HomeLatest ThreadsGreatest ThreadsForums & GroupsMy SubscriptionsMy Posts
DU Home » Latest Threads » Forums & Groups » Main » General Discussion (Forum) » Report: SecState candidat...
Introducing Discussionist: A new forum by the creators of DU

Wed Nov 28, 2012, 04:25 PM

Report: SecState candidate Rice "Has a Major Financial Stake in Canadian Tar Sands" i.e. Keystone XL

Last edited Thu Nov 29, 2012, 03:57 PM - Edit history (2)

Secretary of State Candidate Has a Major Financial Stake in Canadian Tar Sands

By Scott Dodd
November 28, 2012

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. If confirmed by the Senate, one of Rice’s first duties likely would be consideration, and potentially approval, of the controversial mega-project.

Rice's financial holdings could raise questions about her status as a neutral decision maker. The current U.S. ambassador to the United Nations, Rice owns stock valued between $300,000 and $600,000 in TransCanada, the company seeking a federal permit to transport tar sands crude 1,700 miles to refineries on the Texas Gulf Coast, crossing fragile Midwest ecosystems and the largest freshwater aquifer in North America.

Beyond that, according to financial disclosure reports, about a third of Rice’s personal net worth is tied up in oil producers, pipeline operators, and related energy industries north of the 49th parallel -- including companies with poor environmental and safety records on both U.S. and Canadian soil. Rice and her husband own at least $1.25 million worth of stock in four of Canada’s eight leading oil producers, as ranked by Forbes magazine. That includes Enbridge, which spilled more than a million gallons of toxic bitumen into Michigan’s Kalamazoo River in 2010 -- the largest inland oil spill in U.S. history.

Rice also has smaller stakes in several other big Canadian energy firms, as well as the country’s transportation companies and coal-fired utilities. Another 20 percent or so of her personal wealth is derived from investments in five Canadian banks. These are some of the institutions that provide loans and financial backing to TransCanada and its competitors for tar sands extraction and major infrastructure projects, such as Keystone XL and Enbridge’s proposed Northern Gateway pipeline, which would stretch 700 miles from Alberta to the Canadian coast.

The rest: http://www.onearth.org/article/susan-rice-obama-secretary-state-tar-sands-finances

Here's her financial disclosure info: http://www.opensecrets.org/pfds/CIDsummary.php?CID=N99999935&year=2009

UPDATE: Mother Jones has picked up the story: http://www.motherjones.com/blue-marble/2012/11/obamas-secretary-state-financial-stake-keystone

I'm not familiar with the publication OnEarth. But this does not thrill me.

Don't shoot the messenger. This just came across my desk. Thoughts?

139 replies, 11402 views

Reply to this thread

Back to top Alert abuse

Always highlight: 10 newest replies | Replies posted after I mark a forum
Replies to this discussion thread
Arrow 139 replies Author Time Post
Reply Report: SecState candidate Rice "Has a Major Financial Stake in Canadian Tar Sands" i.e. Keystone XL (Original post)
WilliamPitt Nov 2012 OP
Mika Nov 2012 #1
CaliforniaPeggy Nov 2012 #2
Magoo48 Nov 2012 #13
roguevalley Nov 2012 #119
TwilightGardener Nov 2012 #3
kelliekat44 Nov 2012 #67
TwilightGardener Nov 2012 #73
sabrina 1 Nov 2012 #104
TwilightGardener Nov 2012 #108
karynnj Nov 2012 #110
TwilightGardener Nov 2012 #121
elleng Nov 2012 #4
PennsylvaniaMatt Nov 2012 #33
elleng Nov 2012 #42
juajen Nov 2012 #75
CreekDog Nov 2012 #87
dixiegrrrrl Nov 2012 #107
CreekDog Nov 2012 #112
forestpath Nov 2012 #5
Comrade_McKenzie Nov 2012 #6
Bigmack Nov 2012 #7
Wellstone ruled Nov 2012 #8
Dont call me Shirley Nov 2012 #23
Fuddnik Nov 2012 #46
Freddie Stubbs Nov 2012 #9
morningfog Nov 2012 #25
DollarBillHines Nov 2012 #50
bluestate10 Nov 2012 #10
DJ13 Nov 2012 #11
handmade34 Nov 2012 #26
bluestate10 Nov 2012 #32
DJ13 Nov 2012 #35
CreekDog Nov 2012 #90
CreekDog Nov 2012 #89
Enrique Nov 2012 #12
bigtree Nov 2012 #14
NightWatcher Nov 2012 #15
joeybee12 Nov 2012 #16
NightWatcher Nov 2012 #18
joeybee12 Nov 2012 #20
Enrique Nov 2012 #19
blm Nov 2012 #39
woo me with science Nov 2012 #17
SammyWinstonJack Nov 2012 #30
Dont call me Shirley Nov 2012 #21
jeff47 Nov 2012 #22
kossp Nov 2012 #24
Zorra Nov 2012 #27
OKNancy Nov 2012 #28
1StrongBlackMan Nov 2012 #29
waddirum Nov 2012 #118
1StrongBlackMan Nov 2012 #129
patrice Nov 2012 #31
AnotherMcIntosh Nov 2012 #106
patrice Nov 2012 #132
AnotherMcIntosh Nov 2012 #135
patrice Nov 2012 #134
AnotherMcIntosh Nov 2012 #136
patrice Nov 2012 #137
spanone Nov 2012 #34
karynnj Nov 2012 #114
frazzled Nov 2012 #36
bluestate10 Nov 2012 #55
WilliamPitt Nov 2012 #56
sabrina 1 Nov 2012 #120
NashvilleLefty Nov 2012 #37
still_one Nov 2012 #40
Enrique Nov 2012 #48
central scrutinizer Nov 2012 #53
AldoLeopold Nov 2012 #115
NashvilleLefty Nov 2012 #117
Fuddnik Nov 2012 #54
Lucinda Nov 2012 #61
AldoLeopold Nov 2012 #58
still_one Nov 2012 #38
Cicada Nov 2012 #41
bluestate10 Nov 2012 #45
FarCenter Nov 2012 #43
FarCenter Nov 2012 #47
AnotherMcIntosh Nov 2012 #109
bluestate10 Nov 2012 #44
riderinthestorm Nov 2012 #49
bluestate10 Nov 2012 #57
riderinthestorm Nov 2012 #65
AnotherMcIntosh Nov 2012 #111
frazzled Nov 2012 #72
AldoLeopold Nov 2012 #60
John2 Nov 2012 #51
dbackjon Nov 2012 #52
NRaleighLiberal Nov 2012 #59
quinnox Nov 2012 #62
Jeff In Milwaukee Nov 2012 #63
WilliamPitt Nov 2012 #64
Jeff In Milwaukee Nov 2012 #66
They_Live Nov 2012 #68
SCVDem Nov 2012 #69
Enrique Nov 2012 #74
grandpamike1 Nov 2012 #70
bvar22 Nov 2012 #71
Ineeda Nov 2012 #76
Cooley Hurd Nov 2012 #77
Enrique Nov 2012 #80
Cooley Hurd Nov 2012 #83
Enrique Nov 2012 #85
Cooley Hurd Nov 2012 #88
Enrique Nov 2012 #91
Cooley Hurd Nov 2012 #93
JDPriestly Nov 2012 #78
jeggus Nov 2012 #79
newspeak Nov 2012 #138
plethoro Nov 2012 #81
Duval Nov 2012 #82
heaven05 Nov 2012 #84
JanetLovesObama Nov 2012 #86
democrattotheend Nov 2012 #116
AldoLeopold Nov 2012 #124
lumberjack_jeff Nov 2012 #92
robinlynne Nov 2012 #94
ProfessionalLeftist Nov 2012 #95
NickB79 Nov 2012 #96
fried eggs Nov 2012 #97
quinnox Nov 2012 #98
fried eggs Nov 2012 #99
quinnox Nov 2012 #100
AnotherMcIntosh Nov 2012 #113
WilliamPitt Nov 2012 #103
hatrack Nov 2012 #128
godai Nov 2012 #102
jsr Nov 2012 #101
AnotherMcIntosh Nov 2012 #105
Proud Liberal Dem Nov 2012 #122
AldoLeopold Nov 2012 #125
Proud Liberal Dem Nov 2012 #127
AldoLeopold Nov 2012 #139
FogerRox Nov 2012 #123
AldoLeopold Nov 2012 #126
dembotoz Nov 2012 #130
AnotherMcIntosh Nov 2012 #133
Oilwellian Nov 2012 #131

Response to WilliamPitt (Original post)

Wed Nov 28, 2012, 04:28 PM

1. How utterly depressing.



Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to WilliamPitt (Original post)

Wed Nov 28, 2012, 04:29 PM

2. My thought, my dear Will, is this:

Anyone who stands to profit from the god-awful Keystone Pipeline needs to step down from consideration for a job in which their bias would be pivotal. ANYONE.

No wonder Obama wants her.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to CaliforniaPeggy (Reply #2)

Wed Nov 28, 2012, 04:39 PM

13. Agreed...if true, it changes the context of her nomination.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to CaliforniaPeggy (Reply #2)

Wed Nov 28, 2012, 11:32 PM

119. here here. very depressing but maybe they are doing us a backhanded favor

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to WilliamPitt (Original post)

Wed Nov 28, 2012, 04:30 PM

3. That would be a pretty big conflict of interest, then.

She should let Prez O know that she is withdrawing herself from consideration.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to TwilightGardener (Reply #3)

Wed Nov 28, 2012, 06:27 PM

67. First of all, she is NOT a candidate for SOS. This is sh__t made up by the RW media hoping for

her nomination to be real. I think Ms. Rice should be replaced at the UN, not for anything she has done wrong, but so that she can step out of government service and enjoy investment millions like the 'good 'ole boys' do. She doesn't need this shit and she certainly doesn't need the headache of being SOS. She has served her country well and I for one, hope she enjher stint among the 1%. And just think how much sleep McCain and other GOP schmucks will lose.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to kelliekat44 (Reply #67)

Wed Nov 28, 2012, 06:35 PM

73. I like her. But I do believe she was under serious

consideration for the job. I don't know, maybe as some suggested below she could recuse herself from the Keystone process. It's disappointing that she's heavily invested in the tar sands, unless maybe she didn't control what she was invested in? I don't know much about her environmental views.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to TwilightGardener (Reply #73)

Wed Nov 28, 2012, 09:22 PM

104. She also supported Bush on Iraq and opposed ending that war.

I don't know why she is a Democrat frankly, from the time we were first made aware of her, it was obvious there was not a war for oil she didn't like. Now maybe we know why, like all the other war mongers, it was never about WMDS, they were all invested in the Oil Industry.

Frankly I didn't understand the rush to defend her, people should be asking that she not even be considered in a Democratic administration for SOS.

Wesley Clark would be a far better SOS eg. Enough with these war supporters and profiteers whose opinions appear to be directly related to their own ability to profit from them.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to sabrina 1 (Reply #104)

Wed Nov 28, 2012, 09:49 PM

108. She didn't oppose Obama's plan to shut Iraq down, though--

I don't remember hearing any internal strife about that, at any rate. I do like Clark, he'd be a good choice.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to TwilightGardener (Reply #3)

Wed Nov 28, 2012, 09:51 PM

110. If she is named and if she is confirmed, she COULD recluse herself on that decision I think

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to karynnj (Reply #110)

Wed Nov 28, 2012, 11:38 PM

121. Yes--she could leave it to the second in charge at the State Dept.

possibly.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to WilliamPitt (Original post)

Wed Nov 28, 2012, 04:31 PM

4. Doesn't thrill me, either.

Wonder who manages these holdings. Mine (not close to the amount stated) are not managed by me, tho I can approve or disapprove particular entities.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to elleng (Reply #4)

Wed Nov 28, 2012, 05:29 PM

33. Thought the same thing

I would be shocked if her investments and earnings were not in a blind trust and managed by an independent party - since you would think that as an Ambassador, conflicts of interest would arise, even in other places in the world, when dealing with oil.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to PennsylvaniaMatt (Reply #33)

Wed Nov 28, 2012, 05:42 PM

42. Right, makes sense for public servants.

I'm not one of those, and my holdings not in blind trust, but invested with broker who informs me regularly about how they're doing, and I can opt in or out of individual holdings.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to PennsylvaniaMatt (Reply #33)

Wed Nov 28, 2012, 06:47 PM

75. We did not approve of the excuse of a Romney blind trust, nor should we

approve of one for Rice. I am amazed that the Administration would think this would pass muster with Democrats. Surely there is more to this story. I will defer judgment until I hear more, but this does not look promising.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to juajen (Reply #75)

Wed Nov 28, 2012, 07:34 PM

87. Romney didn't have a blind trust

why don't you know what you're talking about?

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to CreekDog (Reply #87)

Wed Nov 28, 2012, 09:49 PM

107. Actually, Romney DID claim he had a blind trust

and ABC broke the story that he may have lied about it.

Mitt Romney's Blind Trust Not So Blind
Dec. 19, 2011

When Mitt Romney faced questions on the campaign trail four years ago about investments in firms engaged in embryonic stem cell research, the presidential candidate had a ready explanation -- he was unaware because his vast financial portfolio was under the control of an independent trustee. Last week, Romney's campaign pulled out the same explanation when ABC News sought details about the candidate's holdings in the Cayman Islands, a notorious offshore tax haven.

"We remind you that Gov. Romney does not choose anything; these are BLIND TRUSTS," a campaign official wrote in an email.

But government ethics experts and election lawyers told ABC News that Romney's trust might not be quite as blind as he has long maintained. That's because Romney placed his quarter-billion dollar family fortune in the hands of his personal lawyer and longtime associate Bradford Malt.

Federal officeholders are required to either fully disclose all their financial holdings and any possible conflicts of interest, or place their holdings in a blind trust. Robert Kelner, a Republican election lawyer in Washington, D.C. with no ties to a current presidential campaign, explained the federal rules governing those blind trusts. "The Office of Government Ethics requires that a financial institution be appointed as the trustee and that the financial institution not be controlled by or have done business with the candidate," said Kelner. "It would preclude you from hiring your favorite lawyer as the trustee."

http://abcnews.go.com/Blotter/mitt-romneys-blind-trust-blind/story?id=15188063

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to dixiegrrrrl (Reply #107)

Wed Nov 28, 2012, 09:53 PM

112. right. he claimed to, but his "blind" trust was like his hand over his face promising not to look



Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to WilliamPitt (Original post)

Wed Nov 28, 2012, 04:31 PM

5. Very illuminating. And not in a good way.

 

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to WilliamPitt (Original post)

Wed Nov 28, 2012, 04:32 PM

6. She deserves all the hell they're giving her, then... even if it is a BS reason. nt

 

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to WilliamPitt (Original post)

Wed Nov 28, 2012, 04:32 PM

7. Why doesn't she just sell the holdings...? nt

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to WilliamPitt (Original post)

Wed Nov 28, 2012, 04:35 PM

8. Ding,Ding,Ding,we have a winner!

O.K.,that pretty much sinks Rice's chances and it won't be Kerry. Let the inside the bubble games begin. Geesh! Wonder when this would hit the fan. Rice has always been in the Military-Industrial-Complex camp,check out her back ground.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Wellstone ruled (Reply #8)

Wed Nov 28, 2012, 05:05 PM

23. Yep, Council on Foreign Relations

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Wellstone ruled (Reply #8)

Wed Nov 28, 2012, 05:49 PM

46. I heard Petraus is looking for a new job.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to WilliamPitt (Original post)

Wed Nov 28, 2012, 04:35 PM

9. Does anyone really believe that this decision will actually be made by the SoS rather than

the White House?

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Freddie Stubbs (Reply #9)

Wed Nov 28, 2012, 05:10 PM

25. Does anyone believe it would actually matter who makes the decision when

there is such an apparent conflict of interest?

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Freddie Stubbs (Reply #9)

Wed Nov 28, 2012, 05:54 PM

50. Hey!, stop with the reality check, OK?

Why let facts get in the way when there is so much indignation in play?

(I do not know how to post the little sarcasm thingie)

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to WilliamPitt (Original post)

Wed Nov 28, 2012, 04:35 PM

10. I probably own stock in the company that own the Keystone Pipeline. But I oppose the

pipeline unless environmental issues are resolved and landowners are paid fairly for their property. I honestly could not say what shares are held in my portfolio because I don't manage it and it is relatively large for a middle class person, I prefer to do other things in life. Hell, as far as I know, I could own $200,000 in Keystone shares, that is major.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to WilliamPitt (Original post)

Wed Nov 28, 2012, 04:36 PM

11. I'm at the point where I'm starting to think

that no government officials should be allowed to own any stocks, whether in a trust, or just in a family member's name.

If they cant make ends meet on their better than average salary and secure retirement they can leave and pursue a private job.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to DJ13 (Reply #11)

Wed Nov 28, 2012, 05:17 PM

26. +1000 n/t

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to DJ13 (Reply #11)

Wed Nov 28, 2012, 05:29 PM

32. What you suggest is impossible unless those officials sell everything and put the money

into government bonds. If a person put their money into a blind trust or CDs or an Investment Fund, that money is going to be invested into a variety of stocks and bonds, a lot of which if the person looked at individually, may not want to own. I tried to point out that I have no idea what the investment funds that I own are invested in, I have a general idea of their investment strategy, but exactly what they invest in within that strategy is something that I don't know and don't care to spend time understanding.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to bluestate10 (Reply #32)

Wed Nov 28, 2012, 05:33 PM

35. Bonds are fine

No one has to be in stocks.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to DJ13 (Reply #35)

Wed Nov 28, 2012, 07:38 PM

90. retirement models with scaled back defined benefits indicate a 6-9% return is needed

so bonds won't create that level of return.

but my guess is that you don't care about the details, you just want what you want.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to DJ13 (Reply #11)

Wed Nov 28, 2012, 07:36 PM

89. government pensions are only 1/3 of one's retirement

1/3 of one's retirement income is expected to be from investments made during their working career.

if you want to take away any ability for them to invest in stocks, are you willing to up the pension portion of their retirement?

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to WilliamPitt (Original post)

Wed Nov 28, 2012, 04:37 PM

12. quite a scoop if true

i can't find the transcanada part at OpenSecrets, but I do see how rich she is. wow.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to WilliamPitt (Original post)

Wed Nov 28, 2012, 04:52 PM

14. that's pretty damning, if true

not a peep of support for Rice left in me today . . . depressing.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to WilliamPitt (Original post)

Wed Nov 28, 2012, 04:55 PM

15. why dont her opponents criticize her for this reason instead of BS Benghazi?

This is a disqualifier much more than the BS about who knew what re: Libya

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to NightWatcher (Reply #15)

Wed Nov 28, 2012, 04:57 PM

16. Because her opponents like this particular nugget about her...

They're vested in oil also.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to joeybee12 (Reply #16)

Wed Nov 28, 2012, 05:01 PM

18. then why not support her and sit back and reap the stock benefits

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to NightWatcher (Reply #18)

Wed Nov 28, 2012, 05:02 PM

20. I bet they think Keystone will go through no matter what...

The whole Rice thing, I think, is largely that the Repukes are fascist, and secondly becasue they want to prove they're relevant.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to NightWatcher (Reply #15)

Wed Nov 28, 2012, 05:02 PM

19. that would conflict with their narrative about Obama

that he hates oil and is intent on destroying the oil industry.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to NightWatcher (Reply #15)

Wed Nov 28, 2012, 05:40 PM

39. Because they know that by performing their dog and pony show the Dems will rally around her

even though she's a hawkish interventionist, and the left media will once again be aiming their barbs at the guy the GOP do NOT want leading the State Dept. - John Kerry.

Gee - ya think McCain and Company would have touted Kerry over Rice because they really believed they agreed with Kerry more than Rice, a Hillary Clinton-style hawk?

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to WilliamPitt (Original post)

Wed Nov 28, 2012, 04:59 PM

17. Well, well, well....

Had enough yet, America?

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to woo me with science (Reply #17)

Wed Nov 28, 2012, 05:26 PM

30. l know i have. it doesn't though. we don't matter after elections are over

Until the next.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to WilliamPitt (Original post)

Wed Nov 28, 2012, 05:04 PM

21. Is she Condi's cousin. Thinking Chevron connection?

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to WilliamPitt (Original post)

Wed Nov 28, 2012, 05:04 PM

22. Because it's impossible to sell those investments

And oil stocks haven't been a fantastic investment the last few years.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to WilliamPitt (Original post)

Wed Nov 28, 2012, 05:07 PM

24. Is this true?

 

If so, then Amb. Rice should tell President Obama to remove her name from consideration for the SoS position and take the issue away from the republicans.

I hope its not true, she will make a great SoS.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink



Response to WilliamPitt (Original post)

Wed Nov 28, 2012, 05:20 PM

28. She is a rich woman who has stock in many foreign companies

Telecom companies in Asia, Canadian banks, German companies, and many USA stocks.
I looked at the pdf's at the link. I see nothing odd or disqualifying.
Any TransCanada stock she has is a drop in the bucket.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to WilliamPitt (Original post)

Wed Nov 28, 2012, 05:20 PM

29. Ummm ...

I wasn't aware that "If confirmed by the Senate, one of Rice’s first duties likely would be consideration, and potentially approval, of the controversial mega-project."

That's probably because "consideration" of an international project involving a private industry, is not the role of the SoS, and "approval", most certainly is not.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to 1StrongBlackMan (Reply #29)

Wed Nov 28, 2012, 11:30 PM

118. Ummm

The Department of State is the government agency responsible for drafting/approving the Environmental Impact Statement for the pipeline project. That is the key "permit" for this project to proceed.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to waddirum (Reply #118)

Thu Nov 29, 2012, 09:56 AM

129. Your are correct ...

My bad.

Learning is a beautiful thing!

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to WilliamPitt (Original post)

Wed Nov 28, 2012, 05:29 PM

31. fuck!!! :-((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to patrice (Reply #31)


Response to AnotherMcIntosh (Reply #106)

Thu Nov 29, 2012, 12:23 PM

132. I reject that "Rice or Not-Rice" is the definition of a purist any more than a single card face-up

in a hand of 21 or whatever decides who won the hand, especially since the card has not actually been dealt yet.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to patrice (Reply #132)


Response to AnotherMcIntosh (Reply #106)

Thu Nov 29, 2012, 12:32 PM

134. BTW, I've actually put my face in the streets on the XL issue in a state run by the Koch bros, what

have you done beside post under a PSEUDOnym on the internet, pray tell.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to patrice (Reply #134)


Response to AnotherMcIntosh (Reply #136)

Thu Nov 29, 2012, 12:55 PM

137. Do you know everything about every issue? You assume XL is all there is to do &

nothing else matters.

I feel confident of the anti-XL activists I met to steer they own path and to get back to the rest of us when they need our help in supporting their decisions, meanwhile . . .

I'm not a single issue person, like tooooooooooooo many others. Though the 21 card-game analogy is useful, the actuality is that the deck is much much much bigger and there are more players and the arithmetic is more complicated than that.

Everything has consequences whether we can see them or not, whether we can/choose-to characterize those consequences with validity or not, so I'm not giving Obama "a pass" on anything. That doesn't mean that I can't focus selectively when I feel it is a valid thing to do, nor that I wear blinders about the big-picture.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to WilliamPitt (Original post)

Wed Nov 28, 2012, 05:32 PM

34. what are hillary's stock holdings? what are john kerry's stock holdings? what are john boehner's

stock holdings?

don't see the relevance.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to spanone (Reply #34)

Wed Nov 28, 2012, 10:05 PM

114. Hillary's and Kerry's holding have been known because they filed it as Senate disclosures

Kerry's holdings are complicated and most are COMPLETELY not under his control. They include Teresa's share of the Heinz trust - set up by her former husband. Teresa is not a trustee so she has no part in what investments the family trust is in and she is one of many beneficiaries. Likewise Kerry gets income from the Winthrop and Forbes trusts - and again he is a beneficiary, not a trustee and has no control over what they invest in.

His position on the environment has been consistent and his values deeply held since 1970 when he was involved in earth day in Boston - before he was an anti-war activist.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to WilliamPitt (Original post)

Wed Nov 28, 2012, 05:38 PM

36. Here we go

Trolling for more info to scuttle Ms. Rice's nomination. Who needs the Republicans when we have theories about how some stock might influence her on one subject, or when threads quoting Cato Institute researchers paint her as a war-monger.

Are her financial holdings (of which one should remember that her husband is Canadian) a worse indicator than Hillary Clinton's deputy campaign manager becoming Trans-Canada's chief lobbyist in Washington? I thought not. If Susan Rice is to be disqualified on this count, then our current SoS, Hillary Clinton, probably should be too.

Are there no threads to be had investigating her credentials in what are said to have been her central areas of interest: "U.S. foreign policy, weak and failing states, the implications of global poverty, and transnational threats to security." I'm more interested in that than in what her stock portfolio contains.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to frazzled (Reply #36)

Wed Nov 28, 2012, 06:03 PM

55. Rice is not an investment manager, or professional investor. My guess is that with a net of

$23-$45b million dollars, she owns a lot of stuff that she is unaware of. Her dad was a high flier, did anyone ask the question of whether he didn't will her the TransCanada stock? What I do know is that stuff that her father willed to her may be hard for her to let go of, for emotional reasons.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to frazzled (Reply #36)

Wed Nov 28, 2012, 06:05 PM

56. "Trolling"

Cuz that's what I do.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to frazzled (Reply #36)

Wed Nov 28, 2012, 11:35 PM

120. I agree re Hillary also. I don't like either of them, both supported Bush's illegal wars

so I never had much respect for them after that.

We need Progressives, not more Cold Warrior types just with a new 'boogie man'.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to WilliamPitt (Original post)

Wed Nov 28, 2012, 05:39 PM

37. Wouldn't any recommendations and/or decisions

on the Keystone pipeline be handled by the EPA and the Sec of Interior, rather than the SoS?

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to NashvilleLefty (Reply #37)

Wed Nov 28, 2012, 05:41 PM

40. SOS has nothing to do with that, but it is a good diversion

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to still_one (Reply #40)

Wed Nov 28, 2012, 05:51 PM

48. Statement by the President on the Keystone XL Pipeline

Earlier today, I received the Secretary of State’s recommendation on the pending application for the construction of the Keystone XL Pipeline. As the State Department made clear last month, the rushed and arbitrary deadline insisted on by Congressional Republicans prevented a full assessment of the pipeline’s impact, especially the health and safety of the American people, as well as our environment. As a result, the Secretary of State has recommended that the application be denied. And after reviewing the State Department’s report, I agree.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Enrique (Reply #48)

Wed Nov 28, 2012, 05:57 PM

53. some pipelines are good

[link:|

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Enrique (Reply #48)

Wed Nov 28, 2012, 10:15 PM

115. Wait though

Oops, I thought this was a new statement - this is his january statement

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Enrique (Reply #48)

Wed Nov 28, 2012, 10:41 PM

117. OK, I stand corrected.

But if the President has already ruled it out, wouldn't make this a moot point?

Yes, it would seem to be a conflict of interest, but it seems that Obama would have trouble finding someone qualified that doesn't have some kind of conflict of interest. As was pointed out by someone else, it doesn't seem to be a huge amount compared to all the money she and her hubby have invested.

I could very well be wrong, but this "smells" to me like an attempt to discredit her in the eyes of Liberals. I don't understand why certain members of the GOP are so dead set against her. I think there's something else going on here that hasn't been revealed yet.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to still_one (Reply #40)

Wed Nov 28, 2012, 05:58 PM

54. No, it crosses an international border, so SoS approval is necessary.

Hillary was all set to give approval until Obama delayed the decision until after the election. Also, Clinton's point man on the project was a former executive and lobbyist for Trans-Canada.

We knew what the decision on the pipeline would be back then. We were told to shut up, we might blow the election, and wait until a decision was actually made.

I guess we're getting confirmation now.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Fuddnik (Reply #54)

Wed Nov 28, 2012, 06:12 PM

61. Post 48 quotes Obama saying the SOS did not support

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to NashvilleLefty (Reply #37)

Wed Nov 28, 2012, 06:08 PM

58. Those of us in the Environmental Sciences have been asking that question

Its an international pipeline extension (technically) so State is getting it. Keep in mind that EPA is only an agency and isn't a cabinet position - so their say about things is a great deal more limited than the repukes would have everyone believe. At the very least it should be energy or interior making this call and I too wish it were EPA only - but I think POTUS is considering this a "security" issue. Oil security, food security, social security, mall security - blah blah blah.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to WilliamPitt (Original post)

Wed Nov 28, 2012, 05:40 PM

38. This is not what they are attacking her on however. In addition, she has not been even nominated

For SOS

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to WilliamPitt (Original post)

Wed Nov 28, 2012, 05:42 PM

41. Her husband is from Canada

She can recuse on decision about US pipeline. Otherwise I don't see any conflict of interest.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Cicada (Reply #41)

Wed Nov 28, 2012, 05:48 PM

45. Rice can recuse. Hillary Clinton did recuse the first time that issue came up.

I agree that there IS NO issue. I am surprised that Rice is richer than Clinton. The Clintons were worth around $100 million at one time. President Obama had a wealthy Cabinet at the start, none had a net worth less than $8 million in 2009.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to WilliamPitt (Original post)

Wed Nov 28, 2012, 05:43 PM

43. Her father was a Governor of the Federal Reserve

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to FarCenter (Reply #43)

Wed Nov 28, 2012, 05:49 PM

47. Her mother was a Vice President of the College Board, the notorious educational testing organization

Purveyors of the SATs, Advanced Placement tests, etc.

http://www.brookings.edu/experts/ricel
http://www.collegeboard.org/

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to FarCenter (Reply #43)

Wed Nov 28, 2012, 09:51 PM

109. That, too, should be known by more.

 

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to WilliamPitt (Original post)

Wed Nov 28, 2012, 05:44 PM

44. Give me a break. $600,000-$7000,000 out of a net worth of $23-$45 million?

The woman likely spends more per year on household help.

The article was good at bashing Rice, but it said nothing about HOW her money ended up in TransCanada. She or her husband may have had nothing to do with exactly what their money was invested in. Rice and her husband may have a simple objective for a certain amount of income per month, which a lot of people in her class do.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to bluestate10 (Reply #44)

Wed Nov 28, 2012, 05:51 PM

49. That's just how much she has invested in TransCanada. A full third of her personal wealth is similar

is similarly invested in hard-to-swallow companies...

From the OP...

"Beyond that, according to financial disclosure reports, about a third of Rice’s personal net worth is tied up in oil producers, pipeline operators, and related energy industries north of the 49th parallel -- including companies with poor environmental and safety records on both U.S. and Canadian soil. "

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to riderinthestorm (Reply #49)

Wed Nov 28, 2012, 06:08 PM

57. Did her father, who was a finance man will her those holdings?

If he did, she could have emotional reasons for not wanting to let those holdings go. It is clear fro reading her father's bio that Rice grew up in privilege. There are so many issues that the article does not answer. I look at my own situation, there are things that my parents willed to me that I won't even consider disposing of. I also don't know what I own as part of my net worth, and honestly I don't care about it because my interests are elsewhere.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to bluestate10 (Reply #57)

Wed Nov 28, 2012, 06:18 PM

65. I don't presume to be an expert on Dr. Rice. I have no idea.

Honestly, I really simply answered your question but I don't personally have any strong feelings about her holdings.... yet.

Before I get jiggy on it, I'd like to suss out why she's got so much of her wealth tied up in these industries. It's a lot. Even if she isn't actively managing it general directives are typical (more green energy, health care research, sustainable agriculture and solar energy - less fossil fuels, and defense contractors for example).

I take it as a given that people in politics are wealthy. These are the folks who like to control the levers that make the global financial world spin (which is a close bedfellow with politics).

But blatant investments that are then directly tied to the power to make such enormous $$ seems like its crossing the ethical line imho.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to bluestate10 (Reply #57)

Wed Nov 28, 2012, 09:52 PM

111. "emotional reasons for not wanting to let those holdings go"? Yea, especially if they make money.

 

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to riderinthestorm (Reply #49)

Wed Nov 28, 2012, 06:35 PM

72. Her husband is Canadian.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to bluestate10 (Reply #44)

Wed Nov 28, 2012, 06:11 PM

60. Yah but she should have seen this as a potential roadblock

and taken appropriate action. If your premise is correct, and it probably is, it wouldn't have been any problem to sell the holdings prior to the confirmation process.

I take this as more of a lack of common sense than any indication of wrong doing. Its not like this is a new tactic that both parties use to torpedo nominations. Plan ahead, take action, collect underpants, win.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to WilliamPitt (Original post)

Wed Nov 28, 2012, 05:56 PM

51. There seems to be

 

a concerted effort, to tarpaedo this woman. This shouldn't disqualify her at all. If it did, then probably everybody in the U.S. Government should be disqualified. I'm ready to take on Susan Collins now.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to WilliamPitt (Original post)

Wed Nov 28, 2012, 05:56 PM

52. DO NOT WANT

We just rejected this shit earlier this month.


OBAMA - get a clue.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to WilliamPitt (Original post)

Wed Nov 28, 2012, 06:11 PM

59. yep - most politicians are in the 1%. This is what the 1% does/owns. Our system is the problem.

The media as well. There is a huge gulf between those who make and report the news.....and the vast majority of the rest of us. I assume if we knew all of the existing conflicts of interest....well..

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to WilliamPitt (Original post)

Wed Nov 28, 2012, 06:12 PM

62. well, well, well, I didn't like Rice before, and now she goes directly to my shit list

 

Please don't nominate this friend and advocate of oil polluters and environmental destroyers. I hope she has enough grace to step aside on her own.

If Obama does still nominate her, then that will give an important clue about the direction of his second term. And it won't be a good one.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to WilliamPitt (Original post)

Wed Nov 28, 2012, 06:13 PM

63. I don't believe the Secretary of State would have approval over a pipeline...

Commerce? Interior?

There may be some ancillary issues involving the State Department, but I don't think the Secretary of State is the person who is going to green-light the operation.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Jeff In Milwaukee (Reply #63)

Wed Nov 28, 2012, 06:15 PM

64. See post #48

It crosses a border, so State is involved.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to WilliamPitt (Reply #64)

Wed Nov 28, 2012, 06:23 PM

66. I'll be dipped...

It's the result of a Bush-era Executive Order that gives the Secretary of State the authority to approve or disapprove a permit. And I know what you're thinking -- the E.O. predates Condi Rice's tenure as SoS by nearly a year. This came out then Powell was still in charge.

Curious as hell...

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to WilliamPitt (Original post)

Wed Nov 28, 2012, 06:27 PM

68. aaahhhrrgg

not good.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to WilliamPitt (Original post)

Wed Nov 28, 2012, 06:30 PM

69. Let's get this straight

It was okay for a potential president, Romney, to not disclose his taxes and investments but for SoS the bar is different?

Get a grip!

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to SCVDem (Reply #69)

Wed Nov 28, 2012, 06:43 PM

74. same bar for Mitt and Rice

And everyone else. Personal finance disclosure.

Rice's is in the OP, here's Mitt's

http://www.opensecrets.org/pfds/CIDsummary.php?CID=N00000286&year=2011

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to WilliamPitt (Original post)

Wed Nov 28, 2012, 06:33 PM

70. This is

Why, the Democrats are considered a spineless group. Instead of waiting to find out how this will impact her nomination, if she is nominated, we gather round and wring our hands and decry, Oh my she is tainted by a stock holding and we should throw her under the bus. It makes me ashamed sometimes that the thinking of our party is so thin skinned. Let us go back in time and find out all of the holdings of ALL our elected officials, in both parties to see if their votes have been biased towards their holdings. They are all millionaires , and as such, probably have massive stock holdings in diversified portfolios, should they be held up to a similar standard ?

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to WilliamPitt (Original post)

Wed Nov 28, 2012, 06:34 PM

71. President Obama: I am the Pipeline Decider

"Obama Asserts He’s The Decider on Keystone XL Pipeline, Cites Risk to Drinking Water, Public Health"---ProSense, Nov-02-11

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_all&address=433x809952

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to WilliamPitt (Original post)

Wed Nov 28, 2012, 06:55 PM

76. OMG OMG OMG OMG OMG

We should have voted for Mitt.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to WilliamPitt (Original post)

Wed Nov 28, 2012, 07:04 PM

77. I suppose if she were up for Dept of Energy, or the Interior, I'd be more concerned...

...but she's up for State. Not sure how the Keystone Pipeline plays into that.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Cooley Hurd (Reply #77)

Wed Nov 28, 2012, 07:07 PM

80. Statement by the President on Keystone XL

Earlier today, I received the Secretary of State’s recommendation on the pending application for the construction of the Keystone XL Pipeline. As the State Department made clear last month, the rushed and arbitrary deadline insisted on by Congressional Republicans prevented a full assessment of the pipeline’s impact, especially the health and safety of the American people, as well as our environment. As a result, the Secretary of State has recommended that the application be denied. And after reviewing the State Department’s report, I agree.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Enrique (Reply #80)

Wed Nov 28, 2012, 07:14 PM

83. Thanks for the info

...but do you have a link?

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink



Response to Enrique (Reply #85)

Wed Nov 28, 2012, 07:35 PM

88. Thanks Enrique!



I've seen this press release before, but attributed its existence to the (at-the-time) pending presidential election.

That was HRC at the time of the press release. Any clear indication that a Secretary Rice would follow suit?

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Cooley Hurd (Reply #88)

Wed Nov 28, 2012, 07:42 PM

91. I don't know what she would do

but her investments definitely are relevant to the position she's being considered for.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Enrique (Reply #91)

Wed Nov 28, 2012, 07:45 PM

93. I have to agree...

My natural, defensive stance is to defend her given the heat Republican have placed on her.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to WilliamPitt (Original post)

Wed Nov 28, 2012, 07:04 PM

78. I have supported her, but in my opinion, this should

disqualify her. If her investments were more diverse, then it would not bother me if a few of them were in companies involved in oil and gas. But this sounds ridiculous. Too much money in oil and gas.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to WilliamPitt (Original post)

Wed Nov 28, 2012, 07:05 PM

79. This just confirms what I've believed all along...........

 

They are all in on it the only diffedrence is the Left gives us a reach around every once in awhile just to make us feel good about being fucked in the ass! Sorry but her nomination needs to be withdrawn! We must not allow this shit to happen on the left because it gives us no moral high ground in the future.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to jeggus (Reply #79)

Thu Nov 29, 2012, 03:54 PM

138. there's nothing wrong with wringing our hands

after all halliburton was cheney's baby and he did a lot to help his favored corporation, especially with that secret energy meeting.

president carter was a visionary when it came to controlling our oil habit. some cannot possibly realize how much damage has been done in this country because of little boot's, especially cheney's policies to aid any and all multi-national oil and gas corporations. let's look at the real "newspeak", clean air act means that the oil and gas industries are exempt; clean water act also means that the same industries are exempt. and with fracking, the mass quantity of water that's used and the contamination of drinking water by these corporations is heinous. but, hey, their profit is worth more than our family's lives.

since the rules have been changed under little boots, she would have a say about the pipeline. those who think she'd recuse herself, did scalia and thomas recuse themselves from the supreme court decision between little boots and gore?

i want someone in the position who will be more interested in the well being of american citizens not their portfolio.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to WilliamPitt (Original post)

Wed Nov 28, 2012, 07:09 PM

81. No way should she be considered now. Just let her leave

 

government altogether with this revelation, if it is true.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to WilliamPitt (Original post)

Wed Nov 28, 2012, 07:11 PM

82. RATS! Thanks, WRP. n/t

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to WilliamPitt (Original post)

Wed Nov 28, 2012, 07:19 PM

84. geesh!!!????

man isn't someone out there going to come up clean. Politicians are always so fucking dirty. This is not a nice world. Looks like it's true, very disappointing. Money. Money. Money. What a curse on humankind.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to WilliamPitt (Original post)

Wed Nov 28, 2012, 07:26 PM

86. Give it to my man, John Kerry.

He is far more qualified than Susan Rice anyway.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to JanetLovesObama (Reply #86)

Wed Nov 28, 2012, 10:33 PM

116. Kerry is my first choice

And I think it is stupid to deny him the spot because we are scared about winning a Senate race in one of the most Democratic states in the country.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to democrattotheend (Reply #116)

Thu Nov 29, 2012, 01:25 AM

124. Mass is politically twitchier than that

And I (and I'm no one) don't trust their electorate to vote Dem all the way anymore. I say get someone with experience and who is clean and loyal to the party.

I mentioned Martin Indyk in another post - he's getting up there, but he'll do well, I think.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to WilliamPitt (Original post)

Wed Nov 28, 2012, 07:42 PM

92. Goddammit. I hate it when this happens.

Republicans aren't stupid. They've put her out there as the defacto Sec of State candidate when the administration hasn't even nominated her. It put the administration in the position of defending themselves on that basis.

Republicans created the strawman and now if she isn't nominated, they'll consider it a victory, and if she is nominated they'll be vindicated.

There are better candidates.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to WilliamPitt (Original post)

Wed Nov 28, 2012, 08:36 PM

94. shit.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to WilliamPitt (Original post)

Wed Nov 28, 2012, 08:41 PM

95. Not. Gud. n/t

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to WilliamPitt (Original post)

Wed Nov 28, 2012, 08:46 PM

96. Between that and the auction of 20 mil. acres of Gulf oil drilling rights

The Obama admin. is looking less and less a friend of the environment.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to WilliamPitt (Original post)

Wed Nov 28, 2012, 08:50 PM

97. Pile on time! Does anyone else have any negative Rice stories

to share?

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink



Response to quinnox (Reply #98)

Wed Nov 28, 2012, 09:01 PM

99. Great! Let's keep the attacks going! Bipartisanship is fun!

Let's make sure Scott Brown gets back in the senate, while we're at it.

It's fun to single out Rice for criticism over her investments and for the opinions she held 10 years ago (which happened to mirror the opinions of Clinton, Kerry, Edwards, and more!).

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to fried eggs (Reply #99)

Wed Nov 28, 2012, 09:09 PM

100. well, personally I'm not a fan of war hawks and people with heavy investments in oil polluters

 

but that is just me. I happen to have the environment and non-military intervention in other countries as top issues, politically.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to quinnox (Reply #100)

Wed Nov 28, 2012, 09:56 PM

113. What, are you one of those "purists"?

 

Some think that we're supposed to sit down and shut up with respect to issues like this.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to fried eggs (Reply #99)

Wed Nov 28, 2012, 09:18 PM

103. So you think people shouldn't know these things?

That's interesting.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to fried eggs (Reply #99)

Thu Nov 29, 2012, 08:56 AM

128. Your devotion to small ball is duly noted, and commended

nt

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to fried eggs (Reply #97)

Wed Nov 28, 2012, 09:16 PM

102. US Embassy bombing in Kenya haunts Rice

And on Wednesday Senator Susan Collins broadened the Republican attack on Ambassador Rice to include questions about her role in ensuring the security of the US embassy in Nairobi prior to the 1998 bombing.

Noting that Ambassador Rice was serving at that time as the State Department’s top Africa official, Senator Collins suggested that Ms Rice “had to be aware of the general threat assessment and of the ambassador’s repeated requests for more security.”

Prudence Bushnell, then the US envoy to Nairobi, said following the attack that killed 212 Kenyans and 12 Americans that she had warned the State Department of the embassy’s vulnerability to bombs and had urged improvements in the building’s defences.

Recounting her meeting with Ambassador Rice on Wednesday, Senator Collins told reporters: “"I asked Ambassador Rice what her role was. She said that she would have to refresh her memory but that she was not involved directly in turning down the request. But surely, given her position as assistant secretary for African affairs, she had to have been aware."

http://www.nation.co.ke/News/US-Embassy-bombing-in-Kenya-haunts-Rice/-/1056/1632558/-/yhfob1z/-/index.html

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to WilliamPitt (Original post)

Wed Nov 28, 2012, 09:12 PM

101. Pick someone else.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to WilliamPitt (Original post)

Wed Nov 28, 2012, 09:44 PM

105. Wow.

 

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to WilliamPitt (Original post)

Thu Nov 29, 2012, 01:03 AM

122. So, now THIS is a *real* reason to oppose her (potential) nomination for SOS?

Really??????

ZOMG!!!! She's owns stock in a company whose projects we don't like (and weren't even approved BTW) and it's supposed to be THE WORST THING EVER??????



Why do we need Republicans to take us down when we take ourselves down all the time?

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Proud Liberal Dem (Reply #122)

Thu Nov 29, 2012, 01:37 AM

125. Because I like to think that we have more integrity than Republicans

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to AldoLeopold (Reply #125)

Thu Nov 29, 2012, 08:18 AM

127. So, Democrats can't own stock?



If she were nominated, there are ways to eliminate any conflict of interest. I believe that Clinton had to handle some things before she took the post too but there was no hue and cry over THAT.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Proud Liberal Dem (Reply #127)

Thu Nov 29, 2012, 04:04 PM

139. I see your point

But did Clinton handle it before the hue and cry or after? I think she was handling her husband's conflicts anyway in that, right?

To me this isn't about integrity, really, and I've given the wrong impression. It's about wisdom and planning.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to WilliamPitt (Original post)

Thu Nov 29, 2012, 01:15 AM

123. YO William a probloem with this story

folks are picking on Rice but not Kerry, both have been mentioned for SOS, both invested in the tar sands, are they hypocrites?

http://www.democraticunderground.com/10021899141

Boehner has money in the tar sands.........

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to WilliamPitt (Original post)

Thu Nov 29, 2012, 01:43 AM

126. What about Gary Locke as nominee instead?

He was just made ambassador to China, and prior to that SOC, but things change. I'm just brainstorming here.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to WilliamPitt (Original post)

Thu Nov 29, 2012, 10:02 AM

130. if the republicans are against it --must we be for it?????

not thrilled with a lot of what obama does or does not do

might just end up adding this to the list

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to dembotoz (Reply #130)


Response to WilliamPitt (Original post)

Thu Nov 29, 2012, 10:56 AM

131. What a great stock tip!

I had no idea so many lawmakers and their appointed minions were invested in the Tar Sands project. If those in power are invested in it, one can be fairly certain of the project's future profitability, right? But of course any astute investor would already know the pipeline has already quietly begun.

I hope you don't mind Will, if I take a dump in your thread. Everyone should see just how attractive this investment is!






Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink

Reply to this thread