Senior Obama administration geography gaffe

[Christians4LessGvt]

http://dailysignal.com/2014/09/12/esson-for-top-obama-aide-syria-doesnt-border-saudi-arabia/?utm_source=facebook&utm_medium=social

[Plane]

  The White House is like the rest of us , no reason to study them or think of them unless they are making trouble.

[Xavier_Onassis]

I bet you would be surprised at the results if they gave a geography exam to the members of the Senate and Congress.

The Southern Syria, Northeastern Jordan and Northern Saudi Arabia are all pretty much trackless desert and perhaps some military person mentioned defending or holding the terrain id=f the three countries without showing a map.

But there is no excuse for any spokesperson to make a gaffe about geography, there are maps and globes all  over the place.

[Plane]

  I remember Candidate Bush , before his election failing to answer a question about Pakistan. He apparently didn't know the name of its leader , or much else very likely.


     This is our nature , we are not much concerned with distant lands . It isn't as though we intended to conquer them or anything.

[Xavier_Onassis]

Anyone that seeks to be a national leader, or to serve in the cabinet or State Dept, does need to know this, just as any electrical engineer needs to know calculus.

When some moron says "I don't need to know about Uzbeckybeckystan", even though it is true that the State Dept would orient him if he were elected, this shows a lack of what any creative thinker absolutely needs: intellectual curiosity. And such a person should not be elected. When Gerald Ford said that Poland was not dominated by the USSR, that was a far worse degree of incompetence than his decision to pardon Nixon.

Nixon deserved to be prosecuted severely, but the way the justice system works, the trials and appeals would have gone on for years, and it would have done the nation far too much harm and division, and looking back on it, I think Ford made the proper decision.

But not knowing the relationship between Poland and the USSR was a demonstration of serious ignorance, particularly in light of what went on in Poland shortly afterward with the Solidarnosc Movement.

[Plane]

  What candidates have we been offered as President recently that could pass this sort of exam about randomly chosen areas and government in the world?

    I think it important that a President know the wider world , but more important that the President know the USA well. If I can't have both I would rather have the USA expert.

[Xavier_Onassis]

In a nation of over 300 million, both parties should be able to nominate someone who understood both the US and most foreign countries. We should not have to choose.

[Plane]

   Who in particular?

   Do you have someone in mind?

    It has been my experience that idiots are found at every rank, and savants are not necessarily better leaders.

     One of the best supervisors I ever had got a lot of resistance from those ranking higher than him.

     I think as a general principal weak leaders try to promote even weaker leaders and practically no one promotes people that they do not understand.

    If this principal is true then democracy works against the election of genius , doesn't it?

[Xavier_Onassis]

That makes no sense at all.

The way we choose presidential candidates is certainly not the best. The Democrats generally pick better people than the Republicans.The last truly able and decent Republican nominee was Dwight Eisenhower.

President Obama will have little to do with who the Democrats nominate.

He would be a far better president is the asshole Republicans did not try to sabotage him at every turn.
I think he has a good understanding of this country as well as of other countries.

[Plane]

The Democrats generally pick better people than the Republicans.

  Did you keep a straight face as you typed this?

[Xavier_Onassis]

What, Bob Dole, Juniorbush and Nixon?

The Republicans are total slaves to the Oligarchy, as are some of the Democrats.

[Plane]

  Don't misunderestimate President Bush, either of them.

    Nothing is wrong with Bob Dole , I doubt he would have wasted as much time as Clinton if he had been given the chance.

    And there is no hope for the Democrats to produce the mental power and clarity of thought of a Ronald Reagan.

     If the best the Democrats will offer is Hillary Clinton , well there we go again.

[Xavier_Onassis]

Reagan was a TERRIBLE president. He was an actor pretending to be some sort of grandfatherly figure while he sucked up to the oligarchy and did its biding in every way. Clinton was a good president and would have been a better one except for the obstacles of the goddamn Republican'ts.

Reagan was a disgrace to himself, the country, and an all around terrible president. I piss on his memory.

Carter was dozens of time better than the old fart and Mondale was hundreds of times better. Bobdole was a nasty old hack and slave to the Oligarchy.

[Plane]

  You need more skepticism.

   Reagan had speechwriters , but he told them what he wanted , he cut his way.

[Xavier_Onassis]

That is bullshit. He has handlers that had been handling him scrips ever since General Electric and the Chamber of Commerce hired him in the 1950's.

He was an A C T O R. He was reading a S C R I P T.

He may or may not have believed his own bullshit, but he was IN NO WAY in charge of what he spewed. It was pure script from the Oligarchy.