"That’s not how it works. That’s not how any of this works.” Einsurance commercial
June 4, 2014
By: Linda Case Gibbons
Everybody has bad days. Sundays are Susan Rice’s.
Sundays are so bad for Rice that she would be better off staying in bed and steering clear of the Sunday talk shows.
It’s hard to find a person like her, but lucky for them, the Obama administration did.
She has all the qualities they want in a person.
She’ll say whatever the administration wants her to say. She won’t question whether what she’s saying is true and she accepts the "best intelligence available at the time.”
Even when she’s wrong, she’s a gal who will not back down and the administration appreciates that. After each Sunday "gaffe,” she usually gets a promotion.
Like the rest of the Obama administration, Rice is an ardent believer in "do-overs.” She, like the rest of the Obama administration, will unfailingly come back time and again to defend whatever wrong information was planted.
Remember the Benghazi talking points? She was only the ambassador to the United Nations then, but the administration figured Rice was the logical choice to hit the Sunday circuit and clarify what had happened in Benghazi.
Not the secretary of state, but Rice.
Go figure.
Now she’s back! Only this time she’s been bumped up the ladder to national security advisor to the president! Who better to make the Sunday rounds to clarify the release of five top drawer Taliban terrorists from Guantanamo than Rice.
Yes, Congress might have wanted to say something about it. Actually they might have wanted to know something about it, but they weren’t briefed, not even the Senate Intelligence Committee.
In fact, the U.S. intelligence community and the military had been following Sgt. Bowe Bergdahl’s case from the first, for the entire five years he was AWOL, but no one asked them about it.
In her Sunday comments, Rice dubbed Bergdahl’s/Taliban swap and release a "joyous occasion.” Bergdahl had "served with honor and distinction,” she said. He "was a prisoner of war captured on the battlefield,” she said.
Except he didn’t and he wasn’t.
Shortly after the secretive swap and release, the news broke that Bergdahl was a deserter who just walked off the base in Afghanistan.
But Rice didn’t seem to know that. Neither did the president. And because it wasn’t mentioned in the mainstream media, really, how would they have known?
It was the best intelligence available to them at the time.
If Rice had done her job in her capacity as national security advisor to the president, she might have been able to compare Bergdahl to the veterans who stormed the beaches of Normandy. Then she might have seen what serving the country with "honor and distinction” looked like.
She could have done it. The swap/release took place mere days before the 70th Anniversary of D-Day.
But she didn’t. It’s not her style. And that was good for the administration because it’s not their style either.
Rice did a do-over; said what she really meant was merely donning the military uniform in time of war was brave and therefore Bergdahl’s service was honorable service. Forget the details.
He’s back home safely, she said. That’s all that matters, she said. She didn’t mention the six soldiers who were killed looking for Bergdahl. It wasn’t in the talking points.
Luckily for the Obama administration they have another "Susan Rice.” Hillary Clinton.
Both she and Rice don’t mind "talking the talking points,” then "doing the do-overs,” except Hillary’s a lot more closed-mouthed when things go wrong.
She’ll open up when the audience is right, say if she’s plugging her latest book, "Hard Choices,” but even now, nearly two years after the attack on our consulate, she isn’t keen on talking about Benghazi.
That’s why Susan Rice came in handy.
(Incidentally one of Hillary’s hard choices couldn’t have been choosing a title for her book, because former Secretary of State Cyrus Vance penned a book with the same name. Oops! Darn those details!)
This week Clinton made a pseudo-apology for voting to authorize the Iraq war, with a lukewarm, "I wasn’t alone in getting it wrong. But I still got it wrong. Plain and simple.”
Period. Full stop.
She didn’t apologize or explain Benghazi, pseudo or otherwise.
But to be fair and balanced, these women and this administration have it tough. Liars surround them, making talking their talking points extremely difficult.
First there were the liars who reported that their health insurance companies had gone and dumped them because of Obamacare. Some even said they were really sick, some with pre-existing conditions and had been unable to receive medical care.
Harry Reid laid those lies to rest!
Then a pack of liars stepped forward, whistleblowers for the phony IRS scandal, the phony VA scandal, and the phony Fast and Furious and Benghazi scandals, people who said they knew the skinny from the inside, but unfortunately were liars.
Barack Obama laid those lies to rest!
There are, however, some people in the administration’s corner. This week The New York Times blasted the eye-witness liars who served in the same unit as Bergdahl.
"Republican operatives were using this event to demonize Bergdahl by arranging for soldiers in his unit to tell reporters he was a deserter who cost the lives of several soldiers searching for him,” the editorial said.
This "free spirited” young man, as the Times editorial page poetically described Bergdahl, deserted because of the "army unit’s lack of security and discipline” given the sergeant’s history, so it wasn’t his fault at all.
The New York Times laid those lies to rest!
So it’s complex. Who’s good? Who’s bad? Should they stay or should they go? How to know?
Actually it’s not complex.
If a member of the administration uses the word "dude” and "Benghazi” in the same sentence – he’s gotta’ go.
If a member of the administration uses the words "what difference does it make?” and "Benghazi” in the same sentence -- she’s gotta’ go…and not to the White House.
If someone in the Department of Housing and Development tweets, "What if his (Bergdahl’s) platoon was long on psychopaths and short on leadership?” – kick him to the curb.
If a bunch of American vets get dumped by the VA, give them vouchers for private health care and fire as many people in the VA as you can.
And if a Marine imprisoned for making a wrong turn on a road into Mexico gets dumped by the president and the secretary of state, I say dump all 12 million illegal Mexicans who live here in the U.S. back in Mexico in exchange for that Marine.
And dump them at a bus station.
President Obama can explain to Mexico’s President Enrique Peno Nieto his talking points, that the U.S. leaves no solider behind – and we enforce our immigration laws.
But President Obama should be prepared. Enrique Peno Nieto may "unfriend” him.
Bummer.
Hold the line, America.
June 4, 2014
By: Linda Case Gibbons
Everybody has bad days. Sundays are Susan Rice’s.
Sundays are so bad for Rice that she would be better off staying in bed and steering clear of the Sunday talk shows.
It’s hard to find a person like her, but lucky for them, the Obama administration did.
She has all the qualities they want in a person.
She’ll say whatever the administration wants her to say. She won’t question whether what she’s saying is true and she accepts the "best intelligence available at the time.”
Even when she’s wrong, she’s a gal who will not back down and the administration appreciates that. After each Sunday "gaffe,” she usually gets a promotion.
Like the rest of the Obama administration, Rice is an ardent believer in "do-overs.” She, like the rest of the Obama administration, will unfailingly come back time and again to defend whatever wrong information was planted.
Remember the Benghazi talking points? She was only the ambassador to the United Nations then, but the administration figured Rice was the logical choice to hit the Sunday circuit and clarify what had happened in Benghazi.
Not the secretary of state, but Rice.
Go figure.
Now she’s back! Only this time she’s been bumped up the ladder to national security advisor to the president! Who better to make the Sunday rounds to clarify the release of five top drawer Taliban terrorists from Guantanamo than Rice.
Yes, Congress might have wanted to say something about it. Actually they might have wanted to know something about it, but they weren’t briefed, not even the Senate Intelligence Committee.
In fact, the U.S. intelligence community and the military had been following Sgt. Bowe Bergdahl’s case from the first, for the entire five years he was AWOL, but no one asked them about it.
In her Sunday comments, Rice dubbed Bergdahl’s/Taliban swap and release a "joyous occasion.” Bergdahl had "served with honor and distinction,” she said. He "was a prisoner of war captured on the battlefield,” she said.
Except he didn’t and he wasn’t.
Shortly after the secretive swap and release, the news broke that Bergdahl was a deserter who just walked off the base in Afghanistan.
But Rice didn’t seem to know that. Neither did the president. And because it wasn’t mentioned in the mainstream media, really, how would they have known?
It was the best intelligence available to them at the time.
If Rice had done her job in her capacity as national security advisor to the president, she might have been able to compare Bergdahl to the veterans who stormed the beaches of Normandy. Then she might have seen what serving the country with "honor and distinction” looked like.
She could have done it. The swap/release took place mere days before the 70th Anniversary of D-Day.
But she didn’t. It’s not her style. And that was good for the administration because it’s not their style either.
Rice did a do-over; said what she really meant was merely donning the military uniform in time of war was brave and therefore Bergdahl’s service was honorable service. Forget the details.
He’s back home safely, she said. That’s all that matters, she said. She didn’t mention the six soldiers who were killed looking for Bergdahl. It wasn’t in the talking points.
Luckily for the Obama administration they have another "Susan Rice.” Hillary Clinton.
Both she and Rice don’t mind "talking the talking points,” then "doing the do-overs,” except Hillary’s a lot more closed-mouthed when things go wrong.
She’ll open up when the audience is right, say if she’s plugging her latest book, "Hard Choices,” but even now, nearly two years after the attack on our consulate, she isn’t keen on talking about Benghazi.
That’s why Susan Rice came in handy.
(Incidentally one of Hillary’s hard choices couldn’t have been choosing a title for her book, because former Secretary of State Cyrus Vance penned a book with the same name. Oops! Darn those details!)
This week Clinton made a pseudo-apology for voting to authorize the Iraq war, with a lukewarm, "I wasn’t alone in getting it wrong. But I still got it wrong. Plain and simple.”
Period. Full stop.
She didn’t apologize or explain Benghazi, pseudo or otherwise.
But to be fair and balanced, these women and this administration have it tough. Liars surround them, making talking their talking points extremely difficult.
First there were the liars who reported that their health insurance companies had gone and dumped them because of Obamacare. Some even said they were really sick, some with pre-existing conditions and had been unable to receive medical care.
Harry Reid laid those lies to rest!
Then a pack of liars stepped forward, whistleblowers for the phony IRS scandal, the phony VA scandal, and the phony Fast and Furious and Benghazi scandals, people who said they knew the skinny from the inside, but unfortunately were liars.
Barack Obama laid those lies to rest!
There are, however, some people in the administration’s corner. This week The New York Times blasted the eye-witness liars who served in the same unit as Bergdahl.
"Republican operatives were using this event to demonize Bergdahl by arranging for soldiers in his unit to tell reporters he was a deserter who cost the lives of several soldiers searching for him,” the editorial said.
This "free spirited” young man, as the Times editorial page poetically described Bergdahl, deserted because of the "army unit’s lack of security and discipline” given the sergeant’s history, so it wasn’t his fault at all.
The New York Times laid those lies to rest!
So it’s complex. Who’s good? Who’s bad? Should they stay or should they go? How to know?
Actually it’s not complex.
If a member of the administration uses the word "dude” and "Benghazi” in the same sentence – he’s gotta’ go.
If a member of the administration uses the words "what difference does it make?” and "Benghazi” in the same sentence -- she’s gotta’ go…and not to the White House.
If someone in the Department of Housing and Development tweets, "What if his (Bergdahl’s) platoon was long on psychopaths and short on leadership?” – kick him to the curb.
If a bunch of American vets get dumped by the VA, give them vouchers for private health care and fire as many people in the VA as you can.
And if a Marine imprisoned for making a wrong turn on a road into Mexico gets dumped by the president and the secretary of state, I say dump all 12 million illegal Mexicans who live here in the U.S. back in Mexico in exchange for that Marine.
And dump them at a bus station.
President Obama can explain to Mexico’s President Enrique Peno Nieto his talking points, that the U.S. leaves no solider behind – and we enforce our immigration laws.
But President Obama should be prepared. Enrique Peno Nieto may "unfriend” him.
Bummer.
Hold the line, America.