Loyalty rewarded: Susan Rice and Samantha Power
My new article is up at PJ. It’s about Susan Rice, Samantha Power, their rewards for loyalty to Obama, and Power’s views on the sins of the US.
The New Neo
A blog about political change, among other things
The self righteous evil paladins are out to teach us the nature of national sin and redemption, I see.
How many children do they plan for us to sacrifice to Bhaal for this blessing of their religious divine truth, btw?
I would like to know HOW DID SUSAN RICE GET TO BE SO RICH? She’s worth between $23-$45 million. How does that happen for a life-long public “servant”?
She worked for McKinsey from 1990-1992. She was in the Clinton Administration from 1992-2000. According to Wikipedia, “Rice was managing director and principal at Intellibridge from 2001 to 2002.[31][32] In 2002 she joined the Brookings Institution as senior fellow in the foreign policy program. At Brookings, she focused on U.S. foreign policy, weak and failing states, the implications of global poverty, and transnational threats to security.
During the 2004 presidential campaign, Rice served as a foreign policy adviser to John Kerry.
Rice went on leave from the Brookings Institution to serve as a senior foreign policy adviser to Senator Barack Obama in his 2008 presidential campaign.”
You don’t make that kind of money from think tanks. You don’t make $43 million in a decade from boards. I don’t think she traded cattle futures. She didn’t come from money; she didn’t marry money. Her husband is an ABC news producer (that’s a another story about a different kind of corruption). Hell, as a non-elected official she wasn’t even able to legally divert campaign funds.
How did she get rich?
Neither one is qualified for the position to which they’ve been nominated. But then, neither is Obama.
What we have in this administration is the consistency of a stopped clock.
Obama will be getting his national security advice from a yes woman and Powers is a transnationalist who hates Israel. What could go wrong?
These people can rest in comfortable assurance that they can spit in the citizenry’s face and nominate this woman Ms. Rice, and there is no price whatsoever to be paid.
I know, I know, she was just dutifully following orders, and in a peculiar sense she’s really not to blame (her boss and Ms. Clinton are), and I don’t even hold it against her (“forgive them, Father, for they know not what they do”) — but all the same, nominating Ms. Rice is an AFFRONT to the citizenry.
And to my intelligence. And to my sensibilities, whatever’s left of ’em.
As to Ms. Powers, not to worry: the donations from rich Jewish individuals and organizations to Democrats and other leftie outfits will continue to flood in unabated: for many such Jewish people/entities, leftism long ago replaced Judaism as their culture *and* de facto religion.
“How did she get rich?”
The same way Harry Ried (and others) became rich.
I don’t know where to put this, but it fits under the idea of “being pissed on from a great height”: I got this jolly missive in the mail today from a wealthy NYC “art” venue. Quoted verbatim, with the pissant’s name redacted (no ink for the creep):
>>The “ribald, pop culture obsessed provocateur” ( The New York Slimes) X_____ applies his signature irreverent wit to take aim at American myths and icons in his largest work to date and the pinnacle of his creative output.
Adding a touch of malice to subjects that have traditionally been revered for their innocence or purity, X______ [shows] grotesque video projections of iconic characters playing out their own fairy tale drama in a replica of his childhood home.
This daring social commentary lampoons the American dream and its cherished icons, bombarding the viewer with a sensory overload of sexually-tinged, violent, and even debaucherous [sic] imagery that boldly forces the viewer to acknowledge the twisted underside to saccharine idols in popular culture.
The result is a visceral, immersive experience by one of the most influential and important artists of our generation.<<
[File under “Libido for the Ugly”; subsection “Soul Sickness”; sub-subsection “Done to Death”]
On one level this is jejeune, tiresome, and nasty. On another, it's from the heart of Leftism's darkness. On another, it's demonic.
And then there's Philippians 4:8. "Finally, brethren, whatsoever things are true, whatsoever things are honest, whatsoever things are just, whatsoever things are pure, whatsoever things are lovely, whatsoever things are of good report; if there be any virtue, and if there be any praise, think on these things."
Go with God.
This isn’t the first time Obama has flipped the bird.
Oh, btw, the nasty “man” who is being showered with praise for excreting in public (one of his “exhibits” is an inflated bowel movement) is a Sixty-Eighter. Born in 1945. Lives in Lost Angeles, and is a walking, sagging, ugly-arse leftwing nutjob cliche.
Gliecshaltung
To her credit, Power has a lot of neocon in her beliefs. Her practical problem is that she’s party loyal first and therefore opposed Bush, despite that he matched her liberal internationalist aspirations more than Obama or any current Democratic presidential candidate.
http://stuartschneiderman.blogspot.com/
Stuard Schneiderman on S. Power. (The SCHNEID deserves a wide readership. He’s almost always excruciatingly good.)
And Obama? Isn’t there a delight element, an evil delight?? Doesn’t he revel in rewarding the divisive, the fringe, the incompetent, the criminal with authority and power? And doesn’t Obama make his appointment to flip off his enemies:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=DygBj4Zw6No
Eric, that means her idealism is fake. When people say they are for women’s rights in Afghanistan in 2000 and don’t want to help Afghanistan in 2002-3, that’s not an issue with ideals. Those ideals never existed.
Ymarsakar,
With sadness and frustration, I agree with you.
Here’s an excerpt from my 10th anniversary of OIF post on my blog that applies to Power and other liberals who grossly betrayed their own values by opposing Bush after 9/11 instead of rallying to him:
Add: http://learning-curve.blogspot.com/2013/03/10-year-anniversary-of-start-of.html , if you want to read the whole thing. Forewarned: it’s pretty long and link-heavy.
There have been NGOs and other civilians helping in Afghanistan. Some are corrupt, helping themselves. Others are valuable.
The ones that are valuable are the ones killed first by the Taliban. I’ve seen the casualty lists. They aren’t all Afghani civilians, security “turn coats” or US personnel.
The Left wages war even when it wages peace. For the information on these civilian NGOs… I suspect they were leaked on purpose.
Bush’s only problem was that he tried to change the world, in Iraq and Afghanistan.
The were only two possibilities of worth. Either that would succeed, and we would then import the COIN knowledge back home to use it to defeat criminals and Leftists in New Orleans, DC, Chicago, Detroit, Los Angeles, etc.
Or number 2 option, we would turn inwards, fix our own problems, and then fix the world via importing what worked for our cities to those cities like Fallujah.
Neither turned out to be the case. Bush chose number 1, but he could have chosen number 2 as well. But failures are failures.
A Democrat regime, a Leftist transformed America, neither deserves to force democracy and Demoncrat regime methods on foreigners, nor do they deserve to get the fruits of a transformed America. But justice is not alive in this world without the blood of patriots and tyrants to fuel it.
So long as people shy away from doing what is necessary, evil will reign supreme.
Ymarsakar,
Bush’s problem is that he refused to approach his countrymen as the enemy even when they were acting as the enemy. Bush was a stubbornly decent man in a competitive profession where decency is a vulnerability and, in some cases, irresponsible. The Democrats exploited it.
It does stand out the “anti-war” protests have been most forceful against the post-war peace operations even when our mission was clearly liberal and humanitarian, and by the way, fully paper-sanctioned by the UN.
The “anti-war” Left is anti-peace, if the peace is American-dominated. Like the terrorists, the Left is competing for a new world order they dominate.
Eric, while some may say that was his problem, I would say that was our problem. For if Bush can be blamed for thinking too highly of his fellow Democrats… so the same can be said for 25-50% of the audience here, before 2003. And this region of net space was the one most informed of Leftist cult behavior. The rest of the nation didn’t know a Demoncracy from a democracy.
The Leftist alliance is still in a mutual pack with Islamic Jihad. It’s why the FBI didn’t catch those bombers or even knew about em. There’s been an order gag on counter terror operations in the states.
I say his problem was that he tried to change the world in the ME. If he had tried to change the world in the US, things might have gone differently. For the US was closer to our base and supplies. But even that was a forlorn hope. The people were not ready for war. Neither against their fellow countrymen nor against Islamic Jihad.