Posted on 07/13/2009 1:04:29 PM PDT by Ocarterma
The “vetting” process is probably difficult for anyone recommended by her. She probably thought that she’d be able to build her own power base within the State Dept. bureaucracy. She was a chump for taking the SOS position, being too stupid to realize that she would be marginalized.
Exactly.....
.....Obama should never have trusted her.
She is going to cause trouble, get fired or quit, and run against him as a now "experienced" outsider or rebel.
She will win in the 2012 primary and the general election (I'm sad to say, the R's will still have their heads up their......)
This post:
http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/2292491/posts]
helps confirm what I said in this thread yesterday.
Hillary is only a title holder at State, nothing more.
Have you ever seen anything like this since you’ve been following politics? I sure haven’t.
Secretary of State Hillary Rodham Clinton is blaming an exhaustive White House vetting process for the fact that the Obama administration has not yet named a person to run the U.S. Agency for International Development. Six months into the administration's tenure without having appointed someone to the agency's top spot, Clinton told USAID employees on Monday that several people had turned down the job due to overly burdensome financial and personal disclosure requirements that she called a "nightmare," "frustrating beyond words" and "ridiculous."That major foreign policy speech Hillary is supposed to give? May be her last one as S of S.
“Have you ever seen anything like this since you’ve been following politics? I sure haven’t.”
Actually yes, and not that long ago, but it was less public and not even many liberal reporters were digging into the background at the time.
But, the situation between State and the WH was pretty much the same (as is now being reported b’tween O and H) when Colin Powell and his buddy Armitage left the State Dept;
which was immediately after their (Powell’s) extensive preparations to offer an olive branch to Iran, and the WH rep sent to finally meet with Powell’s bunch and the Iranian reps, very politely let the Iranian’s know there was no olive branch being extended.
Powell’s resignation came shortly after that.
Of course at the time, DOD and CIA had extensive and mounting evidence of Iran’s role in feeding arms to multiple insurgent elements in Iraq, in addition to the evidence of their unrelenting pursuit of Nukes.
Quite appropriately the WH was looking for any measures Iran was voluntarily taking to show good will, that might lend some credit to expectations and trust with them on any formal agreement. The WH did not extend the olive branch because they saw, rightly in my view, they could not trust the Mullahs.
As a sidebar to this, and how it fit into another very public foreign policy rift, between WH and the libs in Congress, was who the WH rep was that delivered the WH’s coup de grace to Powell’s olive branch. It was John Bolton.
He did exactly as the WH told him to do and forever there after the libs tried to crucify Bolton, in a manner which would have only been even slightly logical if he and he alone wrote the WH foreign policy. It was the biggest attempt ever by libs to “kill the messenger”, even though the Dims and the WH both kept the Iran-negotiations-background out of public view when the libs came after Bolton.
Powell always had more Dim and lib backers in Congress. Why GW and Cheney undervalued that problem, when they set Powell up at State, only history may someday identify. I say undervalued because there was no logic in an assumption that Powell’s friendliness with libs in Congress was only going to work in one direction and only to the WH benefit. There was an equal chance that libs influence was going to sway Powell even when Powell was doing his job to sell WH policy. I say equal only to give Powell the benefit of the doubt. He may in fact have never tried to sell the WH policy to his lib friends. He may in fact have just as often told them he was working to moderate the WH policy to be more in favor with his and the libs view. Again, history may yet get the inside info on this, but my main point is that I don’t think GW and Cheney were duped in selecting Powell. I think they miscalculated.
So, in sum, are we seeing something new, in the rift between State and WH? No. There has always been a rift between the WH and the foreign policy apparatchiks. Its only very visible when the head at State is in sync with the apparatchiks at State, and not the WH; or when the head at State is trying to steer policy and whether or not they are in sync with the WH, the WH does not want them to steer - just stand at the helm and turn which way the WH says.
Any POTUS who comes to office with very determined foreign policy views IS going to write foreign policy at the WH.
If Hillary is only now realizing Obama took her out with her appointment to State, she is no where near as smart as people gave her credit for.
Palin might not be running against Obama, she might very well find herself in a fight with Hillary to win the Presidency. It has been a life long obsession for Hillary to be the first woman President. I wouldn’t doubt it if Hillary sold her soul to the Devil to get what she wants. Don’t get me wrong, Obama is as weird as they come, but don’t ever underestimate the Hilda Beast.
Translation: "those security clearance requirements are getting in the way of our profiteering"
bump
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.