On Fox News’ totally fair and balanced panel of five conservatives and no liberals, there was only one person, Meghan McCain, who didn’t seem thrilled to pieces with Donald Trump's choice of Rex Tillerson to be secretary of state. The rest of the group spent most of the time trying to argue down her concerns.
It’s not as though McCain was adamantly against Tillerson, she merely said she had questions about his lack of diplomatic experience and his ties to Russia’s Vladimir Putin “in a way that I think could possibly make some people uncomfortable.”
But the Fox panel seemed far more disturbed by Meghan McCain’s mildly-expressed concerns than any questions about Tillerson's ties to Russia at a time when red flags have been raised about Russia's interference in our election. Or his business deals in Iraq.
MELISSA FRANCIS: I don’t think [Tillerson and Putin] have a close personal relationship. I don’t think they’re friends. … Despots and evil dictators gather around oil. It’s a precious resource. Rex Tillerson is someone who’s had to go around the world, in a hundred countries, and butt heads with bad guys everywhere and he can’t get hosed by them or he gets fired. He has to come out on top … We don’t have to assume they’re friends.
After McCain pointed out that Tillerson received a “Friendship award” from the Kremlin, Harris Faulkner felt the need to correct the record. She said the Order of Friendship award was for “an actual commercial deal.” She added, pointedly, “So we do want to be specific about that, because that is a fact. All feelings aside, ‘cause facts don’t care about feelings.”
Too bad she wasn’t so interested in facts later in the show, when she tossed them aside to argue that Americans don’t care about Trump’s conflicts of interest.
Faulkner also suggested that being close to Russia is in our national interest.
FAULKNER: Look at the world and Russia’s role in not just Syria but with Iran. Not just with Iran but with Cuba … Things that we are also triangulated with him on.
Sandra Smith did her part for their glorious Trump.
SMITH: You’ve often shared your feelings on Newt Gingrich. Newt Gingrich has come out in support of this pick. Condoleezza Rice, former holder of the position has spoken out in favor of Rex Tillerson as well as Robert Gates.
David Webb argued that we shouldn’t worry because Tillerson will have to do Trump’s bidding – as if there’s any reason to believe Trump would be any less pro-Russia.
WEBB: Let’s look at the job … The job of a secretary of state is to carry out the president’s doctrine on behalf of the United States … (Tillerson’s) world view, the things he’s done in the past, they exist but if he doesn’t do the job of the president or what the president asks him to do, he can be fired right away.
Melissa Francis agreed. “He would be forced to execute on what Donald Trump wants him to do.”
But Faulkner may have inadvertently spilled the beans that Trump and Tillerson probably have the same world view: “Meghan, as I’m understanding it, basically, the president-elect has gone out and found somebody that he really can speak to in terms of how they do business around the world.”
Whether this crew of sycophants wants to believe it or not, that is exactly the problem.
Watch it below, from the December 13, 2016 Outnumbered.
When big oil is negotiating in third world countries, big oil gets it’s way. And this is our new Secretary of State. I betcha he’s got a hot phone number connecting him to the School of Americas. For those that don’t know the School of Americas is where they train assassins who most notoriously have worked in Central and South America.
I get daily reminders of the Trumpkin crackpots devolving America into some fantasy version of what right-wingers believe the country was like in 1789 (when the Constitution came into being), their nirvana.
This morning’s moment in conservative fantasies was NPR reporting on Trump’s right-wing Interior pick and how like the imaginary Ferengi of Star Trek fame (my analogy, not theirs) Republicans want to cash in wide swaths of public land for short-term profits.
I know, for example, the miniscule sampling of old growth forests surviving in America have been in the lumber industry’s crosshairs for years and right-wingers have been raging we need to saw them all down. So what old growth forests take like a minimum of 120-150 years to fit the definition of an old growth forest and my understanding is they’re more like 300 years old predating our nation’s founding. Republicans want to change that definition in America to the life of the pine tree you’ve seen grow up in your back yard during the 20 years you lived in your house. Hey, the trees around my house are pretty tall. So who needs real old growth forests?
I liken what the Republicans plan for our public lands to what ISIS did to any ancient historic religious archeological heritage sites that offended them. Tear ‘em down. Who cares if they’re lost for all generations moving forward. Jerking off their rigid, extreme ideology today is far more important than the needs of future generations.
Folks, methinks we’re about to witness the fall and decline of a country. Four years is ample time to reverse 200 years of progress. Being an (almost) incurable optimist, I trust that the rest of the world will simply step back and build some (figurative) walls to block the fallout.
The current situation is giving me a sense of “déjà vu”: I think it was in the book “1984” by George Orwell, where three main plitical blocks are engaged in a constantly evolving situation of enmity and amity; with each shift, the protagonist has to rewrite the history books and he ends up realising what’s going on. It doesn’t end very well, does it?