Reply With Quote
So?
Wonder if the same people will Dixie Chick her?
So?
Inhofe/Oklahoma is taking a team to Copenhagen to undermine the US position on climate.
They need to dig a big hole, fill it with explosives, light the fuse, and throw her in...Please
Link. What was said?
Did she go to the UN and side with dictators and communists?
too bad shes not old enough to be photoshopped with hanoi jane
Could you be more specific about that?
Is she undermining the war effort?
They were interviewing attendees as they left, and one of them said that she talked until 10 minutes were left of the time, and then some canned pre-arranged questions were asked by the moderator, and that it was pretty obvious she didn't want live questions from the audience.
Current climate trends are doing more to undermine AGW than anything Inhofe can come up with.
Damn sun just won't cooperate.
She's got nothing on Obama. Even David Frum was put off by his UN speech.
Increasingly, Barack Obama's speaking style inspires a reaction borrowed from the narrator of the Raymond Chandler novel The Long Goodbye: "You talk too damn much, and too damn much of it is about you." Of the first seven sentences Obama delivered to the United Nations General Assembly on Wednesday, the presidential "I" was the subject or direct object of five.
Like a State of the Union address, a presidential speech to the U.N. General Assembly is difficult to do well. Too many interests clamor and compete for their share of a finite amount of time. The main themes are in danger of disappearing as aides and agencies press for a mention of global financial architecture or climate change—and don't forget our friends in Latin America!
Even granting the difficulties, however, President Obama's UNGA address was alarming.
The continued flow of criticisms of the previous administration and Obama's apologies for the actions of the United States are becoming more than unseemly. The president observed, "I came to office at a time when many around the world had come to view America with skepticism and distrust." He allowed that "part" of this feeling about the U.S. was due to "misperceptions and misinformation." But apparently another part was a justified—or at least justifiable—response to American actions, or so he invited his audience to infer.
True, the president declared, "I will never apologize for defending the interests of the United States." But he then proceeded to say: "In Iraq, we are responsibly ending a war. We have removed American combat brigades from Iraqi cities, and set a deadline of next August to remove all our combat brigades from Iraqi territory." Those words suggest that U.S. troops were the cause of prolonging the internecine conflict in Iraq—rather than the solution.
The president seems to hold a fixed view that he can mitigate anti-American feeling by conceding the truth of what the anti-Americans say.
Less obnoxious, but more threatening to his administration's hopes for foreign policy success, is the commitment he has once again issued to deeply re-engage himself personally in the Israeli-Palestinian issue.
Compare these adjoining sentences:
"And in countries ravaged by violence—from Haiti to Congo to East Timor—we will work with the U.N. and other partners to support an enduring peace. I will also continue to seek a just and lasting peace between Israel, Palestine, and the Arab world." Haiti, Congo, and East Timor are to be concerns for his administration and the world generally, but Israel is to be a responsibility for the president personally: that inescapable presidential "I." A president has the same number of hours in a day as any other man, and a promise to do something himself is necessarily a warning that other things will be left undone.
Afghanistan—where an American-led coalition is fighting a shooting war—received only two mentions in the speech, but Palestinians and their concerns rated 13. Now, this astounding discrepancy in attention may reveal nothing more than an artful and insincere presidential nod toward other people's pieties, in this case those of Europeans and the Arab states. But there's a worrisome possibility that the president actually means what he says—and that he is about to pour hundreds of hours of his time into the job of cajoling the Palestinians to accept the deal they violently rejected eight years ago.
Maybe Obama has some private reason to expect greater success this time. More likely, though, he is just doubling down on Clinton's bad bet, thinking that Clinton failed because he waited until the end of his presidency, while he will succeed by starting near the beginning. Obama seems inspired above all by his grand, unlimited, vaulting self-confidence.
This president is an impressive man. But it's not reassuring that he seems even more impressed with himself than others are with him. At least with previous presidents, hubris followed some prior, ego-inflating triumph. Obama seems to be exhibiting all the symptoms with none of the initial success that normally induces the disease.
She'll survive that. You can't kill evil that way.
wait? she took pre-arranged questions? I seem to remember there was fake outrage recently about this same issue..
I am continually amazed at how much you guys fear this woman.
I don't fear her at all..in fact I'd love to do her!
I fear her, because if this is the best that my party can come up with, we are ed.
I don't think anyone fears that chick. some ppl like her, some ppl wanna do her, some ppl hate her and some ppl like me, find her amusing. Kinda the way you find a re amusing.
I would not mind her being president. It would be comedic gold and it would last 4 years. Maybe even moreso than Bush. Yeah, the country will be in , but it has been already for years.
....
....
I'd take her over McCain.
don't be so down.
might as well enjoy the last few years of the US "empire" with a laugh in your face.
There are better candidates in the GOP. The question is whether they can beat Palin.
Given Palin's impromptu style of self-presentation, her thin skin, her poor grasp of national policy and inability to think on her feet, I tend to think she'll get torn to pieces in a wide-open party primary.
OTOH, given the preponderance of lizard brains in the party base, attacking Palin from the right may excite a wave of paternalistic rage. What's scary isn't Palin so much as her inchoate, unreflective base of support. For the most part, Palin's supporters are even more inarticulate and *intuitive* than she is.
I wonder whether having been a VP nominee last year is enough to sustain talk circuit bux for Palin. I'm hoping she's just out for herself. I'd just hate it if she felt called to higher office.
I think she's bad for the GOP. Like last year, she'll galvanize the base while driving away independents and party moderates who trust her even less, now that she's a proven quitter.
There are currently 1 users browsing this thread. (0 members and 1 guests)
Posting Permissions
