Newscast Media WASHINGTON, D.C.—In a move that may have taken a few political observers by surprise, Susan Rice has withdrawn her name from the list of candidates Barack Obama was considering to replace current Secretary of State, Hillary Clinton.
“I am highly honored to be considered by you for appointment as Secretary of State. I am fully confident that I can serve our country ably and effectively in that role. However, if nominated, I am now convinced that the confirmation process would be lengthy, disruptive and costly–to you and to our most pressing national and international priorities…Therefore, I respectfully request that you no longer consider my candidacy at this time,” Rice wrote in a letter to Barack Obama.
Obama responded in a statement that said: “I deeply regret the unfair and misleading attacks on Susan Rice in recent weeks [but] her decision demonstrates the strength of her character, and an admirable commitment to rise above the politics of the moment to put our national interests first,” after news broke of Rice’s name withdrawal.
Almost three weeks ago, Newscast Media wrote an article explaining in detail why it would be a strategic mistake to appoint Susan Rice for the position.
The article may have been a little harsh about why Senator John Kerry would be more preferable over Susan Rice, but four days later, even Hillary Clinton agreed that she too preferred Senator Kerry as a replacement for the position.
This also frees up Senate Democrats who are up for re-election who felt Rice had some baggage that may have rubbed voters the wrong way in the 2014 mid-terms.
Newscast Media WASHINGTON, D.C.—The chance that Susan Rice will become the next U.S. Secretary of State is high, but the decision will be counterproductive in regard to U.S. foreign relations in the Middle East. Why Barack Obama would choose someone like Rice is baffling for reasons I will elucidate in this article. Of all the choices that the Democrats have for the position Sen. John Kerry is perhaps the most
suitable person for such an undertaking, given the strained US-Arab relations in the Middle East.
Susan Rice is unsuitable for the position, not because she is unqualified, but because of the cultural dynamics in the geopolitical region (Middle East), that the U.S. is attempting to stabilize. This might sound like a harsh reality to Americans, but the cultural reason in the Middle East that works against Susan Rice if she gets the position, is because she is a woman.
My Arab friends who read my articles on a regular basis will agree with me on this one. This is simply part of a religious and cultural belief in that particular region. In Islam, women are viewed differently than men. Islamic law even forbids men to shake hands with non-related women, that’s why Egypt’s Mohammed Morsi will not shake hands with Hillary Clinton—at least not in public.
Obama is fully aware of the Islamic Sharia teaching that says: “It’s not permissible for a man to touch the face or hand of a non-mahram woman (non-relative woman), and it is not permissible for him to put his hand on hers without a barrier.” —Muhammad ibn Ahmad (‘Ulaysh)
In fact, when Kate Middleton, the wife of Prince William was congratulating athletes upon winning medals at the Olympics, male athletes from Islamic countries that abide by strict Islamic law refused to shake her hand. A spokesperson from St. James Palace then issued the following statement: “Many male athletes from Islamic countries do not shake hands in public with women they are not related for cultural and religious reasons…” as reported by the New York Daily News.
Not all Muslims though observe that law. For instance, Erdogon of Turkey, Field Marshall Hussein Tantawi of Egypt, Hosni Mubarak, Muammar Gaddafi, King Abdullah of Jordan, Bashar Assad of Syria, Muhamood Abbas of Palestine, and a few more, aren’t as regimented and have been photographed shaking hands publicly with women they are not related to, and are considered to be moderate Muslims.
If the U.S. were trying to create stability in regions like Europe, Asia, South America or sub-Saharan Africa, Susan Rice’s secretaryship would suffice. However, the war is in a region tainted with radical Islamist elements, most of whom are on the State Department’s list of terrorists. For this reason, a man would be more suitable to negotiate the “laying down of arms” and peace treaties within such a geopolitical
region, and John Kerry has the experience and dynamism to do just that. Rice seems to be cold and very calculating, while John Kerry is warm, engaging an likable. Below is a raw video I recorded that captures Kerry’s dynamism.
In this brief raw unedited video, I captured John Kerry interacting with the crowd as he exudes
warmth, a dynamic personality and a sense of awareness of his surroundings.
—Raw video by Joseph Earnest
If Barack Obama is serious about creating meaningful and lasting change in the Middle East he should pick someone like John Kerry or even Johnny Carson who did an excellent job in sub-Saharan Africa. He picked Hillary Clinton in part, to continue the pattern set by Bill Clinton who chose Madeline Albright in 1997, followed by George W. Bush who chose Condoleeza Rice, then in his first term Obama chose Hillary Clinton.
Sun Tzu, one of the world’s greatest war tacticians said: “A true warrior is supposed to behave like the snake of Mt. ChUng…If you strike it on the head, the tail will attack you. If you strike it on its tail, the head will attack you…and if you strike it in the middle, both head and tail will attack you.” Sun Tzu The Art of War (page 54).
Isn’t it time to change our tactics in the Middle East and have a man-to-man talk with radical Islamist elements that are creating instability?
Newscast Media WASHINGTON, D.C.—As Senator Dianne Feinstein continues her investigation on the murder of Ambassador Chris Stevens, liberals are pushing the narrative that Republicans are waging a war on women, because Senator John McCain believes Susan Rice gave misleading and conflicting statements about the death of Chris Stevens.
The victim card was first played by Obama who said last week, “If Senator McCain and Senator Graham want to go after somebody, they should go after me. But to go after the UN Ambassador who had nothing to do with Benghazi?”
Having set the stage, Black liberal women followed in Obama’s footsteps, with Rep. Gwen Moore, D-Wis leading the pack who said, “To batter this woman because they don’t feel they have the ability to batter President Obama is something we the women are not going to stand by and watch. Their feckless and reckless speculation is unworthy of their offices as senators.”
“It is a shame that anytime something goes wrong, they pick on women and minorities,” Rep. Marcia Fudge, D-Ohio, the next chairwoman of the Congressional Black Caucus, told journalists at a news conference on Capitol Hill. On Monday USA Today wrote an article asserting:
“While the two Republican senators might prevail in keeping Rice from becoming secretary of State — either by forestalling her nomination or blocking a Senate confirmation vote — their opposition to her almost certainly will be seen by many others as proof of a GOP war on women. And that will cost Republicans dearly at the polls. A dozen female members of the House of Representatives drove home that point when they held a news conference to accuse McCain and Graham of being sexist and racist in their attack on Rice, who is black.”
To refresh the memory of liberals who are playing the sexist and race card, where were they in 2005 when Condoleeza Rice’s reputation was being impugned by liberals over a war in Iraq she had nothing to do with? Why did Democrats fight so hard to block the first Black female Secretary of State if they themselves weren’t sexist? Does the war on women only pertain to liberal women, but not conservatives?
In a CNN article dated January 5, 2005 Senator Barbara Boxer and Dick Durbin opposed her with Durban saying, “Dr. Condoleezza Rice was in the room, at the table, when decisions were made, and she has to accept responsibility for what she said.”
The war on women is a myth invented by liberals. The underlying theme on this imaginary war always has to with sexual connotations, which is evident from the attacks made on women like Sarah Palin and Michele Bachmann. Watch below:
Video courtesy SHEPAC
Until liberals start speaking up for the women in places like the Middle East, and Asia who experience antagonism, they will always be viewed as hypocrites who care nothing about women, but are agitators and button-pushers who accuse anyone who opposes them of being anti-Obama, racist or sexist.