Obama and His Advisors Not Ready for Prime Time
By Larry Johnson on March 6, 2008 at 12:16 PM in Current Affairs
Thanks to Alegre for an insightful video clip that summarizes succinctly the inept incompetence of the Obama foreign policy team. Susan Rice, a senior Obama foreign policy advisor, who served on the National Security Council and later as the Assistant Secretary for African Affairs at the State Department under Bill Clinton. We don’t know for sure what Barack or Hillary would do with a “3 a.m.” phone call, but we don’t have to wonder about Susan Rice. She sits on her hands doing nothing.
During her time on the National Security Council, as the senior person responsible for giving the President policy options on Africa, Rice reprised the role of Nero fiddling while Rome burned. She sat by while more than one million Rwandans were butchered in a bloody genocide. She let the phone ring and declined to offer any answer that would have saved lives. And she is one of Barack’s key advisors.
But Rice is wrong about Hillary. Hillary is quite ready to answer the 3am phone call. As someone who has been directly involved with such calls during the Reagan, Bush, and Clinton administrations, I do know what I am talking about.
As I have said before, I have had the opportunity to brief Senator Clinton twice on terrorism and Iraq during the last three years. During the course of my career at the CIA, State Department, and as a consultant, I have briefed in one form or fashion more than 60 members of Congress, a Vice President, and a President. I have participated in briefings for the Joint Chiefs of Staff and other senior military commanders. I entered my first meeting with Hillary with strong reservations about her competence (based entirely on what I had heard and read in the media). I walked out of that meeting very impressed. Hands down, I found her to be the most impressive person I had had the privilege to brief.
Why was I impressed? First and foremost, she listened. I have briefed folks who get the 1000-yard stare–they drift off and start thinking about something else. I also have briefed folks who get the panicked look from not understanding what I am talking about. Hillary was different. She listened intently, but she also grasped the substance and nuance of the issues we were discussing. Second, she asked tough questions that showed me she was genuinely searching for viable policy options. I had a similar experience with Senator Joe Biden, only that was during a hearing.
But unlike many members of Congress who rely on some aide sitting at their side to pump them with questions and information, Hillary could think on her own. She did not need “Foreign Policy for Dummies.”
Hillary also is one of the few members of Congress who understood the difference between Special Forces and and Special Operations Forces. You would be shocked at the number of Senators and Representatives who are supposed to exercise oversight of the military and do not understand this basic point.
When we talk about the “3 a.m.” call we are talking about crisis response operations. Back in July of 1990, the United States was involved in a covert effort to resolve peacefully a coup that involved Libyan-backed terrorists. We had quietly inserted U.S. personnel into the country, the situation was settled without further loss of life, and we were trying to figure out how to withdraw our personnel without exposing them publicly. Our concern about how to cover their withdrawal was made moot when word came that Saddam had just invaded Kuwait. We were taking down one crisis communications task force in the State Department Ops Center as a new one, dedicated to Iraq/Kuwait, was being formed.
What is not well known is that President Bush (senior), Dick Cheney, Colin Powell, and James Baker had been briefed two days earlier in the White House situation room on the impending invasion of Iraq. They were warned that Saddam would likely invade unless the United States made a public declaration to warn him away. The President and his advisors declined at the time to issue such a warning because they believed that if they did so and Saddam invaded, the U.S. would have no choice but to respond militarily. With hindsight we now know that Bush, Cheney, Powell, and Baker screwed up that phone call.
When the phone rings and the President is alerted to the problem, you will want a President whose first instinct is to understand the implication of the threat for U.S. national interests. I know that Hillary understands that point. Barack, by contrast, did not even understand the importance of holding a hearing on NATO’s role in Afghanistan even though he had the full authority to do so.
Once you hang up the phone you need a leader who understands the bureaucratic tools and resources that are available to be brought to bear on the problem. On this point in particular Hillary is light years ahead of Barack. Barack would be hard pressed to explain the difference between DIA, CIA, and NSA. Hillary knows that Washington machinery intimately.
And finally there is the issue of advisors. Let me state again for the record: I am not trying out for a spot on Hillary’s foreign policy team. I am not seeking a job in her administration. I do not want to make the personal sacrifice required to go back into government service–I would have to take a pay cut and work too many long hours. But Hillary is surrounded with a better group of foreign policy advisors. Barack has the likes of Susan Rice and Tony Lake–two of the key folks who failed to respond in a timely matter to the disaster in Rwanda. Hillary, by contrast, has Dick Holbrooke, who helped bring an end to the killing in the Balkans.
[…] Larry Johnson added an interesting post on Obama and His Advisors Not Ready for Prime Time […]
Yep, that’s just what I need, the likes of Susan Rice telling me that after she has seen Sen. Obama up close, he isn’ ready to take that phone call.
No matter, though. From the looks of things, what is more likely to happen is that First Lady Michelle would answer the phone, say “Who the !#$% is this?”, and tell the caller that her husband needs his sleep and to call him back during normal business hours. That is, of course, if she hasn’t sentenced him to another night on the couch for not making up the bed correctly. Jeez!
The current White House is infamous for its adherence to ‘business hours’ and the inability to respond outside of the traditional 8 to 4 task schedule.
See also hurricane Katrina and its failed response.
See also the Aug 6th PDB and record vacation in Crawford before 9-11.
Guess who else is on Barack’s team, and who visited Vermont a couple of weeks ago as a surrogate? Anthony Lake. Look him up on wikipedia (former Clinton foreign policy adviser; credited with ending Bosnian war).
Ironically, you’re undermining the Clinton legacy and part of what surely must be Hillary’s 35 years of experience:
The article states: “(Rice) sat by while more than one million Rwandans were butchered in a bloody genocide.” Well, actually, it wasn’t she who sat by–foreign policy is made by the president, who is accountable for what happens–not a foreign policy adviser. Bill Clinton sat by as ~1,000,000 Rwandans died. But wait, there’s more! Hillary’s point is that she has all this foreign policy experience because she was there right? At Bill’s side the whole way? So, Hillary sat by while 1,000,000 Rwandans died. Now that’s what I call experience!
Ready for the irony part?? Hillary Clinton voted for the 2002 Iraq war authorization bill without ever having read the NIE, and guess what? 1,000,0000 people have died as a result. Now that’s what I call accountability!
I see a pattern here, do you? Hillary has foreign policy experience–it’s just that a LOT of people die as a result of it.
As for the 3:00 a.m. calls? My guess is that she’ll take the call–unless the crisis is happening in Iraq or Rwanda. Otherwise? Hillary apparently has no problem letting the answering machine pick up…
Well, no.
If I, as President, delegate Rice, and Lake, to disseminate and handle the problem, trusting them to do their job, and later, 3 days later, my JCS and other aids come to me and say ” Boy, did Rice and Lake fuck up,” what am I supposed to do, other than what Clinton did?
You ever work at the upper levels of management?
No.
I can see why, a really sad attempt to spin..
Try dumbing it down more, pretty soon you will find an audience, really.
Try Kos, they’re easily fed.
Again, if this is your logic, YOU help clarify how, and why, Obama’s adivsers are so poor.
You’re clueless.
Light a fire under it, Spooge.
Cmon.
LOL. What the–”Spooge”?
No wonder Hillary does so well with the less educated…
What? No, but I do have an advanced degree in International Security policy worked on Capitol Hill for over 10 years. How about you? And btw, it’s the President’s responsibility, for what the government DOES or DOESN’T DO in international affairs. He is *fully* accountable for our conduct, and is aided only by the advice and consent of the Senate in matters of foreign affairs. It’s possible that Rice isn’t a good foreign policy adviser, but she certainly wasn’t the only one who knew what was transpiring in Africa–it was fairly well known. And if Clinton wanted options for, say, taking out Somalian chieftains, he had plans drawn up–there was no single person responsible. In the case of Rwanda, Bill did nothing. Hillary *did* nothing, too (my point–which you conveniently ignored–was that she was with Bill and “part of his decisionmaking process” and, one should assume, he consulted her on this, right? Yes or No. Simple answer. Can’t have it both ways–she either was part of his policy machinery and that comprises part of her vaunted 35 years of “experience” or it doesn’t. Did she do anything with her position of influence to prevent the massacre? Yes or No? Answer the question.
To take a single paragraph as the one above, and boil down accountability for Rwanda and assign it to one person is disengenuous at best–at least, for people who understand how policy is made.
Sadly, your puerile ad hominem attacks are representative of the Clinton campaign’s approach in general and, ironically, the Bush administration: demonize your opponents; use simple innuendo without facts (you don’t know me or what I have or haven’t done) to undermine those who don’t think like you.
And what passes for *your* logic? You didn’t address a single one of my points. Hillary is arguing that she has 35 years of experience, and both she and Bill started out the campaign talking about how she was against the Rwandan genocide. Fair enough. But they don’t do that anymore. I wonder why. Could it because Bill knows it was a failure of his presidency. I mean, he has admitted as much, right? If she is drawing on her time with him as part of her FP experience, then isn’t that part of her experience as well? If not, say how it isn’t–don’t use playground invective to try to belittle me. But I don’t think you will. People with little humility tend to go the easy route, and attack their opponents, rather than engage on the merits of the argument. Plus, I honestly doubt that you have the chops–at least, based on your pedantic, grandiloquent response. First, you don’t “disseminate and handle” a foreign policy crisis. You disseminate literature, not genocide policy. Second, the Rwandan genocide was slightly more significant than a “problem to be handled”–Western Democracies all saw this coming. Clinton’s a smart guy, and he knows that he should have done something. He just didn’t. And neither did your visionary, late night candidate. That was one of the lowest points in foreign policy decisionmaking over the past 20 years–until Iraq, that is. Third, to lay the blame at our government’s inaction in Rwanda on one person is laughable. I’m sure a whole host of errors went into the ultimate “non-policy” on Rwanda, but one person’s fault? I don’t think so. But I’m not surprised. Hillary’s supporters have turned lack of humility and accountability into an artform (I refer here mainly to her vote in 2002 for the Iraq War Authorization measure).
As for Hillary’s advisers, oh, you mean she has the “not poor” kind? Advisers like Wolfson and Penn? Those kind? You mean the believers of the Rovian orthodoxy of dirty tricks and win at all costs? You mean the two who are using insane epithets like “Barack is Ken Starr” to successfully drive a wedge through the middle of the Democratic party? You mean the two who advised Hillary to talk up John McCain? Those two? Yeah, she makes great decisions about her advisers. That’s why she’s ahead in the delegate count and has won more states and has raised more money in a single month than any other–oh, wait, sorry. Wrong candidate.
This was fun. Let’s do this again sometime.
Groobie,
Since you mention Penn, I might as well use this to point out that he and Bill are joined at the hip.
Where are those tax returns?
#
It’s a team game, got it. Don’t try and sell us your guy, he’s got more problems on the horizon then you have the ability to cover up with your
Dreams of his father guy. I say problems on the near horizon if he is ever lucky, and I do mean
lucky to get the nomination. Hillary is so much smarter, and is ready on day one. Hillary does have universal appeal, has proved it for 35 years in spite of your disclaimer. The United States is far more ready to have a woman president, than to have either a stupid moronic, or just plain manipulative person with one years experience in the United States Senate as potus.
We are supposed to be tolerant and understand that Barrack sitting there for 20 years and claiming at first that he had never heard incendiary remarks coming from his pastors mouth, and then having to admit that he had. Just because members of his hate spewing church have had a totally different way of life. Barrack is a gross manipulative elitest, he’s proved that in his rise to power and yes, he should be judged by the company he keeps. As far as the common theme among those who are so worried that all of Obamas record dollars that he has raised just might go for naught,as Hillary will probably win the nomination. And she will deserve it. Of course I don’t think for one minute that you will believe it, or anyone else that has jumped on the Obama bandwagon.
That Last Paragraph You Wrote Were A Real Funny Goober,The 3:00am Thing,I’am Still Laughing,I Don’t Know Why But All The Same,I’am Still Trying To Get Over That Funny,So Let’s Get To Some Real Foreign Policy Issues,First Larry Johnson Has More Credibility On Foreign Policy Than Susan Rice,Tony Lake Barack Bin Laden,Samantha Power’s Who Learned It From Book’s At Harvard School For The Dumb,& The Stupid,And Mrs Bin Laden,You Can’t Say Hilliary Don’t Have Experience On Foreign Policy And Not Give Her Credit For It,And Then Turn Around And Give Her Credit For The Mismanagement Of It Just To Satisfy Your Ignorance,Senator Clinton Spent 8 Years In The Whitehouse,So Just Being Their Gives Her More Experience,& Credibility Than Say A Mr Obama,Who Doesn’t Even Know What The Whitehouse Looks Like,America Has Already Accepted Her Experience,It’s A Done Deal Now,So Who Exactly Are You Trying To Convince Yourself,Get Used To It Moron It’s The Truth,And What The Hell Is A 1,000,0000,Where Did You Learn That One From,No Let Me Guess You Heard Mr Obama Say It But You Couldn’t Write It Correctly Am I Close,Doesn’t Matter,I Think I Made My Point.
Larry, this is an important insight, but doesn’t cover the entire gambit of the 3AM phone call in the Oval Office!
People tend at these times to focus on national security by it, probably due to the times we now live, but it is far more reaching than that!
Here is what I mean by that, 3AM in Washington means:
4PM in Hong Kong and China - they had a run on their stock markets that day, in 6 hours the US could awaken to a stock market meltdown unless the President gets into action with Europe to calm the situation before US markets open!
3PM in Australia and a major earthquake hits, major assistance is needed to care for the devistation there!
8AM in London and there has been a subway bombing during rush hours!
9AM in Paris and there is a nuclear power plant meltdown in France!
10AM in west Africa and there is a major outbreak of West Nile virus!
9AM in Jeruslum and the Prime Minister has been assassinated!
2AM in New Orleans and Hurricane Katrina hits shore causing mass flooding and deaths to hundreds of residence trapped there, opps that already occurred under Bush’s watch and he continued his vacation!
The White House some think is a place for someone to preach from and make everyone feel good! They are wrong, it is an office and it demands a full time work horse in it, determined, calculating, driven and with the ability to navigate around Washington to get the job done, not someone as Obama stated in 2004 that it takes someone with experience and the knowledge of the workings of Washington to run for President and from his own estimations he would have had to start running then to even be viable!
Well Senator Obama started to run in December 2006, thus according to his own estimates and timing, we would have a non-President for 2 years! Amazing how words come back on a person and bite them in the butt!
I think also, for McCain or Clinton, there is no way to properly prepare them for the catastrophic mess Cheney and Bush are leaving behind them.
Sheer incompetence, and paranoid political ideology has left the apparatus, the infrastructure of our government, a MESS.
The President will want those reports, and the apparatus for collecting ACCURATE data has been left to rot.
So, you know, if I were a a part of Clinton’s or McCain’s staff, I would be gaging the need to reconstruct the government infrastructure making sure data collection, at the very least, is up to par in every single facet of every single department, hire the BEST you can. That privatization thing Rummy advocated didn’t quite work out the way they hoped.
Many excellent people were lost, and should be rehired, or hired, and various departments will need to be restructured, and overhauled.
Same with the US infrastructure, Clinton can have her own TVA jobs program if elected.
Mc Cain too, he won’t have any choice, if he is to be an effective President. I’m not sure, does he advocate drwning the federal government, too?
By data collection, I mean even basic statistics for the department of energy, say, as Bush and Cheney have politicized the science, and hired incompetent, and sometimes blatantly corrupt, lobbyists to run the departments.
If either Clinton or McCain want to make accurate decisions, they need the truth, the best the US government can give, and do.
Rove hired a bunch of sub par lobbyists, and Republican loyalists, not far removed from Michael Brown.
And I was never impressed by the Ivy League, University of Chicago neocon, I thought they were nuts, intellectually sub par little criminal children rebelling against Mom, the lot of them.
IMO.
I have thought along similar lines.
Bush and his minions not only did a lot of damage but tried to dismantle our Constitution.
The idea of a novice coming in next and “changing” things has never sounded right to me.
The idea of “restoring” our government to what our Founding Fathers intended after four years of Bush seems more logical.
Yes! We Will!
I mean, Gonzo, Cheney and Rove trashed justice, and, immediately that will need to be overhauled, and corrected.
On the plus side, I hope they bring in some real talent (as opposed to the Sara Taylors), as well as rehire those who would not break the law, for Cheney.
I wonder, then, if they’d finally go after Cheney, or if certain Congresspeople would get in the way?
Interesting.
By the way, I, too have worked with Sen. Clinton, when she was FLOTUS. While I’m not exactly sure that I would agree with her answer in any particular situation, there is no doubt in my mind that she would pick up the phone, listen to what was being said, and then leave no doubt in anyone’s mind what she wanted done. She definitely gives orders, not “guidance.”
What an endorsement. Glad you shared that, Retired.
FLOTUS. I like that dude. Sounds like something you get after eating too many beans.
Larry–great post as usual. I really wish I could hear your words on the evening cable news against punditheads like Matthews or Olbermann. There’s just not enough of this out there–it’s like the MSM burying the story of Hillary’s 30 high-level military endorsements. What are they, unwilling to admit to themselves we got a real-deal, strong gal in our midst who can outpresident and outmaneuver all her male opponents. Sure appears that way more and more to me.
Okay - I have a confession to make: I am from the crunchy-granola, Earth Mother, Give Peace A Chance, No More Nukes, War Is Bad For Children And Other Living Creatures side of the political spectrum
I love Kuch’s idea of a Dept of the Peace. I was an Edwards supporter. I think Noam Chomsky is right that we are pursuing American Imperialism and I believe that in the final cost/benefit analysis our country may well come up short in pursuing this policy.
Now, who would someone like me support on the foreign policy front? If you listened to the media bobble-heads ya’d think Obama, right?
Wrong.
It’s Hil. Hands down. Here’s why:
1. AUMF. There is no discrenable difference for me between Hil voting for it and Obama saying he’s not sure how he would have voted. Both of these folks continue to support the Iraq war by funding it.
Therefore, they are equal on that front in my book.
Ask me who I think can pull us quickly and safely out of Iraq? IMO it’s Hil. It will be a slow and deliberate pull out, but I believe a lasting one. I think Obama will also get us out of Iraq, but my lingering doubt is that he will do so safely and securely.
2. K-L. Hil voted for it. O didn’t show up to vote and was going to vote for a similar measure labeling the Iranian Rev Guard a terrorist org.
Again: they’re equal on that one as well.
3. Human rights - this tips my personal scales for Hil, as she has unequivocably stated that women’s rights are human rights. This is a profound statement on many levels, as the education and economic empowerment of women as primary care givers will have a direct impact on the next generation of so many children in so many countries.
Equating women’s rights with human rights extends to areas like global poverty, health care, environmentalism and even war and peace issues.
I have no doubt that Obama’s heart is in the right place on this, but I think because Hil looks at things through the lense of women’s rights she will have a more comprehensive foreign policy that recognizes national security means more than bombs, tanks, missles and military.
So…just sharing my perspective, again, from the “crunchy granola” side of the equasion
Good to see you here Granny Crunch Granola :). One could describe me the same way. I also ended up for Hillary, and firmly so.
Good seeing you too, Gabriele! I hang out here, eenrblog and DocuDharma these days, with varying frequency.
Yesterday was my final straw at the Big Orange for a while. Will see if they get a little more reasonable in a few days…if it keeps trending the way it’s been going I will exit entirely.
I don’t think I’m alone in that sentiment
How interesting!
I wrote my “Goodbye Orange Republic” diary yeesterday.
http://www.dailykos.com/story/2008/3/5/134946/7677
So you’re Boring Dem! Glad to see you elsewhere in the blogosphere
I don’t do GBCW’s…I prefer to be a digital chimera, appearing and disappearing at will…
Yes, that one and the rec’d diary that skated far too close to the edge of anti-Semitism for me turned me off as well. I can’t be in a place that tolerates homophobia, sexism, anti-Semitism and that cynically race-baits all under the auspices of Electing Our Guy.
I think Obama would be ashamed of some of the stuff posted over there by folks who are trying to “help”.
So…I’m gonna give it a while, see if it calms down and if not probably just not go there any longer.
So sad.
MarkL — I read the comments after your farewell post. Do those guys kiss their mother with those mouths ? I haven’t ben to Daily Kos in a while because of the ill mannered commenters, but it has really gotten worse. What a shame that so many “progressive” bloggers have chosen to reveal their inner neanderthal.
I quit reading daily kos comments long before this campaign. Without a mindful moderator comment sections will remain the place many come to demonstrate how screwed up they are. Forget civility or even discussion in KOS comments.
Hey, wait, but there’s civility here, right? I mean, Simon is civil, right? I mean, he seemed to be really civil to me. I’m guessing “Spooge” is a bureaucratic, Washington term of art, right? I mean, that’s something that really, only an insider would know right? That kind of civility? Or say, discussion? He wasn’t using ad hominem invective on me, I’m sure I just misunderstood him.
Right Simon? Boy, he’s a smart guy. I’m sure, with all the smart guys like that, Hillary will be in the delegate lead in no time. And all the people who had their baseless reasons for disliking her? Well, people like Simon? They’ll pull them back into the Democratic fold, right?
hi both of you, count me in too.
Good seeing you, too
No chance you would write a letter to the editor to a Philly or Pittsburgh paper?
Your comment and Larry’s have been the kind that got me to even consider Hill.
Hello, granny. These days, I only go to the orange site to see how far the insanity has progressed. It’s very sad to see. I used to enjoy getting comments on my somewhat wonky diaries.
I agree fully with your observations. My largest problem with all of this intramural fighting is that even I, a consistent and strong Democrat for over 35 years (NEVER voted Republican and always voted), have found myself wondering about the degree of my support for Obama if he is the nominee.
I will support the nominee. But if that is how I have been tempted to think, I hate to think how others on either side may be thinking. Does any of us think that two (at least) appointments to the Supreme Court are not worth fighting for? And, of course, that is only one of many issues.
Larry your 3 prong model is spot on:
1. first instinct is to understand the implication of the threat for U.S. national interests.
2.a leader who understands the bureaucratic tools and resources that are available to be brought to bear on the problem.
3. And finally advisors.
Excellent.
Hi Larry, I never imagined that one of my favorite bloggers would ever be a national security expert. But you really do give good blog on these topics, thank you.
Obama’s latest tactic of claiming he is not ready to answer that 3am call is borderline moronic. He is not only not ready to answer the 3am call he is proving that he is not ready to be the party nominee. We do not need another inept Kerryesque candidacy where the candidate makes a really bad sound bite statement and then expects everyone to stick around and listen to their convoluted explanation.
TeresaINPa -
OMG! My nervous tic like Lt. Dreyfus’ is returning just thinking about John Kerry’s complete and utter inablility to STFU!!
I gave his campaign thousands of dollars and grew to detest him. It was maddening. I had fantasies of him with a sock in his mouth.
PLEASE DEMOCRATS - NEVER AGAIN!!
Larry -
Thank you for the perspective. I read Dick Clark’s book and got some of the insight from him also in terms of how Condi Rice and held things below the principles level. Of course Tenant did not have the teneacity (balls) to push it up further.
More over I think the real problem was that because of his inexperience, George Bush could recognize a problem if clearly presented, but he would not understand the internaional nuances.
In her book “Memo to the new President” Madaline Albright comments that people think diplomancy is like chess - she said it realy is like billiards and your stick is reserved to hit some one over the head.
Obama just has not have the experienes of life to understand International Nuance. Furthermore his refusal to chair the Foreign Affairs subcommittee further exacerbates his limited knowledge.
So like George Bush II, Obama will be dependent on the team he assembles. If Susan Rice is the person, we are in for a ride.
I agree with this, but I think the point I would emphasize is great, SUCCESSFUL diplomacy also takes a well rounded, tolerant, liberal minded (not liberal in terms of politics, liberal in terms of awareness)intellectual brilliance,(I think Joseph Wilson, or Madaline Albright) and Obama, Bush, Cheney, Rove and John Bolton don’t even come close.
The neocons strike me as a big old wheel of brain cheese, thickened moldy milk trying to pretend it is capable of understanding complicated relational abstracts, when it is NOT.
What are the contingencies of any given decision, how will the US be affected, how will this affect future US security, including military, economic, social and political factors? What are the true motivations of this particular political actor?
I was very very very heartened to hear Wes Clark say stability in the middle east could take three approaches, basically, the ideal being implementation of effective and productive POLICY.
And Clark supports Clinton.
But first we have to regain control of our foreign policy, and we can’t do that when foreign governments feel, through financial contributions, and lobbyists, they OWN our Congress.
And they do. So they feel no fear.
When I heard Obama recommend the bombing of Pakistan I thought, “this guy has to be the most ignorant thing I have seen run for President.” (I thought it funny he would think “tough talk” was an appropriate way to look manly, especially after the Bush disaster. The policy of the gun without the brain has been an abject failure, the military knows this, GAMES it, and Obama, and his advisers, missed it. Doesn’t that man have a mind of his own? And he went to Harvard? As a legacy admit? Where did David Axlerod go to school? Anyone with an ounce of brains KNOWS that is EXACTLY the WRONG thing to do. Every day , his campaign reeks more of a grade school talent show, as opposed to the future government of a major superpower — hey, kids, let’s put on a show!)
Why have we lowered our standards?
Our country does not run itself, we have to understand men like Obama are not SMART enough to be President, no matter WHAT Axelrod, or Rove try to sell us.
Look at Bush.
Larry,
I really, really have enjoyed your blog for a long time, but you have lost all perspective in your drive to destroy Obama.
If nothing was done about Rwanda during the Clinton Administration, are you really telling us that Bill is not to blame.
Could this Assistant Secretary really have just cured the problem as you imply?
C’mon, please get back to what you do best. Cut through the DC bullshit for us.
I would love to see Hillary win too, but you are just leaving a vast well of comments and ideas to use against the Dems should Obama win.
Obama is practically writing the attack adds against him and Hillary both. This is politics and the republicans are perfectly capable of writing their own attack adds. It is not Hillary’s job to protect Obama.
Bill Clinton has said he regrets Rwanda and the bucks stop with him. but he has also said at the time that Hillary would have handled it differently.
He had bad advisors who failed him. Those people are now working for Obama.
And besides Hillary is not her husband.
I don’t absolve Bill of blame. He ultimately was in charge. But all Presidents ultimately depend on their advisors. They are the ones who are supposed to have the details and brief the options. In this case Lake and Rice dropped the ball. And who have they signed up with? Obama.
I can do another post on how Presidents get blamed for mistakes make by subordinates. Clinton, for example, gets savaged over Somalia and Black Hawk down. In reality, the failure to deploy the appropriate military equipment was made ultimately by General Garrison (who, man that he is, accepted full responsibility).
In fact, Samantha Power wrote an excellent book about genocide, and Rwanda, also publishing an article in the Atlantic Monthly.
I specifically remember a passage where she quoted one of the American embassy personal in Rwanda desperately trying to get attention from Clinton’s advisers, for help, (and I guess that would include Rice, and Lake), who was spurned, shut down, as she, and the rest of the embassy were being overrun with axe wielding Hutus.
Horrific, just horrific.
What would have possessed Obama to hire Rice, and Lake, after they mishandled Rwanda, and the horror that resulted?
They failed, and this is not the kind of failure that should be rewarded with another crack at a Presidential level position.
From Power’s article:
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.”
The full article can be found at:
http://www.theatlantic.com/doc/200109/power-genocide/6
Sammy Glick turned to Jiminy somewhere between now, and then.
In this very post he cuts through the DC bullshit. Pretending weaknesses don’t exist does not prepare us well.
Larry, sort of well actually OT, but a blog really is required about the Super Delegates!
These are suppose to be intelligent, inside politic people who have some knowledge and some sort of intelligence!
Yet of late what have we seen, aside from SD’s who when asked why they support Obama, say what uniformed voters say, “he can unite” but when asked name a single accomplishjment of Obama, they can’t!
Obama opened a door a couple of weeks ago saying the SD’s should follow their voters and belittled them otherwise for not doing so!
Well proven by the SD from Ohio who did just that the day after Obama lost Ohio, yet won in her district!
Should it not be that SD’s come out with rational as to making their choices, so when it comes time for their re-election, people will have a true impression of them?
What drives me nuts is when respected Party Leaders say their kids told them to support Obamaand that is why they are giving him their support.
Say what? This drives me insane. Since when are teenagers more informed and wise than these people who are running our country? These are powerful people, who are chosen for their wisdom and judgement, and their children are choosing our president?
I listen to my daughter who is eighteen and just loves Obama, but I am older and wiser than she is. Or at least I hope so. She is a high school senior and carrying a 4.0 GPA. She is pretty well informed. But she listens to the rhetoric and is too young to filter out the BS.
I expect better from the likes of Ted Kennedy, Maria Shriver and Claire McCaskill each of whom has said they decided to support Obama because their kids like him. If this is their idea of exercising sound judgement, we are in serious trouble.
What kind of moron would admit that they made this incredibly important decision to please their kids?
It’s sort of characteristic of this generation, especially upper-middle-class boomers obsessed with getting their kids into good colleges. A NYTimes magazine covered this characteristic - that this sector of kids are more pushy and assertive about getting their grades changed, and people were exploring how to teach these skills to lower-income kids.
I’d be a hell of a lot more impressed if they’d teach them how to think, critically.
Anymore Obama’s and Bush, and the US can kiss it’s ass goodbye.
Fortunately, they are NOT necessarily a majority, I know some kids, Ivy League, and Ivy League bound, who are FIRMLY behind Clinton, the same ages as those you mentioned.
So, maybe it’s just THE untalented noisy ones that cheat, who support Obama.
I guess that’s my problem. I have M.S. in Water Resources Engineering, so I think I’m pretty smart. And my daughter will attend School of Mines (on an academic scholarship), so she’s no slouch. But, just as I won’t tell her what to think, she would never dare order me to change my mind on anything this important because she says so. My kids have been raised to work hard and think for themselves. They are not pushy, though.
But, these elected officials are expected to have some honor and they are supposed to use wise judgement. It infuriates me that these people are elected and entrusted with the well-bieng of this nation, and they are this shallow. The openly state that they based their decision to support Obama, not on his qualifications or his stated policies, but because their kids think he’s cool.
I’m sorry, I realized after I wrote the above you might infer I was speaking of you, and your daughter.
I wasn’t, and I apologize.
I was thinking of another family I knew, where the kids were all Obama, the parents, too, all out of San Francisco, and wealthy, by my standards.
They, that family, seem disconnected to the truths the rest of us face, and, well, dysfunctional, my impression was they are simply the self hating children of self hating wasp parents, just wondering around aimlessly, looking for someone to give their lives meaning. Narcissitically self absorbed, they never SEE other people, other people’s suffering, only their own little lives.
And in walked hope dope. And I agree with you 100 percent.
Again, I apologize.
My 25-year-old is for Hillary. She is an elected delegate from her caucus to the county convention. She was a greeter at the caucus, and gave the speech for Hillary to the four-precinct gathering.
She sends a small donation every time she gets an e-mail from the campaign.
Did you see the Senator from Mo on the bill Mahar
Show. She said on LIVE TV that she supported Hillary until her college teenage daughter got in her FACE and screamed at the top of her lungs and threatened to never speak to her again unless she changed her vote to support Obama.
made me ill. I wrote her a letter and told her as much including that I would do everthing in my power to make sure she was never elected into office again.
Someone who know’s how to do a YouTube should do a Video of it
Not only does Claire McCaskill have husband issues, now she has kid issues. She’ll ride whatever wave will get her ahead of the game.
Jenn -
Claire McCaskill’s first husband was a big time druggie and she pretended not to notice or care because she needed his cash, even though she was the County Prosecutor
until he got busted smoking dope on a riverboat casino.
Then she dumped him, fooled around with a married guy and after deciding to run for Governor dumped married guy and married a Republican with tons of cash from nursing homes that were always being sued.
McCaskill’s ex-husband was shot to death probably a drug deal gone bad - in Kansas City Kansas.
McCaskill was promised the Attorney General spot by Barack Obama and Kathleen Sebelius (KS Governor) was promised V.P.
Good lord. I didn’t know all that about her. (What she said about her daughter was SO lame, and really quite embarrassing. Is that how she determines her Senate votes?)
OMG! Governor Sebelius is self-combusting as is the Democratic Party in Kansas. Sebelius has decided all state parks should be fee-free. The state park system is in total disarray here. She says she does things for Veterans my bu%% she does. I get $33 a year from the state of Kansas…a free license plate!
Senator Clinton has signed the resolution supporting mandated funding for the VA as has the other senator from New York as well as many elected officials in Cook County and Chicago but Obama has not.
When I was dissed by the Board overseeing therapists her office shuffled me off somewhere else. My client rights were violated by a therapist working for the Vet Center/VA and nothing was done by her office or her board. Sebelius is a fraud!
My governor, Kathleen Sebelius, made the same comment as to “listening to her kid(s)” when she decided to endorse BO.
Mel -
Great point! Barack Obama’s supporters were and are overwhelmingly ignorant regarding his positions and proposed policies and yet they were and are rabidly and blindly supporting him.
“Feelings” can’t be substituted for credible evidence in a courtroom for sound reasons.
Obama supporters don’t even have any circumstantial evidence to cling to regarding the hope and change so often mentioned.
And if you open your eyes there’s nothing but red flags and warning lights!
I’ll stick to the Hill I’m familiar with where I understand the rhetoric, and let the sheep follow the hazy Light over the cliff.
Larry — You stated: “Barack would be hard pressed to explain the difference between DIA, CIA, and NSA” Perhaps that is because for most of his time in the U.S. Senate, Barack was MIA.
RoFL … as my Grandpa use to say ” couldn’t find his ass with a flashlight and a search party”
Oh, your grandfather knew Dick Cheney?
Hey All,
Off topic but did all of you see this? I’m really surpised I was not kicked off Kos because I responded directly to his blog when he brought all this crap up yesterday. I told him he was racebating
and I had lost all respect for him and that he was losing credibility.
From FactCheck.org:
“Did Clinton Darken Obama’s Skin?”
March 5, 2008
Some Obama backers cry “racism.” We find the accusation to be unsubstantiated.
Summary:
Obama supporters on the Internet are agitated over the apparent darkening of Obama’s image in a Clinton attack ad.
Our video team took a look. Our conclusions:
• The Obama frames from the ad do appear darker than other video of Obama from the same event.
• However, the YouTube copy of the ad, on which the bloggers base their conclusions, is darker overall than other copies of the ad. We obtained a digital recording of the ad as it actually appeared on a Texas TV station, and it is lighter.
• Furthermore, our analysis of the Obama frames, using Photoshop, shows a fairly uniform darkening of the entire image including the backdrop. It is not just Obama’s skin color that’s affected.
• Also, nearly all the images in the ad are dark, including those of Hillary Clinton. And dark images are a common technique used in attack ads.
Others will speculate about the Clinton campaign’s intentions and motives, as they already have. But without further evidence to the contrary, we see no reason to conclude that this is anything more than a standard attempt to make an attack ad appear sinister, rather than a special effort to exploit racial bias as some Obama supporters are saying.”
1. My mom “fell out of love” at the very moment that ad talks about. The moment in the debate in which Obama said he was too busy running for president to call for a subcommittee hearing, even though he was chair.
That’s why they want to say her campaign darkened his skin. They can’t replay the ad in Pennsylvania now, unless the lighten his skin and narrow his face.
2. From some video experts in the comments, we have this info from no quarter:
And this info from TalkLeft:
OK, NoQuarter needs to add an “email this article to a friend” widget because I’d mail this one out to quite a few peeps.
We are so fortunate to have someone with the creds on our side to make these claims, all of which the rest of us know instinctively to be true but do not have the experience to back it up.
Seriously, you have nailed Obama’s national security problem. It’s name is Hillary Clinton.
This diary NEEDS to be sent to the NYT or WaPO or even the Chicago Tribune. What you say is much too important to stay on this blog alone. Not that I don’t enjoy it here, it’s just that this message needs to reach a much wider audience. And immediately.
I agree fleaflicker–but there’s no reason why we can’t take Larry’s impressive article and e-mail it to friends, relatives, and of course media outlets. This article is strengthened by Larry’s credibility in his former line of work, and we all know his work was not to BS anyone but to hit the nail on the head whenever possible. We’re fortunate to have such a keen blogger on our side–the side of No Bullshit. Hey, cool nickname for your blog, Larry. NoBullshitUSA.net.