RSS Feed for This PostCurrent Article

Secretary of State or Secretary at War

(Please welcome Steve Markom as a new writer for NoQuarter. Steve is a longtime reader here, and has been a wonderful e-mail penpal with me. We share a deep affection for and appreciation of AMC’s Emmy-winning “Mad Men,” and I’m hoping to entice Steve to write reviews when AMC reairs the series so you can follow along, with Steve’s very insightful commentaries — especially worthwhile because Steve knows the Manhattan advertising area like few others, and can tell you all about it. – nasuS)

There are times when newly elected Presidents use cabinet selections as window dressing and then rely primarily on close advisors to formulate and execute policy.

For those who recall the Nixon Administration that certainly was the case when it came to the State Department and foreign policy. While William Rogers had been Nixon’s Secretary of State during his first term, Nixon relied heavily on his National Security Advisor, Henry Kissinger to determine and to execute foreign policy initiatives – most famous of those was Kissinger’s shuttle diplomacy to achieve détente with the USSR and to open Red China. Kissinger was allowed to undermine Rogers and did replace him in Nixon’s second term.

There are many questions about how influential Colin Powell was in formulating foreign policy during Bush’s first terms with Cheney, Rumsfeld, and advisors such as Wolfowitz driving foreign policy for the U.S.

So what was Obama’s motivation for selecting Hillary Clinton to be his Secretary of State? The political answer is clearly to keep her from being a potential opposition force to him in the Senate and for his second term re-election. Obama and Clinton had very different points of view during the campaign, with Clinton being very critical of Obama when it came to issues regarding the Middle East for instance and Iran. So it is reasonable to ask: Will Clinton be the primary foreign policy force or is Obama already planning to undercut her influence and authority?

One troubling clue came out late last week when it was revealed that Samantha Power had been retained and added to Obama’s State Department transition team. Power, one of Obama’s foreign policy advisors when the campaign began, had been supposedly fired by Obama when she publicly called Obama’s opponent Hillary Clinton “a monster.”

Now Power is charged with hiring people to work for the “monster” and will likely work for Hillary herself. Clearly this is not the choice of Hillary Clinton. So does it signal Obama’s intention to run foreign policy directly out of his office and in a direction that may not be consistent with Hillary Clinton’s positions?

Hillary Clinton is a strong advocate and supporter of Israel and has a unique understanding of the intricacies of Middle East diplomacy from her husband’s administration and his late attempts to bring an agreement between Israel and the Palestinians.

Israel is already viewing Obama with much skepticism and the latest polls giving Benjamin Netanyahu a greater lead shows the concern Israelis have with Obama and his past associations and actions.

The selection of Power, along with her anti-Israel positions , to the transition team only serves to increase those concerns. They are also policies not shared by Clinton. If Power is influential in building the Middle East State department team, then we could be viewing people who Clinton will not have agreement with and people who could be running policy around her and directly through the White House.

Does Obama share Power’s views on Israel and if not why was it necessary to go back on his firing of her to create a potential conflict with his newly announced Secretary of State?

Another clue to how Obama may run foreign policy was the selection of Obama’s close foreign policy advisor Susan Rice to the post of U.N. Ambassador. As important will be Obama’s making that post a Cabinet level position and thus reporting directly to him.

Also we should recall that Rice was a strong advocate of Obama during the primary campaign and in an interview with Tucker Carlson said in responding to the infamous 3 AM phone call ad:

RICE: They`re both not ready to have that 3:00 a.m. phone call. The questions is and what Barack Obama raised is, when that phone call is received for each of them for the first time, who’s going to make the right judgment? Who is going to make the right decision?
On the critical foreign policy issues of the day, whether it was a decision to go to war in Iraq or the decision to give President Bush the benefit of the doubt and beat the drums of war with Iran, Hillary Clinton has made the same wrong judgment as John McCain and George W. Bush. Barack Obama has made a very different judgment.

With the long awaited announcements today of Obama’s national security team and of Hillary Clinton to Secretary of State there will be too many questions after the press conference which we will not have answers for until Obama’s administration begins in January.

Supporters of Israel have no question about where Hillary Clinton stands after her years as U.S. Senator for New York. However there are unresolved issues regarding Israel with Barack Obama based on his past associations and statements made by some of his strongest foreign policy advocates such as Zbigniew Brzezinski and Brent Scowcroft. There are signs that the 77% of American Jews who voted for Obama may soon be facing buyers remorse and Hillary may be regretting leaving the Senate finding that she may doing battle within the Obama Administration.

  • SonicNinjaKitty

    The Power hiring gets me. She strikes me as a dumb egghead and far too naive to work anywhere near foreign policy. She seems to only look at one side of a problem and be easily led by outside interests. I feel like this is an administration with training wheels, except where Hillary is concerned. Hillary is one of very few adults on the playground.

  • xax

    Was this reported yet?

    “Pentagon to Detail Troops to Bolster Domestic Security.”

    http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2008/11/30/AR2008113002217_pf.html

    I remember some buzzing about this awhile back. Didn’t think it was at all true.

  • http://clinton.bestpoliticalblogs.co.uk/2008/12/01/secretary-of-state-or-secretary-at-war-no-quarter/ Clinton On Best Political Blogs » Blog Archive » Secretary of State or Secretary at War : NO QUARTER

    [...] Secretary of State or Secretary at War : NO QUARTER With the long awaited announcements today of Obama’s national security team and of Hillary Clinton to Secretary of State there will be too many questions after the press conference which we will not have answers for until Obama’s … [...]

  • http://hillary-clinton.bestpoliticalblogs.co.uk/2008/12/01/secretary-of-state-or-secretary-at-war-no-quarter/ Secretary of State or Secretary at War : NO QUARTER at Hillary Clinton On Best Political Blogs

    [...] Secretary of State or Secretary at War : NO QUARTER So what was Obama’s motivation for selecting Hillary Clinton to be his Secretary of State? The political answer is clearly to keep her from being a potential opposition force to him in the Senate and for his second term re-election. … [...]

  • Maria3

    Great article, Steve!

    I am very troubled … I do not understand why Clinton accepted. Clinton has a lot more power as a Senator. Clinton looked sad and uneasy during the press hearing, as if she accepted to baby sit Obama.

    I do not like Dr. Susan Rice, although I feel she will be good company for the angry Michelle Obama, and I fail to see what she will bring to the table.

    I understand that Dr. Susan Rice is one of those responsible for letting Osama Bin Laden get away in the 1990s.

  • xax

    I just see this as more political positioning.

    Who knows what he’s actually going to do. It’s hard to figure this guy out, until he does or says something accidentally. It’s a shell game.

    I’m tired of the political games, I want ALL OF THEM OUT!!!

  • http://www.patriotroom.com Bill Dupray

    The Small Matter of Obama’s Diminutive Team

    http://patriotroom.com/the-small-matter-of-obamas-diminutive-team/

  • catherine

    Is it possible Clinton knows something we don’t?

    I can’t possibly imagine that everything we’ve all discussed here has’nt already been discussed between her and Bill.

    I have a feeling Samantha Power may not be at the state department for long.

  • Ferd Berfle

    Wow. Between the chicken-littles who want to feel safe with a nanny government and the Patriot Act and the obamalobotobots who don’t give a tinker’s cuss about the Constitution, we’re essentially screwed unless we can light a fire under the lethargic SCOTUS.

  • Andy

    Steve Markom:

    EXCELLENT post!! Highly appreciated here. Great analysis and important questions. I have been troubled/worried by some of the same things you bring up. For all the trust I have of HRC; the rest of the BO team does not necessarily view Israel with the same appreciation and as the strong and ubiquotus allied in the region. For all the respect that LJ has for Scowcroft and Gen. Jones their approach and views do not support but rather confront HRC’s.

    The Gen. Jones document leaked by Haaretz is particularly worrisome to me.

    Scowcroft’s partnership with Brezinski and their new book smells to a blue print for BO’s foreign policy to me. I haven’t read the book (heard about it and what they say) but Scowcroft’s message to Israel vis a vis Iran is to “chill out”….

    Of course I am not advocating bombing Iran at all. But I am doubtful anyone but HRC would be tough in stopping Iran’s nuclear program. Gen Jones thinks
    the Palestinian-Israel conflict is number one. Israel thinks effectively dealing with Iran is number one.

    I can already see the inner battles and pray that HRC wins them. But I am worried.

    Here is an interesting article at the New Republic by Ed Lake about Gen.Jones vs Hillary Clinton on Israel.

    http://www.tnr.com/politics/story.html?id=37a35a8f-5582-47fc-867c-03e8a211122f

  • Friz

    I love this post for the extreme lengths it goes to in order to confirm the poster’s preconceived notions – why on earth would Obama nominate Hillary if he thought they were going to disagree tremendously on issues of diplomacy? Why would she accept if she thought the same? Both this poster and the MSM have made this far more complicated than it is, which is to say: Hillary and Obama have decided that they’ll work well together, she’s agreed to be one of the key parts of his administration, and so we move on.

    Neither Brent Scowcroft nor Brzezinski will be anywhere nearly as close to Obama in this administration as, say, Rahm Emanuel will be, which makes your supposition about Israel fairly ludicrous.

    Samantha Power is an internationally recognized expert who wrote the best book on genocide to come out this decade. She said a stupid thing about Hillary, and she’s apologized to Hillary about it. So, again, we move on.

    Seriously: if I’m an anti-Obama guy worried about his Israel stances, I’m fairly heartened by his pro-Israel cabinet choices. Generally, the founder of this blog seems to agree with me on this point.

  • Mr. Stuck

    Just a little lesson on the duties of Secretary of State. First, the State department, nor the Secretary sets foreign policy. That is the Job of the POTUS, and the POTUS only. The SOS simply implements his/her policy. This is true of all administrations. So your post is based on a non sequitur.

  • IndayHill

    If I were Senator Hillary Clinton, I would decline Obama’s offer to be the Sec. of State, especially, knowing that Samantha Powers’ face would be everywhere. I would not trust this woman. Powers will be the eyes & ears of Obama & destroy her.
    I just can’t figure why Senator Hillary & President Bill Clinton agree to Obama’s demand ?
    For the country, maybe. I can’t say for themselves, because,the Obamas are watching their every move, now that the Senator is under the control of Obama.
    I pray for Senator Hillary & President Bill Clinton,very trustworthy people.For the country, I’ll also pray for the success of Obama’s administration.
    God Bless America !!!

  • pm317

    I don’t agree with the general tone of the post presented here. While I share a general mistrust of Obama and always wonder what he is up to, some of the assumptions in the post make me doubt how well informed the writer is. For example, Susan Rice for UN ambassador, that position was a cabinet level position in Bill Clinton’s admin and 0bama is putting it back at that level. Also this post does not acknowledge the reports about Hillary making it conditional on her having direct access to 0bama and to hire her own staff for the state dept. She is much too smart for 0bama to ignore and override her. Finally with all those backstabbers in the senate, I don’t know how powerful she could have been to give 0bama trouble and there was not much chance of her running an opposing campaign in 2012 against 0bama.

  • S. Markom

    Thanks Maria.

    I would believe that Hillary wants her own legacy and one that is separate from Bill’s.

    From what I have read I believe she may not be interested in campaigning for anything again and this was a unique opportunity for her.

    Although there could be conflict within Obama’s Administration on foreign policy, Hillary Clinton will not be walked over like William Rogers was during Nixon’s administration.

  • Andy

    Fritz:

    I guess you are unaware of Gen. Jones (NSA) positions as well as the FACT that BO will have a
    TEAM of National Security and Foreign Policy Advisors at all time who are independent of HRC’s.

    Who do you think these will be?

    Make no mistake about what Israel is truly worried about and that what BO will do re. Iran.

    Foreign policy is determined by the WH. HRC’s job is to carried it out. Will she influence BO? Sure. She wil be one strong voice. But not the only one and the final decision is up to BO. After that policy goes one way: WH to SoS.

    We will see. But I share Steve Markom’s post 100%.

  • KintheNorthwest

    Is it just me or is Obama back to using that seal that imitates the presidential seal….Look at his picture with Hillary.

  • Andy

    I think you need to reed the post again for nowhere does the author claims otherwise.

  • Andy

    correction: reed —-> read.

  • Galt

    Yeah I thought the post was a clarinet. :shock:

  • Just_Saying

    Hillary, I’m warning you, don’t align yourself too much with Obama — he’s not to be trusted!! (I still plea, keep your senate seat — we need you there, as counterpoint to Obama’s plans. I trust you much more than I do Obama…)
    .

  • Andy

    pm317:

    (1) it has been widely reported Power is vetting the SoS staff.

    (2) the point is that Rice will be a strong influence in the Adm. (just as HRC) I didn’t read it as if
    it was BO’s invention to make it a cabinet post…

    I support HRC at SoS but she is surrounded by people who are at somewhat at odds with her stated views re. Israel and Iran to some extent.

  • Mr. Stuck

    So does it signal Obama’s intention to run foreign policy directly out of his office and in a direction that may not be consistent with Hillary Clinton’s positions?

  • S. Markom

    Thanks for the article link.

    What I find interesting is that regarding Israel Jones “favors dispatching a NATO force to keep the peace in the interim.” Yet he wrote a searing report that NATO and America were losing in Afghanistan. So why would he think that NATO troops could do a good job of protecting Israelis from terrorists? Israel will never allow a foreign force to substitute for their own IDF.

  • Andy

    The SoS is not the POTUS maid exactly.

  • Andy

    Exactly; moreover look at how Hezbollah is arming itself to their teeth at plain sight of an “international security force” in south Lebanon….

    PRI The World had this afternoon a great interview today with a Dekal (spelling?) a journalist and radio host in Israel about what’s their view
    of Jones and of BO vis a vis Iran (they are worried).

    You can listen here

    http://www.theworld.org/

    They should post this afternoon’s program soon.

  • stodgie

    first of all samanatha power is going to implode. she thinks way too much of herself and has an ongoing galloping case of diahrrea of the mouth.

  • S. Markom

    Partially right. The POTUS does not sit around formulating policy positions on foreign policy or other matters. The President receives that from his cabinet officers and advisors. Based on that input the POTUS makes a decision on policy for implementation. Obama stated a general direction today which is more “soft power” which his appointees all had to buy in on including Hillary.

    But when it comes to an issue such as Israel and the Palestine state it would be the State Department and Clinton who should be leading and I believe Hillary believes that as well.

    But once operations begin in the Obama Administration there is no certainty that Obama will choose to bypass Hillary in favor of one or more of his advisors or even possibly Undersecretaries in the State Department.

  • Mr. Stuck

    The SoS is not the POTUS maid exactly.

    Didn’t say she was. The point is that basic foreign policy of the country comes from the White House. Clinton’s input is important, but still the final policy decision is, and should be made by the elected POTUS. And despite the article above citing of campaign rhetoric for proof of big differences, I think the reality is that Obama and HC are mostly working from the same page in their FP beliefs.

  • stodgie

    samanatha power is a small fry. jones is the one to watch in my view. he has played the political game in dc and the military for years. power? please!

  • cc

    I too can not understand what appeals to Hillary in this set up? first I think her move is a huge mistake. I know she wants to get the foreign policy experience that everyone kept criticizing her for, but will she really let an obamabot like power walk over her?

    I don’t watch the msm anymore, but when I came home today I saw a glimpse of cbs’ evening news and the take they had on her appointment was so sexist.

    “obama names clinton as secretary of state but not before establishing the ground rules.” they then followed with a soundbite of oblowme saying “let’s uh be clear, the policy implemented in these positions will be MY policy. the buck stops with ME.”

    for christ’s sake, bobo looked pathetic making that statement… if you have credibility, power, and command of your team, you don’t have to call people out publicly.

    watching him react this way has the feel of a grade school teacher chastising his little kindergarten class for getting too rebellious..”now kiddies, behave yourselves and stay in line, or no cookies for you!

  • Andy

    On your fist point, I wrote the same in a comment upstream.

    On the second point: not clear when it comes to Israel and the Middle East.

    The TNR I posted in anothe comment upstream (about Jones and HRC) is quite interesting.

  • Mr. Stuck

    But when it comes to an issue such as Israel and the Palestine state it would be the State Department and Clinton who should be leading and I believe Hillary believes that as well.

    Yes, she should be leading every FP initiative. But only initiatives, or positions that are directed from the WH, which would certainly include any ideas that Hillary convinces Obama should be made policy. This isn’t rocket science, it’s simply chain of command that has to be part of any government enterprise that wants to succeed.

  • S. Markom

    The only comfort Israel has had in the transition to Obama has been the appointment of Hillary Clinton. But Hillary is not POTUS. So their suspicion of and concern about Obama will remain very high until he begins his terms and they see how things unfold.

  • Shtuey Shtuey

    This post raises genuine issues of concern vis a vis Obama’s stance on Israel. I agree with Markom’s assertion that we will not know the truth regarding his Mid-east policy until he takes office. What I believe we can count on is that HRC will not be a part of effecting a foreign policy that compromises the security of Israel. If this were to be Obama’s stance, I foresee a very public protest departure from the DOS by Clinton which, in the end, would only enhance her prestige.

    While leftists like to drum out the meme that Israel dictates our foreign policy, the State Department has a history of being privately hostile to Israel, marginalizing her interests in favor of kowtowing to OPEC. The Clinton appointment is a sign that this could be a shift. Again, this is dependent on how autonomous she is allowed to be, and how open the President-Select is to her advice.

    I do think that it is a mistake to equate Likud’s rising poll numbers with Israel’s reservations regarding Obama. It is certainly true that Israelis see him as someone who does not come off as a strong supporter. But those rising poll numbers have more to do with Kadima’s ineffectual policies vis a vis Hamas, Syria, and Hezbullah. Israel has consistently acted in her own interests over the objections of the White House. Israelis are no doubt more concerned about having leadership that will continue this tradition, rather than continue on with a Kadima party that has been the White House’s lapdog in many respects.

    With Russia making moves to reclaim a sphere of influence in the Middle East, Iran moving ever closer to possessing nuclear weapons, and an increased Syrian military presence on its border with Lebanon, I would say that these existential threats are in the front of Israeli minds more so than Obama being President.

    I hope that HRC will have the President’s ear, steering our foreign policy to one that supports Israeli security, while promoting peace in the region.

    And of course there is the fact that Obama really hasn’t a clue what he’s doing, and he’s starting to realize it. This is not a man who is accustomed to actually having to do work in office so I suspect there will be lots of delegating, and potential for a great deal of autonomy.

    Again, we won’t know until he’s in there. Oh…my valve!!!

  • interested party

    Unfortunately you leave out a couple of points.

    Hillary Clinton wouldn’t agree to take the job without assurances from Barack that she would have control over the selection of staff at State. This was rumored as one cause for her delayed acceptance of the job.

    Clinton’s “power” in Congress was only as junior Senator. This is not much of platform for advocating and implementing policy, particularly with the media a gaga over the Obama administration. She’s already received more recognition via publicity as a potential cabinet head, then she ever would as a Senator.

    Obama’s policies are not definitive. Going from one position to another as nuance or political expediency suggests, Obama’s current stance (or whatever a continuing interpretation of that stance) on Iraq and other matters are continually return to where Clinton already stands. So I don’t see how this is going to be a source of much tension. (This is not to say personality wise, there won’t be conflict)

    On another note, I doubt S. Powers is going to be on Department payroll, but if she is, she will be taking orders in some diminutive capacity under Clinton and will not be in her trusted loop of associates.

  • Athena the Warrior

    This just popped up on Drudge and its in that ‘danger red’ he uses. Saying that we’re screwed is an understatement these days.

  • Andy

    True stodgie.

    Re. Power I just don’t like she vetting SoS staff. She’s smart and worte a great book. But…

    On the other hand, Gen. Jones is the heavy weight
    here. LJ seem to respect him enormously and I respect LJ. I have heard Gen. Jones a number of times (on issues re. energy & when he was thought to be a candidate for BO’s VP) and liked his demeanor and his thoughtfulness. He also worked well under Def. Sec. William Cohen I think.

    But I do not like his views about Israel; his unpublished and then leaked report about Israel and
    the fact that he seems to believe “fixing the Israel-Palestinian” conflict (which the US cannot force on its own timetable not force upon them) is “THE” issue. In his view it seems more important than Iran. For Israel on the other hand; Iran is #1 (no to say negotiations w/the Palestinians should stop).

  • S. Markom

    chain of command that has to be part of any government enterprise that wants to succeed.

    That is the issue. The only given in any Administration is POTUS. Beyond that titles mean little.

    During Nixon’s Administration Kissinger accumulated so much power that the chain of command for almost the entire cabinet went through National Security Advisor (Kissinger) and his growing staff of aides.

    The reason to ask such a question is that Obama voiced certain positions during his campaign and his appointment of Hillary does not match positions he took.

  • Strawberrybitch

    Holy Crap. Both the ACLU and the CATO Institute are troubled by this…THE END IS NEAR!!!!!!

  • pm317

    She is too much of a bigger player than any of those people (Rice, Power). Anything that happens happens on the world stage now. 0bama cannot that easily sideline Hillary or make her a non-player without the world noticing it and talking about it. It is also known that Jones was her preferred goto guy on military issues and she and he work well together. Rice getting UN is small potatoes and Power does not have anything yet.

  • Margaret

    Obama has never done anything but seek to destroy Hillary Clinton. Expecting it to now be any different is like expecting a batterer to stop hitting you, it won’t happen.

  • rolling_thunder

    He has a two-fer now. Hill out front and center, Bill under the radar as a diplomat and leader of an envoy. Such a deal for the skinny kid with a weight problem male candidate who got in on his skin color as well as Acorn and it’s subsidiaries, with the cool business plan of cheating. Heck it’s a real good deal for a selected President who hasn’t ever produced any of his docs :roll:
    He was on meds for mild schizophrenia and may still be.
    That’s why he won’t release his medical records.
    He was born out of the country and is not constitutionally eligible to be a schizophrenic President Select.
    :lol:

  • Margaret

    Maybe Hillary knew she had no choice. Maybe if she didn’t take it they were going to drive her out of her Senate seat, so it was this or nothing.

  • S. Markom

    Excellent points.

    I believe that Obama will be tested early in his Administration. That test could be Hamas and/or Hezbollah taking hostile actions against Israel and forcing them into retaliations. That could lead countries sympathetic to those groups to have the U.N. Security Council to issue a condemnation of Israel. The question will be will Obama have Rice veto it as other Presidents have?

    Such a situation will test whether Hillary has Obama’s ear. If it appears that she does not than it will become very evident to everyone quickly.

  • Bettie

    At first I disagreed with your premise, thinking Rice and Powers too naive to really handle the big kooks, unaware of the real world of foreign diplomacy.

    But then I wondered, too, if this isn’t more a front for guys like Zbig, and Scowcroft, as you alluded to in your essay.

    And that is, unfortunately, very possible, given the Bush like trajectory Obama has ridden, the tendency to hide the real intent behind the public personas.

    We just had a rehash of Nixon, with Cheney, now we have to look at a Reagan lite, coupled with an even greater criminality in guys like Auchi, and Rezko?

    OTOneH, I’m glad the Clitnons are present, it’s good to know someone can advocate for sane policy, OTOH, we really don’t need any more faded old men, like Zbig and Scowcroft, pretending to be God, involving themselves in situations they don’t really understand.

    Which makes the Gates appointment all the more interesting.

    Well, we can hope for the best, but Washington power struggles being what they are, I dount we will see it.

    They fight their narcissism, not sane policy.

    I see Clinton as more flexible.

  • Bettie

    doubt, not donut.

    Time for dinner, freudian slip, sorry.

  • rolling_thunder

    He needs her too much now. He won’t dare pull a fast one. Besides, he can trust her. He’s dumb about many things but not about Hillary.

  • Margaret

    He’s already pushed Hillary off the stage with the world watching, there’s nothing to stop him from doing it again.

  • Bettie

    I thought this too, until the mention of names like Scowcroft, Jones, and Zbig, (and really, Gates, too) perhaps acting the Kissinger to Obama.

    We’ll see.

    Clinton isn’t stupid, and has Bill on her side.

    It could be beneficial.

  • rolling_thunder

    Not any more. With Hillary Obliterate-Clinton on the scene I doubt there will be any “tests”. She’ll obliterate them. :lol:

  • pm317

    When I say on the world stage I don’t mean it frivolously. She seems to have a huge international support for this position. If she delivers (I have no doubt she will) and the world stage loves her, it will be difficult for 0bama to be petty and push her over — he will look worse for it.

  • rolling_thunder

    Powers won’t mess with Hill. Trust me on that.

  • Clara Barton

    I don’t like Susan Rice either. She is clearly very close to BO and could undercut Hillary in a heartbeat. Fortunately, Hillary is no rube.

    I’ve gone back and forth on Hillary taking this position and mostly, have been against it. Your article has brought up even more reasons to be wary.

  • rolling_thunder

    So who’s policy does Obama have to implement? Not his own because he has none. So who’s policy? Guess. Begins with H and ends with a Y.

    :grin:

  • NoBama

    Susan Rice is a lightweight and should not have been considered for any post. She did a terrible job for the Clinton Administration in the Rwanda massacres.

  • Bettie

    But I do not like his views about Israel; his unpublished and then leaked report about Israel and
    the fact that he seems to believe “fixing the Israel-Palestinian” conflict (which the US cannot force on its own timetable not force upon them) is “THE” issue. In his view it seems more important than Iran. For Israel on the other hand; Iran is #1 (no to say negotiations w/the Palestinians should stop).

    I understand people have gripes with Israel, perhaps legitimate.

    But my thinking runs along the lines of wondering who feeds this conflict, who feeds this hoping to harm the US, also, using Israel as a proxy to involve the US unwisly in the ME?

    And I would be more interested in going after that group, rather than taking the simplistic view of “it’s all Israel’s fault, if we cut the Jews, everything will be fine.”

    It won’t.

  • Bettie

    I agree.

  • SJ

    Samantha Power the woman that told us Obama only says what he feels we need to hear on the campaign trail to get our votes, she was also the one that called Hillary a monster.

    Hillary is in such excellent company now, politics sure makes strange bedfellows, I guess once politics gets into your blood that kind of life is hard to give up, its easy to play a submissive role than to stand up for what you feel is right just in order to keep being in the lime light.

    That is really sad now they are saying Bill’s name is out there for Hillary’s senate seat, how disgusting is that Bill was once President what the hell would be want to be a senator for now, they entire scenario with the Clinton’s is making me feel to barf geez what is it with these people.

  • cc

    the only comfort I’m getting out of this is all the international face time Hillary’s going to get as sos…her every move will be reported on in every country she goes. the problem for the fraud bo is he will be jealous hearing reporters talking about hrc and not him.

  • S. Markom

    Walk through Penn Station in New York City any day and it is business as usual with armed National Guard stationed throughout. Are they talking about replacing National Guard with regular Army?

  • S. Markom

    I seriously doubt that Bill would want or accept an offer to replace his wife in the Senate. There is nothing in it for him to accomplish and would be too confining. There are many other candidates who would make more sense – particularly for the Governor maing the decision who has his own re-election facing him in only 2 years.

  • athy

    Steve,
    Excellent post.
    Here is my two cents worth:
    I am amazed at how the msm is ‘presenting’ Dr. Susan Rice to the public. Her past has gone through a major makeover to the point that some of these msm outlets border on revisionism where it concerns edcuating the public about Rice’s actions while she worked under the Clinton administration.
    Here are some facts about Dr Rice that the msm is neglecting to mention to the unsuspecting public:

    Dr Susan Rice has been accused of being another MAJOR reason why Osama Bin Laden was able to carry out terror attacks on 9/11. She convinced US govt not to accept Sudan offer to turn over Bin Laden to US in 1997 despite convincing arguments to the contrary provided to her by other US and foreign officials friendly to the US. .

    http://www.vanityfair.com/politics/features/2002/01/osama200201

    The osama Files, January 2002, David Rose

    http://www.villagevoice.com/news/0144,gould,29537,1.html

    “Thanks But No Thanks-How the U.S. Missed a Chance to Get Bin Laden”

    by Jennifer Gould, The Village Voice, 10/30/01

  • mimi

    Thank you pm317!

    Exactly how powerful, indeed, was Hillary going to be up against all those who turned on her in the Senate in favor of BO?

    We clearly do not know the entire story. Everything discussed here, was presumably discussed by Hllary and Bill. Or did they suddenly become stupid overnight?

    She had no power in the Senate. And I’m sure she didn’t want to work with these turncoats anymore, anyway. None of these people are credible nor worthy of respect.

    But for all of the preoccupation about the real intentions that 0bama has about Israel, it fails to consider that he won a disproportionate amount of the Jewish vote. During the election, there was no convincing this voting bloc otherwise. And then the first person he hired was Rahm Emmanuel.

    0bviously, something’s up. And try as we might, we simply don’t know what it all entails.

    I wish Hillary had not accepted the SoS slot and had instead toughed it out in the Senate, difficult as that was going to be. But Hillary knows how to take care of herself. If she doesn’t, then shame on her.

    What 0bama fails to understand is this, he can play cutthroat politics all he wants to with the Clintons, but the end result will tarnish his presidency.

    If that’s what he wants, then I hope he rolls with that.

  • Andy

    Was Power advising the Clinton Adm. on Rwanda?

  • Andy

    pm317: I am thinking of Jones here. Rice is an enabler but Jones is a heavyweight.

    On the plus side for HRC she has Emmanuel in the WH which should help vis a vis Israel.

    Don’t get me wrong: I am ALL in favor she being SoS. Besides, gosh, the alternatives mentioned would be horrible.

  • mimi

    Link please.

    That’s a sizeable assertion. Schizophrenia? Is there such a thing as mild schizophrenia?

    I’d like some info as to where you heard/read this about 0bama?

  • Shtuey Shtuey

    Steve, I absolutely agree. A UNSC vote could very well tell the tale. And the way things are shaping up in the region, I’m afraid you may be right that the test will come sooner, rather than later.

  • S. Markom

    First thanks.

    I agree that Dr. Rice would not have been on my short list for anything. In fact, she and Hillary have not seen eye-to-eye on issues to be kind.

    I had read the Voice article some time ago.

    “At the time we had no basis to prosecute Bin Laden in a U.S. court. It would have been a huge mistake to try him and let him go free, and the Saudis didn’t want him.”

    This sums up the problem at the time. The Administration viewed the terror attacks by al Qaeda as criminal acts and not as a war.

    Obama is looking for good judgement and Rice has already shown that she does not have it.

  • /www.youtube.com/watch?v=ibsP6XN2dIo&eurl trixta

    I read somewhere that Hillary was disappointed at the cold reception she received from the Senate after the contentious primaries. The environment was probably too hostile for her to continue there. Who knows?

  • gonzotx

    We move on, how naive!

  • I’m a Linda too

    Great post, thank you.

  • SonicNinjaKitty

    Samantha Power wrote a book on genocide that was great in some parts and very shaky in others. I stand by my statement about her sometimes looking at only one side of a problem and being easily led by outside influences. She is not cut out for state department work.

  • TeakWoodKite

    First of, Steve Markom, congrats.

    Second, I just took out the chess board this eve, and you set up the pieces neatly.

    In BO’s parlance, he setting up Powers and Rice as “picks” for Senator Clinton.

    It also removes a burr in BO’s side, in that the Governor of N.Y. will appoint an Obamphile (genes-plankton like krill) and gain a much cleaner shot at the downtown money. This is supported by the “terms of bondage” assigned President Clinton, who is a private citizen and the employment questionaire for crewing with BO.

    Question; While doing battle in the State Dept with Obama appointees on one hand, do you think Senator Clinton can do battle with the entrenched remnants of 8 years of Bush Appointees with the other?

    To me the question will be decided on weather BO retains Patrick Fitzgerald’s services as it relates to his current case load. Anyone remember Sibel Edmonds? While the State has a tall order in front of it, we will see how well Obama deals with turf battles.

  • epicurious

    I’m a huge Hill fan but seeing little Hill is kind of cute…

    but on a sour note: obama is as insensitive as they come…he should’ve thunk before he let his shorter natl security team step up to he mic…or maybe that was his intention, arrogant a**

  • epicurious

    If Powers messes with Hill – there will be 18 million angry people in the U.S. not to mention a angry foreign diplomats, dignitaries, officials who are close to the Clintons. It’d be an international incident.

  • Cindy

    Welcome, Steve. Your’s is a very good article.
    And anyone who is an avid fan of “Mad Men” is OK by me!
    re: Samantha Power. I’d be shocked if she and Obama have not been intimate. When she stated that he has a brilliant mind, I read that as “he’s really hung”. Anyway, I say that to say she’s in this for the s-e-x. Hopefully they’ll get caught, which would make day. Other than that, I’m grieving that Hillary is about to become a member of the Obama team. It sickens me.
    Thanks, again, Steve.

  • Fredster

    supposedly as part of the deal Hillary was given free reign in hiring and selections at State. I can’t believe Power will be at State other than the transition thing.

  • Ani

    From your lips to God’s ears.

  • http://hillary-clinton.bestpoliticalblogs.co.uk/2008/12/01/secretary-of-state-or-secretary-at-war/ Secretary of State or Secretary at War at Hillary Clinton On Best Political Blogs

    [...] Secretary of State or Secretary at War …with hiring people to work for the “monster” and will likely work for Hillary herself. Clearly this is not the choice of Hillary Clinton. [...]

  • JozefAL

    No one can “drive her out of her Senate seat”. Hillary was duly ELECTED to that seat and it was HERS to keep until AT LEAST 2012, if that was what she wanted.
    That’s what I tried to remind everyone about, earlier in the year–mostly in posts about Hillary’s chances to become Senate Majority leader. That, in 2012, Hillary would be faced with a decision over fighting to retain her Senate seat OR battling for the Dem Presidential nomination. (And, yes, even if Obama hasn’t flubbed it up, she COULD have challenged him for the job. Any Obamabot freaking about it would be forced to shut up with four little words: Teddy Kennedy in 1980. The usual action in both major parties is you don’t challenge a seated president who is eligible to run for re-election and intends to do so. But this is not an absolute,) I’m not sure what New York law allows with regards to running for more than one elected office in the same election cycle but I don’t think New York politicians can do so. (IF she wouldn’t have that option, it might have been possible for her to run for the Presidential nomination and win, then give up the Senate race, depending on the final date that New Yorkers would have for contests other than President. In some states, primaries for races other than President can come well after the final primaries; it’s better for candidates to be positioned to make their bids before June, even if the actual contest doesn’t come until August or September, but not always necessary. The problem, though, would come in losing the Presidential nomination bid, as many NY Democrats might view such a late Senate re-election bid as a “second choice”. Of course, many more might not really care about that depending on how well she’d done in the Senate.)
    Now, it IS possible that Hillary could have faced a serious challenge from a die-hard Obama supporter in 2012, but that would have been the earliest chance for Hillary to be driven out (and that’s not really being “driven out”).
    As it stands, I would remind everyone that Hillary as SoS is not as dark a cloud as it might appear. While much has been made of her now “serving at Obama’s pleasure”, that is actually a double-edged sword. IF Obama fires her for any reason that even remotely appears to be a matter of spite or political shenanigans, that puts Hillary back in front as a SOLID political foe. Colin Powell CHOSE to stay out of the spotlight after he resigned as Dubya’s SoS; Hillary won’t do that, especially if she’s fired. Being fired before 2010 gives her a shot at running for Schumer’s Senate seat (though unlikely) and being fired before 2012 puts her in a very strong seat for a Presidential bid in 2012. Even if she “chooses” to resign before 2012, she could still be in a prime position to make a bid for the White House and there won’t be anything that would keep her in the Democratic Party, unless she chooses to do so in order to take back the Democratic Party’s heart and soul–and even failing that, she wouldn’t be under any obligation to stick with the Party (and while she might be under special non-disclosure orders with regards to commercial endeavors, I don’t believe there’s anything that would prevent her from using what she knows about the Obama White House “behind the scenes” in a political battle).
    Since Hillary has accepted the SoS position, it’s hers to keep as long as she wants, and Obama would be well advised to not push her around since HIS political fortunes are far more dependent on a happy Hillary than the other way around.

  • Ani

    Really — this is more Clinton-bashing by jealous types who seek only to diminish their great contributions. Why, with all the wonderful work Pres. Clinton is doing around the world with his foundation, would he want to be a Senator?

    Ridiculous.

  • Snickers

    Margaret, yes, I agree. There’s nothing to stop The One from tossing Hillary under the bus. However, since she chose to accept this position she might like the view underneath this vehicle. I am not rejoicing. Like Israel, I have huge reservations about this administration. He’s already shown disregard for laws, and probably believes he’s above the Constitution. I hope SCOTUS will demand his BC.

  • http://wiskeytangofoxtrotoscar.blogspot.com/ James (San Jose)

    God what simple fools collect in these parts.

    Political reality No 1 national politicians who are not full supporters of Israel have the shelf life of a Haddock on hot August day.

    Political reality No 2 both Hillary and Barack performed prodigious displays of butt snorkeling toward AIPAC during its convention and at every other opportunity that presented itself.

    Political reality No 3 Obama foreign policy stance is boringly conventional and consensus driven. You could not find a more plain vanilla, center of the road, pragmatic policy if you tried.

    Political reality No 4 results mater. As Obama is Constitutionally prohibited from running the country at the moment he has been unable to produce any results. His first real opportunity is on January 20th 2009. Any “fears” one may have are purely speculative. ( For every “anti Israeli” member of his staff there is rock-ribbed Likudnik fellow traveler. Seeing as the definition of “anti-Israeli” is deeply skewed to mean ” anyone who does not immediately collapse into heap and lick the Israeli Ambassador’s hindquarters to a lustrous shine” the charge of being “anti-Israeli” is a rather ridiculous.)

    Political reality No 5 On policy there was very little separation between Hillary and Barack. It was mainly a question of emphasis and shading. Hillary for political and philosophical reason was more willing to emphasize the big stick while Barack for the same reasons was more willing to emphasize the soft speech. Other than that their world views a much more similar than either were willing to admit in the primaries. Barack crowed about his supposed superior judgment whilst Hillary boasted about ducking incoming fire. Barack edged out Hillary because he had “the speech” while Hillary had the large economy sized political Albatross that was the vote for the Authorization of Force in Iraq.

    Political Reality No 6 Hillary is no babe in the woods. If the SoS position was a one-way ticket to obscurity that William P. Rogers signed up to, then Hillary would not have touched the offer with a ten foot poll.

    Political Reality No 7 For the last time 2012 is NOT HILLIARY’S YEAR. Get it through your thick skulls! 2012 would be a Kamikaze run for Hillary. There is no way she wins in 2012 period. There is no historical precedent for a successful challenge to a sitting president from a member of his party in a least 100 years. Go all the way back to T.R.’s challenge to Taft even the Rough Rider failed in his quest. He did set the pattern though by helping to elect a the opposition party’s candidate. Wilson glided over the wreckage of T.R.’s and Taft’s smash-up.

    Political Reality No 8 Obama is keenly aware of political reality No 1. He is also no babe in the woods. He is fully cognoscente of the need to keep AIPAC placated. He will keep the Israeli lobby in loop and will not make any sudden movements that might scare them. The claim that he might sell the Israelis down the river to his “radical friends” who are secret Muslim sympathizers is laughable. If there was anything that sinister about Obama lurking in the shadows AIPAC would have long ago ripped Obama into tiny shreds. Come on, Obama even forgave Holy Joe Lieberman. Obama offered up a big olive branch to the Likud Senator from Connecticut. An anti-Israeli Obama would have burned Lieberman alive because “he puts the welfare of the State of Israel above that of the U.S.” An anti-Israeli Obama would have made an example out of Lieberman, shoving Holy Joe in to the arms of Republicans. Instead Obama intervened to bring Lieberman back into the Democratic Party fold. Among other things the kid-glove treatment of Lieberman was a big sloppy kiss given to AIPAC.

    Final Reality. Our country might be better shape if we were less enamored of Israel. One of W’s numerous mistakes in field of foreign affairs was being too solicitous of the Israeli government. W joined himself to the hip of Ariel Sharon to the detriment of them both. Israel actually benefits from a United States that can say no to it. US policy benefits from honest criticism of Israel. We should at least be allowed to be as critical of Israel as the Israelis are. Israel can do wrong, it is rather proficient in perusing pointless dead-end policies and burying its head in sand. The continued occupation of the West Bank is a running sore on the body politic of Israel. The settlement policy of the Israel is at best counterproductive and at worst a deep miscarriage of justice. Exactly what does Israel really gain by plopping 500 extremist settlers in the middle of Hebron anyway? It is like putting a stash of nitroglycerin under your chicken coop and then being shocked when the resulting explosion covers you in egg yolk and feathers.

    It is a good thing that some of Obama’s advisers favor a tougher stand on Israels. The unconditional love we have been giving the Israelis needs to be replaced with something smarter. For the last eight years we have suffered through a NeoCon love fest of Israel. Our policy has out-Likuded Likud; it was W that gave Sharon the push into the disastrous war with Hezbollah in Lebanon. If we are really lucky we might return to the even-handed sanity that used to be our policy pre-W. You remember those days when being a friend of Israel meant you were not a sycophant right?

  • saving face

    andy– Could it be that Hillary was chosen by BO because of her support of Israel to implement Obama’s new Middle East policies and to lend credibility to his anti-Israel point of view? Just asking….

  • Owllwoman

    Perhaps Obama will get a two for one with Hillary. That 3am phone call may be answered by Hillary with Bill at her side. Obama does not want to fail. With Hillary he may figure he gets a two for one deal, and that may make him feel safe in his position. A position I feel he was not ready to take on.

  • workingclass artist

    We shall see…I see this as a graceful exit from the political stage…Party wants her out of the senate and no more runs for POTUS…muzzle Bill…Sigh…Oh Well…

  • S. Markom

    James

    You’re entitled to your opinion but before calling anyone foolish you should first take a second look at your own comments.

    In “Political Reality Point No. 4” you say that Obama has been “unable to produce any results” regarding foreign policy. Then in Political Reality Point No. 5 you say that “there was very little separation between Hillary and Barack.” On what can you base the second point on since, as you said, he has had no results yet? You certainly can’t base it on his paper thin resume prior to running for President. And if you are basing it entirely on his campaign rhetoric he has flipped on so many issues that if you mention one I can point to something he said diametrically opposed to that position. No one knows yet whether Obama selected Hillary as window dressing or to be his closest foreign policy aid and if they will agree on issues.

    As far as what you characterize as “fears” and state that: “For every “anti Israeli” member of his staff there is rock-ribbed Likudnik fellow traveler. Seeing as the definition of “anti-Israeli” is deeply skewed to mean anyone who does not immediately collapse into heap and lick the Israeli Ambassador’s hindquarters to a lustrous shine” the charge of being “anti-Israeli” is a rather ridiculous.” – - – The fact is that during his campaign Obama’s foreign policy team were all people that were at least cool to Israel if not outright hostile which could have also reflected the influence of Obama’s past associations. That “fear” did not dissipate until the announcement of Hillary Clinton to SoS.

    Political Reality No 6 Hillary is no babe in the woods. If the SoS position was a one-way ticket to obscurity that William P. Rogers signed up to, then Hillary would not have touched the offer with a ten foot poll. . . . . no one will know the answer to this until work actually begins and this has a chance to play out.

    Political Reality No 8 Obama is keenly aware of political reality No 1. I’m sure he won’t go that far, but understand what selling Israel down the river can mean. If you force Israel to cede land it has occupied since the 1967 War in the hope that his foreign policy team can get a peace agreement with Syria, Lebanon, and an agreement for a separate Palestinian State and a NATO occupied buffer zone then you are selling Israel down the river. How much control do the leaders of Syria, Lebanon, and the PA have over Hamas, Hezbollah and other radical Islamic groups? None. I assume from your tone that you care less about Israel’s ability to protect itself from the constant threat of terrorism it has faced for decades.

    To your characterization of Joe Lieberman. What evidence, other than that he is Jewish, do you have that Lieberman supports the Likud Party? What evidence do you have that Lieberman ever placed the interests of Israel ahead of the interest of the United States? You want to remark about Lieberman and his position on Iraq is one thing. To characterize Lieberman the way you have clearly has to come from your own personal animosity toward Israel and probably toward Jews.

    Your final point is incredibly flawed with inaccuracies and obvious extreme bias on your part and frankly not worth responding to.

    But as I said, you are entitled to your opinion.

  • Andrew P

    Welcome, Steve. “Team of Rivals,” my a**. Welcome to the snakepit.

    I also welcome the trend (if it is one) towards named, identifiable contributors to this site. There ought to be limited tolerance here for trash talking in articles, and pseudonyms seem to encourage it. When I see it defended in follow-up articles by other pseudonyms, I want to change the dial.

    Then I read an excellent, incisive analysis about the situation in India and Pakistan by Larry Johnson, and I stay where I am.

  • http://www.myspace.com/isomer_69 LAUREN

    You can laugh at him all you want, but Alex Jones has been warning us about this for several years.

blog comments powered by Disqus