Is Rice Being Thrown Under The Bus?

[Supsalemgr]

http://www.foxnews.com/politics/2012/11 ... latestnews

I find it interesting that two "green" groups all of sudden are bringing this to light. This is very uncharacteristic for lib organizations. One might wonder where they found out about this and if this is Obama's way of throwing Rice under the bus.

http://www.rootsaction.org/

http://www.onearth.org/

[Crock Hunter]

I find it interesting that two "green" groups all of sudden are bringing this to light. This is very uncharacteristic for lib organizations. .

No.. there's nothing uncharacteristic about it at all... You are accustomed to rightwingers goose-stepping along with the official party line... . Liberals think for themselves... always have..

if this is Obama's way of throwing Rice under the bus.

I really doubt that Obama will be taking up such GOP tactics.. .

[Stinger]

I find it interesting that two "green" groups all of sudden are bringing this to light. This is very uncharacteristic for lib organizations. .

No.. there's nothing uncharacteristic about it at all... You are accustomed to rightwingers goose-stepping along with the official party line... .

You mean like how Fox and Rush and everyone crowed about the amazing Mitt after leading the conservative world on an Easter egg hunt for an ABM (Anybody But Mitt) candidate?

[Supsalemgr]

I was just posing a question for our lib friends. Does this remove Mrs. Rice from their list of "suitables" for SOS, especially since the State Department is the entity that has to sign off on the project for it's completion?

No reason for disparaging remarks about me as I don't have a dog in this fight.

[Crock Hunter]

You mean like how Fox and Rush and everyone crowed about the amazing Mitt after leading the conservative world on an Easter egg hunt for an ABM (Anybody But Mitt) candidate?

Bingo.. .. . suppersalesman fell right in line like the rest of the good little sheep (no offense vrede.. ) as soon as it became clear that they were stuck with Mittens "Wretch-a-Sketch" Rmoney . .. .. .. .

[O Really]

I think if Obama wanted out of what appears to be a nomination of Rice for State, I'm guessing he wouldn't need any elaborate bus-tossing scenario. I'm guessing he'd call her in and say, "Susan, I'm sorry, but you've accumulated too much baggage for us to expect you to be confirmed."

Of course, that wouldn't fit the model of a nefarious and "hidden agenda" Obama, ever seeking ways to "destroy America."

[Supsalemgr]

Still no opinions on whether this makes Mrs. Rice unsuitable for SOS?

[O Really]

Still no opinions on whether this makes Mrs. Rice unsuitable for SOS?

Not to me, but I'm not necessarily one of her fans for other reasons. I'm still wanting Hillary to reconsider.

[rstrong]

I find it interesting that two "green" groups all of sudden are bringing this to light. This is very uncharacteristic for lib organizations. One might wonder where they found out about this and if this is Obama's way of throwing Rice under the bus.

So everyone left of the far-right is expected to have one common opinion? A fringe group speaks for everyone?

Flip that the other way: Why did the previous Republican administration invade Afghanistan, when "conservatives" had already declared that feminists and lesbians were responsible for 9/11?

Remember, Obama had long resisted environmental group protests over the Keystone pipeline. New routes that bypassed the Sandhills region and Ogallala Aquifer were being reviewed. It was the Republicans who blocked it, by introducing legislation requiring an immediate decision before the environmental review was completed.

[Supsalemgr]

Still no opinions on whether this makes Mrs. Rice unsuitable for SOS?

Not to me, but I'm not necessarily one of her fans for other reasons. I'm still wanting Hillary to reconsider.

Thanks. I am not surprised O Really responded with a reasonable answer.

[Supsalemgr]

Still doesn't answer the question. Is Vrede dodging the question?

[Supsalemgr]

Still doesn't answer the question. Is Vrede dodging the question?

Is Supsalemgr an idiot?

I was just posing a question for our lib friends. Does this remove Mrs. Rice from their list of "suitables" for SOS, especially since the State Department is the entity that has to sign off on the project for it's completion?

No, but only because KXL and Canada relations are not at the top of my list for SoS qualifications. It does make me think a little less of her, just as your wingnut accusations have made me think a little more of her. Otherwise, I don't have an opinion on her possible nomination.

No reason for disparaging remarks about me as I don't have a dog in this fight.

You chose to foolishly suggest that this was about the Dems throwing her "Under The Bus". You made your bed, dog, lie in it.

Again, I don't know enough about her to have an opinion. Will we need it said a 4th time?

Agreed. My apologies.

[Bungalow Bill]

If Obama is thinking of truly nominating her I just hope he doesn't need another
backbone transplant.

[rstrong]

Where are my manners? Bad Vrede!

Outrageous: Keystone XL conflict of interest

"Susan Rice, the candidate believed to be favored by President Obama to become the next Secretary of State, holds significant investments in more than a dozen Canadian oil companies and banks that would stand to benefit from expansion of the North American tar sands industry and construction of the proposed $7 billion Keystone XL pipeline," OnEarth Magazine reports. "If confirmed by the Senate, one of Rice’s first duties likely would be consideration, and potentially approval, of the controversial mega-project."

Did they think we wouldn't find out?

It's indefensible that Rice has millions of dollars invested in oil companies and banks that will make huge profits if the State Department gives approval to the XL pipeline.

To demand that Rice immediately sell every dollar of stock in every one of those companies, email President Obama.

Thank you, Supsalemgr!

Yup. If former Halliburton/KBR CEO Dick Cheney hadn't sold off all his Halliburton stock before Halliburton got all those no-bid contracts, Cheney's war in Iraq would have made him very rich indeed.

I'm joking, of course. Cheney didn't sell off his Halliburton stock.

The Secretary of State would have little to do with the pipeline, since importing the oil is already a done deal. Without the pipeline the oil gets shipped anyway, by rail. (Have the environmentalists really thought this through?)

Whether the pipeline gets built, whether it takes the route bypassing the Sandhills region and Ogallala Aquifer that was being reviewed before the Republicans blocked it, and whether the Republicans block it again, are all internal U.S. matters.

[rstrong]

Or alternatively to Asian markets through Enbridge Northern Gateway Pipelines or Kinder Morgan's Trans-Mountain line, or development is slowed, or Canada builds its own refineries, or etc.

It doesn't look like Northern Gateway will get built. But since Kinder Morgan's line already exists there's not much opposition to increasing it's capacity.

Now the talk is about piping the oil north to a port on the Beaufort Sea. (They're already building a pipeline to ship natural gas from the Beaufort Sea south to Alberta.)

Another proposal that looks like may go ahead, and which would be very good for the country, is to pipe it all the way to refineries in eastern Canada. Western Canada exports oil - mostly for refining elsewhere - while eastern Canada imports it from overseas and refines it. Shipping western oil east would give us more energy independence.

There's only about 20 refineries left in Canada. At least five - including the one here in Winnipeg - shut down in the early 1980s. A new refinery was just announced for northern Alberta to process oilsands crude.

Rail importation to the US is not an absolute, that's just TransCanada's claim. So many lies, like how many jobs would be created, have already been exposed.

This one isn't a lie. They're already doing it. It's only a matter of how much more oil gets shipped that way.

Has Canada really thought through the consequences of greenhouse gas-heavy tar sands extraction?

There's been a lot talk about building small nuclear reactors in northern Alberta. They were dismissed as too expensive in the mid-2000s, but higher oil prices have changed that.

Of course, then the nuclear accident in Japan happened. You know those 6-foot-thick containment domes you see over American and Canadian reactors? And the equally massive vacuum building that would suck up and condense a steam explosion? The Japanese reactor didn't have them. But from now on new reactors with full safety features will by judged by 45-year-old reactors using 50-year-old designs, without standard safety features, and built on a coastline in a major earthquake and tsunami zone.

[Reality]

"Liberals think for themselves... always have.."

CH, what are you smoking? Libs have tunnel vision...always have!

[rstrong]

CH, what are you smoking? Libs have tunnel vision...always have!

If Rush Limbaugh says so, it much be true!

[Wneglia]

Even though all things nuclear have been totally demonized in the US, Westinghouse is moving forward with plans for a Thorium reactor in Norway, and while it isn't the ideal design, IMHO, they are doing the correct design in China. It is a shame that this proven technology was shelved from Oak Ridge National Laboratory almost 50 years ago.

[Crock Hunter]

...the rest of the good little sheep (no offense vrede.. )...

As a proud goat I consider sheep to be lower than reptiles (no offense, Crock).

My bad.. But you all look the same roasted with mint sauce. . . .

[Stinger]

"Liberals think for themselves... always have.."

CH, what are you smoking? Libs have tunnel vision...always have!

Asshat. If libs adhere to the facts, they're pretty much going to be telling the same story. That's not tunnel vision, that's sticking with reality.

Cons tell the same story, in spite of the facts, because they all repeat the garbage from Rush-Fox conservative entertainment complex.

Why do cons need Rush and Fox to tell them what to think? Why do they march lockstep and chug the Kool Aid? Why do they never disagree with Rush?

Why do cons ignore the facts and insist on JUST BELIEVING in and clinging to "original thoughts" -- i.e. make-believe bullshit in opposition to the facts.

Your tunnel vision is your keeping your eyes on the tunnel where you run and hide every time someone points out one of your factual errors.

Which is pretty much a daily occurrence.

Name one single, solitary time when you changed your mind in the face of factual information that disputed your beliefs . . . other than the time you thought it was 1912.