I agree with the thesis. In the senator's defense, if you asked his primary voters whether they wanted him to do this, I bet 80 percent would say yes, and some of them would even know what the State Department actually does.
A few tweets as a private citizen make her insufficiently supportive of Israel in this one Republicans eyes regardless of any defense she might muster and that’s that for her appointment. Opposing Israeli settlements in the West Bank has actually been the official US position for 50 years, yet here is someone being denied a post for holding that same position. It’s a purely manufactured controversy.
Bizarre. What a circus this has all become. Even if you don’t like her views on human rights or Israel/Palestine.
At what point will sworn loyalty oaths to a particular foreign government become a de facto requirement for holding an official post in the US federal government?
State regards any honest and dispassionate advocate for human rights as a liability, a calamity, even.
Rather, "human rights" are a stick which State uses to beat countries that it does not like with, while ignoring far worse violations in countries that it approves of. The link below spells this out in black and white:
I agree with the thesis. In the senator's defense, if you asked his primary voters whether they wanted him to do this, I bet 80 percent would say yes, and some of them would even know what the State Department actually does.
A few tweets as a private citizen make her insufficiently supportive of Israel in this one Republicans eyes regardless of any defense she might muster and that’s that for her appointment. Opposing Israeli settlements in the West Bank has actually been the official US position for 50 years, yet here is someone being denied a post for holding that same position. It’s a purely manufactured controversy.
Bizarre. What a circus this has all become. Even if you don’t like her views on human rights or Israel/Palestine.
At what point will sworn loyalty oaths to a particular foreign government become a de facto requirement for holding an official post in the US federal government?
State regards any honest and dispassionate advocate for human rights as a liability, a calamity, even.
Rather, "human rights" are a stick which State uses to beat countries that it does not like with, while ignoring far worse violations in countries that it approves of. The link below spells this out in black and white:
https://www.politico.com/story/2017/12/19/tillerson-state-human-rights-304118