BloggeRhythms

Seeing a crawler item refer to some stirring among those in the press for the POTUS to “dump” deputy national security adviser Ben Rhodes, an attempt to research his background produced almost nothing of value. In fact, it seems that credential-wise, Rhodes is as unqualified for the job he holds, as the POTUS himself. 

The most recent information available dated back to March 21, 2013. Written by Russ Baker @whowhatwhy.org, in an article titled: “Rhodes to Nowhere: A Cipher in the Oval Office,” he referred to information found in the New York Times, as follows. 

“For some possible context to President Obama’s current trip to Israel, I thought back to yet another of the New York Times’s oddly unsatisfying “profiles of power.” This one, which was published last week, introduces us to a highly influential Obama foreign policy adviser: 

“As President Obama prepares to visit Israel next week, he is turning, as he often does, to Benjamin J. Rhodes, a 35-year-old deputy national security adviser with a soft voice, strong opinions and a reputation around the White House as the man who channels Mr. Obama on foreign policy. 

“Mr. Rhodes is drafting the address to the Israeli people the president plans to give in Jerusalem, but his influence extends beyond what either his title or speechwriting duties suggest. Drawing on personal ties and a philosophical kinship with Mr. Obama that go back to the 2008 campaign, Mr. Rhodes helped prod his boss to take a more activist policy toward Egypt and Libya when those countries erupted in 2011.” 

And then, Mr. Baker gets into the troublesome details of the matter, as he writes: “Unfortunately, the article never really explains what that “philosophical kinship” is. It would be of particular interest to those who have always wondered, and still do not know, what Barack Obama’s overarching philosophy is. 

“We don’t really learn much about Rhodes’s either, beyond the fact that he is quietly pushing for more US intervention in Syria, on the heels of a successful push to convince a supposedly reticent Obama to bomb the heck out of Libya, purportedly for human rights reasons. Some now know better—that removing Qaddafi had precious little to do with helping innocent people and a lot to do with oil companies, banks and intelligence agencies.” 

All of which leads to a conclusion in 2013 by Mr. Baker that still exists today: “What’s especially strange about the article is that, for those of us who continue to wonder how a virtual cipher rose so quickly from the Illinois legislature to become the most powerful person in the world, we end up wondering the same thing about an aspiring novelist from New York City who fairly catapults to enormous influence in shaping policy regarding some of the most complex and sensitive matters facing this country. 

“Though the Times never underlines this, the careful reader comes to realize that Rhodes’s guiding philosophy is as hard to discern as the precise reasons that he has the president’s ear. In 1997, he briefly worked on the re-election campaign of New York City Mayor Rudy Giuliani, a Republican. Shortly after 9/11, the aspiring novelist suddenly decided to do his part for society, moving in 2002 from Queens to Washington, and quickly found himself “helping draft the 9/11 Commission report as well as the Iraq Study Group report.” 

Thus, what’s truly astounding is that this pair as described above by Mr. Baker, have neither the talents, knowledge or experience required for making decisions on which the safety and well-being of the free-world depend. Yet, they’ve joined together to take control of a nuclear deal with Iran that is more than likely unenforceable, while alienating almost all other former allies in the process. 

But, it seems that’s what always happens when novices and novelists are responsible for foreign-policy matters of the most important nation on the planet.   

  

Here’s a link to the article: http://whowhatwhy.org/2013/03/21/nyts-rhodes-to-nowhere-a-cipher-in-the-oval-office/

 

On another issue, Pat Buchanan titles his article @www.wnd.com, today: “Who promoted Private Ryan?”

 

Buchanan’s contention is: “Losers don't make demands; they make pleas” 

Therefore, Buchanan believes that with Ryan saying he’s ambivalent over whether he will accept the verdict of the Cleveland convention – of which he is the chairman - and does not come out of Thursday’s meeting with Trump endorsing him, Trump should tell him, “You’re fired!” 

And then Buchanan gets to a point where his argument loses some traction, when he writes: “Trump cannot allow the establishment to claw back in the cloakrooms of Capitol Hill what he won on a political battlefield. He cannot allow a discredited establishment to dictate the issues he may run on. 

“That would be a betrayal of the troops who brought Trump victory after victory in the primaries.” 

However, while it may be true that, “[Trump] cannot allow a discredited establishment to dictate the issues he may run on,” it’s also virtually impossible for a convention chairman to support positions on “issues'” that seem to change every time the nominee opens his mouth. 

So, perhaps what Ryan ought to request, and Buchanan as well, is that as soon as the nominee truly decides what he stands for unequivocally and stays that way for more than an hour, serious consideration can then be payed to those matters. 

   

The next one came from a friend today:

Which brings us to today’s update on Bill Clinton’s wife.

Less than a full week after Trump became the presumptive nominee, Nick Gass, @politico.com, writes today: “Buckle up for the next six months: Donald Trump and Hillary Clinton are effectively tied in the swing states of Florida, Ohio and Pennsylvania, according to the results of a Quinnipiac University survey released Tuesday.

“Split along lines of gender, race and age, the presumptive Republican nominee and the likely Democratic nominee appear poised for tight battles in those states, though Democratic candidate Bernie Sanders performs better against Trump than Clinton does and is also seen more favorably by voters in all three states. No presidential candidate has won an election since 1960 without winning at least two of the three states.” 

Aside from what may be the beginning of a typical slide for Bill’s wife, two other interesting points were found in the article. 

First: “Clinton outscored Trump in all three states with respect to whether either candidate cares about the needs and problems of people like them, though more people in each state feel that neither does care.” 

And that’s where politicians have sunk today. Because the majority of those paying even the slightest attention are aware that no politician on the planet cares about anyone but themselves, and never really have in the past. 

And then, there’s the persistent observation that: “Bernie Sanders performs better against Trump than Clinton does and is also seen more favorably by voters in all three states.” Which demonstrates why Sanders wisely has remained in the running, and should. 

It also raises the ongoing question again: Joe Biden, Mayor Bloomberg, Jerry Brown, and Starbuck’s chairman and CEO, Howard Schultz, are you guys reading this? 

   

That’s it for today folks.   

  

Adios