Posted on 05/27/2011 5:31:25 AM PDT by canuck_conservative
Perhaps the difference has something to do with the fact that since Condoleezza Rice was chosen as Secretary of State, Islam has become far more prominent as the driver of global politics than it had been? Perhaps 9/11 changed things a bit, and the choice of Secretary of State ought to reflect such a change?
In your estimation would you think another 30 seconds has ticked off the clock toward midnight, or would you estimate greater than 30 seconds, or less than 30 seconds has ticked off the clock?
I would say that the world *is* a dangerous place and has always *been* a dangerous place. NBC (Nuclear/Bio/Chemical) weapons makes this even more true and their proliferation makes this even more true in spades. When you toss a worldwide crisis that involves economics, critical resource shortages, and trade tensions then even more so. When you add religious extremism into the mix even more so. When you add the expansionist designs of China, Iran, and to some degree Russia, even more so. And you have the perennial hotspot which is the mideast.
Now where the fictional minute hand is on the fictional clock I don’t claim to know and really this stuff is only ever clear in retrospect with enough historical perspective.
I’ll tell you what is brewing .. when Pakistan fully aligns themselves with China they will no longer tolerate terrorists
‘[something brewing?]’
“We look to Pakistan, to the government of Pakistan to take decisive steps in the days ahead.”
So, you think we should not have a female Secretary of State in order to appease muslim countries? Are you serious? I’m not sure whose thinking is more backwards theirs or yours. First, the world is a bigger place than a few countries. 2nd, Not one country has said they would prefer to work with a woman. Third, I am in shock that you have stated something like this. I would have expected something like this from a liberal, who tries to push equality, but to them, some people are more equal than others.
“why the US (in the mother of all cultural wars against a chauvinistic Muslim enemy) has decided on a female secretary of state”
Because of the events leading up to the 2008 election.
it is interesting, isn’t it. That seems to have been a huge geopolitical move on the public stage, yet hasn’t gotten much comment.
I am sure (hope I am not fried for this statement) the Muslims HATE working with a female in that capacity.
There is certainly a time for a female secretary of state, this ISN'T it.
If my prayers are answered, John Bolton will be the next SOS. Bet the muzzies like him even less.
The other question to ask is....is something NOT brewing? Obama can make news only so often. He’s just as likely to be swept away by events as any other politician. Republicans need to stop waiting for the right moment and do what they did last year: ATTACK!
“Pakistan is not our ONLY Muslim adversary. AND you know what they did to THEIR female leader.”
The assination of Bhutto had nothing to do with her gender. Please provide me with any factual information that would leade you make this indication. Unfortunately, as we know, this type of crime has been committed to other leaders. Using Bhutto as an example to make your point is vague and unfounded.
Even if we bomb it (Afghanistan) to smithereens before we leave? sorta sarcasm
It would appear Pakistan is next on the list for total destabilization.
[Anti-Bubba182] That has more to do with Obama wanting to neutralize Clinton politically than anything else.
[ASA Vet] Simple, it's the price she demanded to not blow Hussein out of the race with the NBC issue.
[C.E.M.] Because of the events leading up to the 2008 election.
I think Anti-Bubba is correct. Last year Obama was running Hillary on a killer schedule, wearing her to a frazzle and undercutting her by appointing the late Richard Holbrooke and other "czar"/"pseudoczar" creatures to portions of what had traditionally been the SoS's portfolio. In Holbrooke in particular Obama appointed a powerful antipole to Hillary's much-diminished authority. He also appointed George Mitchell, a prominent former senator and crisis negotiator, to another piece of Hillary's Middle East portfolio.
Frankly, I think he might have been trying to break her down with overwork and stress (responsibility w/o concomitant authority is a huge stressor, and a certified man-killer in stress studies).
Now Holbrooke is suddenly dead, and Mitchell has resigned. It will be interesting to see whether Obama brings in another counterweight/stressor, or simply drops Hildebeast from the cabinet. I don't think he'll drop her, but she may quit to mount a nomination challenge.
They've been dancing around ever since 2007, and the Beastie-and-Slick tag team has tried twice to take out Obama on the eligibility issue (we aren't done with that yet, there's more to come). First they used Phil Berg, and here recently, Donald Trump pretended to be a Republican -- that's rich! -- in order to surface the BC issue again and force Obama to respond before he was ready (he was saving it, like some conservative commentators were saying he was, for Campaign 2012). Now Trump has stepped away again. But that doesn't mean Slick and Beast have quit.
Beast in the Oval Office and Slick in the Secretary General's chair as an international, globe-girdling imperial tag-team remains, I think, their joint political objective.
You know, you might be right. The Taliban got stopped in the Swat Valley by the Pak army last time .... maybe Obama is getting ready to give the generals a bit of a push.
Mind you, there are more U.S. players involved in Af-Pak strategy who might object strenuously to Obama's trying to pull what he did in Egypt, and he might have to proceed more cautiously. And there is the presence of the Hindu Card, and beyond that the possibility of a Sino-Indian war, which among other things would put the world's economy in the sink.
As much as I loathe Hillary, I think in this case, all the better a female Sec. of State to poke ‘em in the eye.
LOL!!!
Even more sadly, Hillary probably was the best of the lousy bunch that O’bummer surrounds himself wiht.
Obama triggered the madness in Egypt & across the Arab world, opening the door for the Muslim Brotherhood, just as Carter pulled the rug from under the Shah, paving the way for the fanatical 7th century mindset Khomeinites. Today, those who claimed to be Iranian students in 1979, will have nuclear weapons, greatly due to Moscow's technical assistance. If Pakistan current government falls to a radical Islamic wing, that will make two Islamic nuclear weapons powers, which will likely prove to be be absolute nightmare.
Thanks for the kind words. At some point I’d like to see more
awareness of the degree to which our very vocabulary
(hence what can even be thought about according to George Orwell) was informed by Soviet disinformation activities.
One of my favorites (but by no means the only example) is the very concept of American Imperialism. This notion came
right out of the Soviet Playbook. Yet the word and the idea
has become essentially mainstream - hence an unexamined
assumption or predicate.
I would argue that America was “imperialist” in the sense that all great powers are obligated to be - i.e. defending their interests at home and abroad. America was no more “imperialist” than the Soviets or the Chicoms or the Tutsies and the Hootoos (or whatever they are in Africa). Yet the Soviet disinformation campaign that targeted “American Imperialism” was bought hook line and sinker and remains in the lingo to this day. And there are many, many other examples.
I know people here “get it” but of course we’re typically on the leading edge of the curve!
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.