Even for one who works with words all day, it’s difficult to describe how bad things are going for the POTUS and his administration at present.
As an example, the middle of the following paragraph, taken from an article by Matthew Lee @myway.com, illustrates the quandary at the White House.
Mr. Lee writes: “Administration officials have alternately welcomed a Russian role, provided it is limited to fighting the Islamic State and al-Qaida affiliates, and denounced it as a tool to rescue Assad or a cynical attempt to boost Moscow's own military presence in the Mediterranean. U.S. officials acknowledge they really don't know what Russia's intentions are. But what is clear is that the Russians have inserted themselves into a conflict the U.S. would have preferred they stay out of.”
Thus, as far as foreign policy’s concerned, the summation is that after six years in office and all the time spent with Putin, the POTUS and those around him, “really don't know what Russia's intentions are.”
On another subject, George E. Condon Jr. @.nationaljournal.com, wrote about Thursday's mass murder at Umpqua Community College in Oregon. The column is headed: “Facing Long Odds, an Angered Obama Vows Another Try on Gun Regulation.”
Mr. Condon writes: “He has tried before to change gun laws and didn’t deny that he may fail in this latest bid to pass laws making mass shootings less likely. But he made clear that this is a fight he is eager to wage in his remaining 15 months in office. It is a battle he enters with his eyes open, already anticipating the press releases, the calls for more citizens to be armed, the criticism that he is somehow politicizing something that should be kept out of politics.”
In this case, instead of constantly battling against the NRA and gun owners nationwide, perhaps the POTUS should simply lead by example for once. All he has to do to demonstrate how much better off the nation would be without weapons, is give up his secret service protection and bodyguards. By leaving himself unarmed and unprotected in the same way he wants everyone else to be, it’s a certainty all gun owners would follow his example immediately.
Another depressing item concerns the stagnant U.S. economy, in which Susan Jones @cnsnews.com, explains that: “A record 94,610,000 Americans were not in the American labor force last month -- an increase of 579,000 from August -- and the labor force participation rate reached its lowest point in 38 years, with 62.4 percent of the U.S. population either holding a job or actively seeking one.”
However, there was more bad news to come whereas: “The change in total nonfarm payroll employment for July was revised from a gain of 245,000 jobs to a gain of 223,000 jobs; and the change for August was revised from a gain of 173,000 jobs to a gain of only 136,000. With these revisions, employment gains in July and August combined were 59,000 less than previously reported.”
Thus, what’s reflected here is how the administration continually manipulates statistics, in order to present a much rosier picture than the actual results. Further manipulated by changing long–standing measurement formulas. Because although “the reported unemployment rate remained at 5.1 percent, where it was in August,” those leaving the job market after four weeks are no longer counted at all.
Which brings us to today’s update on Bill Clinton’s wife.
Peggy Noonan @wsj.com, wrote about comments made by Rep. Kevin McCarthy, presumed successor to Speaker John Boehner, putting McCarthy in negative light as she offered the following quote:
“What you’re gonna see is a conservative speaker that takes a conservative Congress that puts a strategy to fight and win. And let me give you one example. Everyone thought Hillary Clinton was unbeatable, right? But we put together a Benghazi special committee, a select committee, what are her numbers today? Her numbers are dropping. Why? Because she’s untrustable. But no one would have known any of that had happened had we not fought and made that happen.”
In Ms. Noonan’s eyes, McCarthy’s motives regarding the Benghazi investigation were patently political, as demonstrated by her next paragraph in which she opined: “Oh dear. Many of us actually thought the Benghazi investigations were driven by a desire to get the facts of a tragedy in which four people died and the administration’s response veered from misleading to dishonest. Instead they’re driven by a merely partisan agenda?”
However, if you carefully read what McCarty said, he indeed confirmed that the investigation was instituted to determine the facts regarding Benghazi, while what was uncovered regarding Bill Clinton’s wife was part of the result.
So, what we have here is simply a politician doing a very poor job in trying to explain two separate occurrences, investigating Benghazi and then discovering Clinton’s role as a result, but doing a miserable presentation of what actually happened.
As far as Bill’s wife is concerned, she “responded with her own special brand of faux-sadness, telling Al Sharpton that Mr. McCarthy’s statement “dishonors” those who died. She’ll be throwing that in Republicans’ faces when she testifies Oct. 22.”
And this is another case where a response has nothing to do at all with the circumstances. Because, not only weren’t “those who died” dishonored, they weren’t even mentioned at all. Thus, this isn’t even double-talk, it’s flat out inconsequential gibberish that leads to the ongoing question: Joe Biden, Mayor Bloomberg, and Starbuck’s chairman and CEO, Howard Schultz, are you reading this?
That’s it for today folks.
Adios
No comments:
Post a Comment