If Valarie Jarrett Was A GOP Female Would This Be Embarrassing Or Proof of Stupidity?

[Kathianne]

http://www.cnn.com/2011/POLITICS/02/05/army.general/index.html


Obama adviser mistakes 4-star general for waiter

(CNN) -- Four-star Army Gen. Peter Chiarelli -- the No. 2 general in the U.S. Army -- says he is absolutely not offended that Obama adviser Valerie Jarrett mistook him for a waiter at a fancy Washington dinner this week and asked him for a glass of wine.

It could have happened to anybody, Chiarelli tells CNN.

... She apologized and will come to the house for dinner if a date can be worked out in March," Chiarelli wrote in an e-mail.

...

"As a 'laugh' I poured her a glass of wine -- it was only good fun. Yes, it was an honest mistake and anyone who says otherwise is trying to make it something it was not," Chiarelli said.

Sometime, embarrassing stuff happens. Even in Washington, folks.

[avatar4321]

If Valerie Jarret were Republican she would be considered stupid whether or not it was true despite this event.

[country]

If Valerie Jarret were Republican she would be considered stupid whether or not it was true despite this event.

Good point. Let us just suppose Palin made a similar gaff. Would the liberals be as understanding? I doubt it
Got to hand it to the general though. Either he is a class act, or looking out for his pension.

[Psychoblues]

She would be equally as mortified and apologetic as she is/was as a Democrat, Kath.

Psychoblues

[Kathianne]

She would be equally as mortified and apologetic as she is/was as a Democrat, Kath.

Psychoblues

And the media wouldn't take that at face value, Dav

[Noir]

Who cares if an advisor made a gaffe?

Now if it was someone like Obama, or Palin etc, then it's got a bit more punch to it, but just an advisor? >,>

[Psychoblues]

And the media wouldn't take that at face value, Dav That's an assumption not easily proven, Kath.

Psychoblues

[fj1200]

That's an assumption not easily proven, Kath.

Psychoblues

But easily believable. Come on now you've got to admit that much.

[Psychoblues]

But easily believable. Come on now you've got to admit that much.

Well, I believe that Valerie Jarrett would be equally as mortified and embarrassed no matter her political affiliation or media attention.

Psychoblues

[fj1200]

Well, I believe that Valerie Jarrett would be equally as mortified and embarrassed no matter her political affiliation or media attention.

Psychoblues

Way to answer a question that wasn't asked.

[Psychoblues]

Way to answer a question that wasn't asked.

I think it was asked, fj.

Psychoblues

[Kathianne]

Who cares if an advisor made a gaffe?

Now if it was someone like Obama, or Palin etc, then it's got a bit more punch to it, but just an advisor? >,>

Palin holds no office. As for Valerie Jarret, you just aren't up on your Chicago politicos. Whoops, now gone national.

[fj1200]

I think it was asked, fj.

:shakeshead:

[Noir]

Palin holds no office. As for Valerie Jarret, you just aren't up on your Chicago politicos. Whoops, now gone national.

During her time in Chicago, or now national has she advised national security or counter terrorism etc? Or does she advise for other departments?

As for plain, even if she isn't in office, if she wants to run for pres she'd have to be in the loop as to who the key players are, especially in defence/counter terrorism.

[Psychoblues]

During her time in Chicago, or now national has she advised national security or counter terrorism etc? Or does she advise for other departments?

As for plain, even if she isn't in office, if she wants to run for pres she'd have to be in the loop as to who the key players are, especially in defence/counter terrorism.

Your concern defies your youth and "foreignness", Noir. And you are correct. Although Ms. Jarrett now hods a relatively high profile gig close to the president she is not the most privy in the big time political or military sense nor should she be in her position. She made a mistake often made by even other service-members wives at formal functions. I find no fault with her. I do find fault with those that would stoop to this level to make it somehow a political incident. Shame on them.

Psychoblues

[Kathianne]

How close is Jarrett to Obama?

http://politicalticker.blogs.cnn.com/2008/11/09/source-obama-wants-valerie-jarrett-to-replace-him-in-senate/


Source: Obama wants Valerie Jarrett to replace him in Senate
By: CNN Chief National Correspondent John King
Valerie Jarrett is one of Barack Obama's closest advisers.


(Update: Two Democratic sources told CNN Monday that Obama wants Jarrett to serve in the White House, not the Senate.)

(CNN) - A prominent Democratic source close to Barack Obama confirmed Sunday that Valerie Jarrett is Obama’s choice to replace him in the Senate.

Jarrett is a Chicago lawyer and one of Obama’s closest advisers. She is also one of the leaders of Obama’s transition team.

Rep. Rahm Emanuel, the incoming chief of staff, said Sunday that he had not seen the report from Chicago’s WLS-TV that named Jarrett as Obama’s top pick, but he praised her as a “valuable ally.”

“People should know that Valerie Jarrett is - and people do know - she is a very dear friend of the president-elect and a valuable ally of his, not only prior to running for president, in his Senate life, and just personally for Michelle and Barack,” Emanuel said on ABC’s “This Week.”

The Illinois governor, Rod Blagojevich, will make the final decision on who will be Obama’s successor.


http://www.time.com/time/politics/article/0,8599,1858012,00.html

about her.

and within the week she's right there with Daley:

http://blogs.suntimes.com/sweet/2011/02/valerie_jarrett_bill_daley_oba.html


Valerie Jarrett, Bill Daley: Obama's ambassadors to business, U.S. Chamber of Commerce
By Lynn Sweet on February 7, 2011 2:22 PM | No Comments

WASHINGTON--President Obama reached out to the U.S. business community in a speech before the U.S. Chamber of Commerce on Monday, saying his administration wants to cut red tape and streamline government regulations for companies, but corporate America has obligations to start hiring again. Obama walked to the speech--a block from the White House with White House Senior Advisor Valerie Jarrett and Chief of Staff Bill Daley, the Chicagoans who are Obama's ambassadors to corporate America. Read my story about Obama's Chamber speech here.

Read the transcript of Obama's Chamber "we're all in this together" speech here.

[Trinnity]

IMO, she did it on purpose.
The far left hates the military with a passion.

Valerie Jarrett....Oh don't get me started on HER.....

Obama Advisor Valerie Jarrett (D-IL): CBS News once called Chicago politician Valerie Jarrett "the other side of Barack Obama's brain." Residents of a housing project in Chicago simply know her as "slumlord." Jarrett is the former manager of Grove Parc Plaza, a controversial low-income housing project located in Obama's former state senate district. According to the Boston Globe, the housing complex was considered "uninhabitable by unfixed problems, such as collapsed roofs and fire damage... In 2006, federal inspectors graded the condition of the complex an 11 on a 100-point scale - a score so bad the buildings now face demolition." According to documents uncovered by Judicial Watch, Jarrett is also linked to a series of other shady real estate scandals involving convicted felon and former Obama fundraiser Antoin "Tony" Rezko. Jarrett has also been caught up in the Blagojevich scandal as Obama's Candidate #1 for his senate seat. Most of Blagojevich's corrupt negotiations with the Obama team centered on the possible Jarrett appointment. She remains mum on the scandal.
http://www.judicialwatch.org/news/20...liticians-2008


Valerie Jarrett’s Grove Parc Fiasco: The Rich Got Richer
December 4th, 2009

After years of neglect and abandonment, many residents doubt that Jarrett and CHA officials have their interests at heart. ‘They was going to do what they was going to do,’ said Carmen Hart, who moved to Stateway Gardens [public housing] in 1960 and has been waiting three years to go back.” Only about one in three residents was able to return to redeveloped projects.
more at link:
http://stopjarrett.com/2009/12/valerie-jarrett%E2%80%99s-grove-parc-fiasco-the-rich-got-richer/

This club of Obama and his cronies are the most corrupt and deplorable bunch of Chicago thugs imaginable.....

[Psychoblues]

How close is Jarrett to Obama?

http://politicalticker.blogs.cnn.com/2008/11/09/source-obama-wants-valerie-jarrett-to-replace-him-in-senate/



http://www.time.com/time/politics/article/0,8599,1858012,00.html

about her.

and within the week she's right there with Daley:

http://blogs.suntimes.com/sweet/2011/02/valerie_jarrett_bill_daley_oba.html

And none of that has not one single thing to do with Ms. Jarrett's clear knowledge of Washington, the military or anything else, Kath. She immediately said she was sorry and invited the General to a place to be determined and that she would serve him a drink. She also said, and you may not believe it but I do, that she was not wearing her glasses and would not have made that mistake if she were.

Valerie Jarrett in no way hates the military. Blanket statements about lefties hating the military are ludicrous at best. Much ado about nothing. Insofar as the accusations concerning her being a "slumlord" I find no evidence of that. It is talked a lot about on rightwing websites but no links to anything official to back it up. I remember Ms. Jarrett at one time saying that she did own properties that were scheduled for demolition and it was her understanding there may be some homeless people staying in some of them. You just have to be very careful how you word things like that. Although she may not mind the homeless finding some shelter there, she does not desire to assume responsibilities as in financial, legal and even in faux moral outrage by those with a more political than any actual moral consideration by recognizing their inhabitance that they are NOT paying for,

Psychoblues

[Kathianne]

And none of that has not one single thing to do with Ms. Jarrett's clear knowledge of Washington, the military or anything else, Kath. She immediately said she was sorry and invited the General to a place to be determined and that she would serve him a drink. She also said, and you may not believe it but I do, that she was not wearing her glasses and would not have made that mistake if she were.

Valerie Jarrett in no way hates the military. Blanket statements about lefties hating the military are ludicrous at best. Much ado about nothing. Insofar as the accusations concerning her being a "slumlord" I find no evidence of that. It is talked a lot about on rightwing websites but no links to anything official to back it up. I remember Ms. Jarrett at one time saying that she did own properties that were scheduled for demolition and it was her understanding there may be some homeless people staying in some of them. You just have to be very careful how you word things like that. Although she may not mind the homeless finding some shelter there, she does not desire to assume responsibilities as in financial, legal and even in faux moral outrage by those with a more political than any actual moral consideration by recognizing their inhabitance that they are NOT paying for,

Psychoblues

As evidenced by this encounter, Jarrett brings home the degree to which the left holds the military. They hate them. They think they are too stupid for any other careers, which Kerry made clear before Jarrett. PB, they hate you and your ilk, probably more than those that disagree with them after serving. You prove their points.

[Psychoblues]

As evidenced by this encounter, Jarrett brings home the degree to which the left holds the military. They hate them. They think they are too stupid for any other careers, which Kerry made clear before Jarrett. PB, they hate you and your ilk, probably more than those that disagree with them after serving. You prove their points.

Spewing from your mouth like spitting betwwen your teeth doesn't make it true, Kath. Every liberal I know, and I know plenty, loves and respects our troops and military and we refuse to wear your imagined moniker or unjustified opinions of us. Do you have a clue why John Kerry protested the Viet Nam war? Do you think it was because he hated his brothers in arms? If so, you are a fool and being led by those that actually do hold our military in great disdain and have projection issues.

Psychoblues

[82Marine89]

Spewing from your mouth like spitting betwwen your teeth doesn't make it true, Kath. Every liberal I know, and I know plenty, loves and respects our troops and military and we refuse to wear your imagined moniker or unjustified opinions of us. Do you have a clue why John Kerry protested the Viet Nam war? Do you think it was because he hated his brothers in arms? If so, you are a fool and being led by those that actually do hold our military in great disdain and have projection issues.

Psychoblues

Name one Conservative person or group that hates the military.

On the liberal side I will start with Code Pink for a group and for the person I will pick the proprietor of the Hamster Habitat, Richard Gere.

[Psychoblues]

Name one Conservative person or group that hates the military.

On the liberal side I will start with Code Pink for a group and for the person I will pick the proprietor of the Hamster Habitat, Richard Gere.

Code Pink openly protests war and American aggression. They are not anti-military. Richard Gere is a practicing Buddhist and I find his anti-war theories fascinating and welcome but I find no evidence whatsoever that he hates our military or anything at all.

Ron Paul, although a confessed Libertarian that caucuses and normally votes with the Republicans is anti-war, not anti-military. Here is a good interview with Ron Paul on this very subject:

So welcome back to the show, Dr. Paul.

Paul: Thank you, Scott. Good to be with you.

Horton: You have the most consistent antiwar record of any congressman from either party. If one goes back and reads your speeches from years and years ago, they are just the same as the ones today – taking the strict antiwar position. This is obviously due to the fact that you have some very strong principles about such things.

So, Dr. Paul, what are your first principles of American foreign policy?

Paul: Well, first, I think it is in our best interests to mind our own business, provide for a strong national defense, and stay out of the affairs of other nations. I don't believe in internationalism of the sort where we go to war under the United Nations. Those are my personal beliefs.

At the same time, the most important promise I make is to uphold the Constitution. If we read the Constitution carefully, we find there is no authority to do those things . So I personally abhor getting involved when we don't need to and getting into wars that are unnecessary. At the same time, we are told that we are not allowed [to interfere] unless there is an explicit declaration of war. Since World War II, we have totally ignored those guidelines.

Horton: Now I think the mainstream policy establishment would probably say that makes you an "isolationist" then – is that right?

Paul: They use that term all the time, and they do that to be very negative. There are a few people in the country who say, "Well, that's good. I sort of like that term."

I don't particularly like the term because I do not think I am an isolationist at all. Because along with the advice of not getting involved in entangling alliances and into the internal affairs of other countries, the Founders said – and it's permissible under the Constitution – to be friends with people, trade with people, communicate with them, and get along with them – but stay out of the military alliances.

The irony is they accuse us, who would like to be less interventionist and keep our troops at home, of being isolationist. Yet if you look at the results of the policy of the last six years, we find that we are more isolated than ever before.

So I claim the policy of those who charge us with being isolationists is really diplomatic isolationism. They are not willing to talk to Syria. They are not willing to talk to Iran. They are not willing to trade with people that might have questionable people in charge. We have literally isolated ourselves. We have less friends and more enemies than ever before. So in a way, it's one of the unintended consequences of their charges. They are the true isolationists, I believe........................................... .................................................. .................................................. .............................

Much More: http://www.antiwar.com/horton/?articleid=10798

And here is a great article that insists REAL CONSERVATIVES ARE ANTI-WAR. I'll give you a piece of it but you have to go out on your own for the rest of it. Deal? And this comes from the highly respected American Conservative rag. Lot's more where that came from. You just have to go looking.

Q. In 2008, you wrote in the American Conservative that within President Obama’s promised withdrawal from Iraq “lies some modest prospect of a conservative revival.” How would you describe the state of affairs — specifically as it relates to foreign and defense policy formulation in the conservative movement — today? Are new ideas and leaders emerging?

Let me distinguish here between authentic conservatism and the faux version represented by the Republican Party. When it comes to foreign and defense policy, authentic conservatives are wary of utopian schemes, sensitive to the need to husband power, and have an aversion to war. That tends to make them anti-interventionists and to favor the use of force only as a last resort. This viewpoint has its advocates, but it enjoys almost no influence in Washington. Speaking as someone who plants himself in that camp, I see little likelihood of change in that regard. Afghanistan presented the president with an opportunity to open things up for a real debate. His decision to escalate the war there foreclosed that opportunity.

As for the faux conservatives — not only the Republican Party, but organs like the Weekly Standard and National Review, along with institutions such as AEI — they have succumbed to militarism and refuse to confront the consequences and implications of the disastrous policies they have promoted. They occupy an intellectual dead zone.

More: http://www.amconmag.com/blog/2010/05/05/real-conservatives-are-antiwar/

[I]Psychoblues