Second-Rate Appointments From A Third-Rate President
Posted in the Columbia Forum
#1 Feb 14, 2013
So, former VP Dick Cheney says "The performance now of Barack Obama as he staffs up the national security team for the second term is dismal... Frankly, what he has appointed are second-rate people."
"What Difference Does It Make?" Madame Secretary Hillary Clinton's now infamous nihilistic retort to pesky questioning from Wisconsin's senator Ron Johnson capped nearly a century of profoundly second-rate performances from Democrats. It started with William Jennings Bryan succumbing to a severe case of mal-de-mer as Woodrow Wilson's top diplomat following President Wilson's stern rebuke to Germany for having torpedoed the Luistania in 1915.
Of course Bryan and Mrs. Clinton arrived at the State Department with identical motivations. Neither was the slightest bit qualified -- Bryan the Great Plains populist and perennial presidential aspirant, finally exhausted, pledging his support for Wilson in 1912; Hillary, the undistinguished convenient U.S. senator, merely stoic collateral from her husband's serial philandering, losing to Obama via suspect primary vote tallies. Both appointed as neat political tucks conveniently designed to marginalize one-time rivals.
Perhaps Democrats still suffering from their epic mismanagement of Vietnam are pathologically incapable of asserting anything but a "turn turtle" national defense and foreign policy. The emasculation of foreign policy by Democrats is hardly new or shocking:
George Gershwin's Porgy and Bess is a fitting allegory for the Democrats' approach to domestic policy -- permissive sex, drugs, gambling, sleaze and co-dependency -- all on somebody's else's tab. Less obvious, Porgy's refrain from Act II,'I Got Plenty o' Nuttin' and Nuttin's Plenty fo' me...' has also been the Democrats' contribution to national security for nearly 60 years.
How fitting for John Kerry, speciously decorated brown-water U.S. Navy officer in Vietnam, disgracing his service and his uniform with dubious testimony before the Senate Foreign Relations Committee in 1971, now the champion for the Afghan quagmire, and third in succession to the White House. Meanwhile Kerry's top treaty-making priority is defeating global warming. Such gallantry, deserving of another medal someday.
And Chuck Hagel, bringing assiduous mediocrity to the task as secretary of defense. He even struggles to make mediocrity respectable. The good people of Nebraska may be forgiven for pedestrian patronage in sending Hagel to the U.S. Senate. Yet why should cornhuskers' humble approbation be leveraged by confirming "Everyman" Chuck as secretary of defense? Because he served honorably as a combat grunt in Vietnam? Why not choose from among the 2.5 million other honorable vets who served in-country?
On the other hand, maybe Chuck Hagel -- Chance the Gardener -- is the most attractive antidote to those athletic know-it-all defense secretaries best represented by Robert McNamara , "the best and the brightest". What a relief to know "I won't be in a policymaking position", as Chuck pleaded with the Senate Republicans on the Senate Armed Services Committee.
Hagel might as well join the rest of Obama's cabinet-level appointees in national defense or foreign policy, none of whom make policy either. Which fits the low-info know-nothings who voted in Obama for a second term.
Instead, Barack Obama, the third-rate poseur, believes foreign policy and national defense consists of basking in the assassination of Osama Bin Laden while abandoning the U.S. Navy Seal Team who did the dirty work on his behalf, and popping an Ambien and shutting off the lights while his embassy is being firebombed. A nation that elected Barack Obama will get neither a first-rate national defense nor a first-rate foreign policy. So, "what difference does it make" if he can't or won't find a first-rate national security team to run it?
#2 Feb 15, 2013
Diming us to death
During the State of the Union address, as well as many other speeches he's given over the past four years, this President emphatically continues to state that his programs - his investments in America - "should not add one single dime to the deficit".
I watched the SOTU speech and when I heard this statement repeated once again, I was reminded of the scene in the movie Blazing Saddles during which, a posse was riding out after their man. Coming upon a makeshift toll bridge, the posse stops. The sheriff then yells out for "someone to go back to town and get a $#!+ load of dimes.
That, in a nutshell, is America today. This country, and all of its spending issues, is merely a posse looking for a whole lot of dimes to get across Obama's toll bridge!
#3 Feb 15, 2013
Reminds me of the scene in "In Search of the Holy Grail" of the "Black Knight" fighting and losing his limbs and saying "It's just a flesh wound." Obama is a piece of work that needs to be pieced together (wink, wink). Oh, by the way, he isn't worth a dime.(sarc/off) God bless the U.S.A.
Add your comments below
|Student:"Get To Know Your Local Stripper" (May '07)||Aug 25||Jamesbeck23||24|
|Michael Vick:: Does the punishment fit the crime? (Apr '09)||Aug 24||LAWEST100||582|
|holy temple church of the lord jesus christ of ... (Mar '13)||Aug 24||Alonzo||1,417|
|Sheriff: 4 Investigators Fired, One Performed S... (Oct '07)||Aug 18||Thurmond||343|
|Horrible Roads||Aug 16||New Resident||4|
|traffic||Aug 16||New Resident||2|
|Pokemon Go||Aug 11||Jimmy||3|
Find what you want!
Search Columbia Forum Now
Copyright © 2016 Topix LLC