while STEVEN THE EMBASSADOR WAS ASKING FOR AMERICAN SECURITY,
    SO, strangely like the AFRICAN SLAUGHTER OF THE PEOPLE,
    OBAMA CHOOSE TO AGREE WITH THE LIBYAN LEADER INSTEAD OF CHOOSING AN AMERICAN DIPLOMAT MULTIPLE DEMANDS, which end up being kill brutally , along with the also precious SEALS,
    which OBAMA is totally responsible, because he had killed one leader terrorist alqaeda just before the attack,
    remember they burned OBAMA image and the AMERICAN FLAG, AND REPLACED IT WITH THEIR BLACK FLAGS
    WHAT DO WE CALL THAT FOR WHAT IT IS, TREASON

    ReplyReply
  13. Pingback: What Do You Expect - US Message Board - Political Discussion Forum

  14. grace nearing says: 13

    The Sec of State nominee is presented by Obama to the Senate. The Senate approves or rejects the nominee by a simple majority. The incoming Senate will have 53 democrats, 45 republicans, and 2 independents, who lean democrat.

    Do the math.

    ReplyReply
  15. Skook says: 14

    Grace are you a math instructor? Perhaps we need a remedial lesson or maybe we should read the filibuster rules.

    Have you read much history?

    Maybe with a Senate majority, Republicans should just give up and declare Obama our first Imperial President, because I will guarantee you the regulars on this blog can do your simple math and considerably more. Now do you have something else to astound us with?

    ReplyReply
  16. grace nearing says: 15

    Skook: It’s just not the math. It’s also a question of prioritizing issues. Filibuster the vote on a cabinet nominee? If you really want to, but don’t forget the nuclear option may be unleashed. And what’s with all these RINOs yakking on TV about how John Kerry would be an ideal sec of state? Have they forgotten Unfit for Command: Swift Boat Veterans Speak Out Against John Kerry?

    ReplyReply
  17. Smorgasbord says: 16

    Americans should expect a president to offer cabinet positions to people with moral integrity equal to his own;

    That’s the problem: He is appointing people with moral integrity equal to his own.

    Yes, Rice was a Rhodes Scholar and she is extremely wealthy; she and her husband seem to have made a fortune in oil and logging without the ugly stain attached to Republicans with similar portfolios.

    Let’s pass a law that says all politicians have to list all of their worth, where it came from, and where they have it. I’m tired of the democrats condemning wealthy republicans, and the democrat is wealthier than the republican they are condemning. They condemn anyone who drives an SUV, but I challenge anyone to find a democrat that DOESN’T own an SUV.

    They must really hate my four door Ford F-150 pickup. My excuse is that it was a necessity. I bought an ATV, then found out it wouldn’t fit in the trunk of my Toyota Camry. TAKE MEASUREMENTS BEFORE YOU BUY! I had to buy the pickup so it would fit in the bed.

    ReplyReply
  18. Skookum says: 17

    Well, well, well, none of my Conservative friends, other than Smorgasbord, appreciate the hypocrisy of the oil investments of Rice, but the Progressives are fired up over the hypocrisy and the conflict of interest:

    Environmentalists are furious that potential Secretary of State nominee and U.N. Ambassador Susan Rice owns stock in TransCanada Corp, the pipeline firm that would benefit from the Keystone XL pipeline, which the State Department would have to approve.
    In an online petition, they have urged Rice to divest “every dollar of stock” in TransCanada Corp.
    According to The Hill, Rice owns between $300,000 and $600,000 in TransCanada Corp. stock, and the group RootsAction.org, which claims 200,000 members, has started a petition that says, “it’s indefensible that Rice has millions of dollars invested in oil companies and banks that will make huge profits if the State Department gives approval to the XL pipeline.
    “As a high-ranking administration official — and a potential replacement for Hillary Clinton early next year to run the State Department — Susan Rice shouldn’t have any stake in corporations that are doing all they can to plunder tar sands in Canada and send carbon emissions soaring even faster,” the petition reads.
    Rice has been under intense criticism for going on five Sunday shows after the Benghazi attacks and lying about how terrorists had nothing to do with the attacks. She failed to win the initial support of Republican Senators she met with last week on Capitol Hill.

    I never thought I would appreciate a view held by the Progressive Communists.

    ReplyReply
  19. Wm T Sherman says: 18

    @grace nearing:

    When Democrats had majorities in both houses of Congress for two full years (2009-2011), there were some pieces of legislation favored by the Democrat leadership, e.g. Cap and Trade, that could not be passed because some Democrats feared that it would cost them the next election. A simple majority in the Senate is not the whole story of the fate of Rice’s nomination. If she’s too toxic to their constituents, some Democrat senators could bail out on her. The more widely known the truth about her history becomes, the more toxic she becomes.

    There does not have to be a political cost to defeating her nomination – just the opposite.

    ReplyReply
  20. With the effort spent on obfuscation by the Administration and the compliant media, it is inevitable that conjecture and suspicions abound. Here is an article which lays out a scenario which is as plausible as anything we have been presented by the Administration on the events surrounding Benghazi in two parts: Benghazi explained: Interview with an “Intelligence Insider”

    ReplyReply
  21. Skookum says: 20

    JR, that is a fascinating link. It is the first scenario that makes sense of the whole Middle Policy. Ironic that Obama and his team are so willfully tied to “evil” oil, in stark opposition to their constituency. Is it no wonder he wants to strangle the oil business on public lands in the U.S., and all for the Saudis. He is setting the stage for WWIII by being a stooge for Saudi Arabia if the article is correct and it is hard to dispute.

    ReplyReply
  22. @Skookum: #20,
    As I’m sure you do, I read articles like that one, applying even more scepticism to my filters than usual, and I attempt to allow room for intuition to inform. Many of the elements presented seemed to ring true, others appear peculiar. Today’s news seems to bring further credence to some of Hagman’s narrative.

    ReplyReply

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

You may use these HTML tags and attributes: <a href="" title=""> <abbr title=""> <acronym title=""> <b> <blockquote cite=""> <cite> <code> <del datetime=""> <em> <i> <q cite=""> <strike> <strong>