Posts
By Smitty (thanks: Dan Collins)
The Vatican has quietly rejected at least three of President Obama's candidates to serve as U.S. ambassador to the Holy See because they support abortion, and the White House might be running out of time to find an acceptable envoy before Mr. Obama travels to Rome in July, when he hopes to meet Pope Benedict XVI.
Yeah, smart diplomacy: yeah.
UPDATE: 'Lanched!
UPDATE II (RSM): Also linked by Tigerhawk, Little Miss Attila, No Sheeples Here. and Please Hit The Tip Jar. (OK, "Please Hit The Tip Jar" is not the name of a blog, but perhaps it should be.)
ABC hack Donna Brazile writes in left wing The Hill that “Biden is one of
our greatest presidents — smears won’t tarnish his legacy”
-
Joe Biden will leave office as possibly the lowest rated president in
American history. Lower than Jimmy Carter, lower than
The post ABC hack Donna Brazi...
1 hour ago
Let's hope the Pope locks tha front door when the Oduhma shows up.
ReplyDeleteI'm absolutely sure Ray Flynn is available.
ReplyDeleteYou know, I do understand that the slavish, bootlicking Andrew Sullivan is available for a long term engagement overseas.
ReplyDeleteOh, wait.....
Are you all still being cry babies because your man lost?
ReplyDeleteThat is why this is a wonderful country. Some of us spent 8 years sulking because Bush was in the White House and now it is your turn. Of course you COULD grow up and support the president but I see that isn't happening any time soon. Sour grapes are just too powerful.
The Pope was a member of the Nazi Youth. He should make a public declaration in this Papal Robes that he renounces his involvement in the Nazi Youth.
ReplyDeleteIt's ignorant people like you that gives ignorant people a bad name.
ReplyDelete"Oduhma"...so cute. idiot.
This may sound stupid, but I don't see why Obama should be expected to appoint a pro-life ambassador to the Vatican.
ReplyDeleteIs there any other country and issue for which the sending country is expected to select an ambassador who agrees with the views of the receiving country on that issue? The U.S. ambassador to another country is supposed to represent the views of the U.S. government, and the current U.S. administration is very much in favor of abortion rights. I wish it weren't that way, but it is.
Once could be accidental, twice is intentional, three times is an intentional insult. Wonder what the fourth will be?
ReplyDeleteOh I get it. Jews don't like cheese.
ReplyDeleteActually I don't know why the Vatican or any country can demand an ambassador that holds their own values.
ReplyDeleteWasn't the reason we liked Bolton so much was that he did NOT have the U.N.'s values? rather he had American values?
Ambassadors represent the country that they are from. They don't need to also represent the country they are sent to, in fact that is probably one of the problems of the State Department - their ambassadors seem to keep "going native" and stop trying to promote US interests but instead run around apologizing for the evil US, esp. when Republicans are President.
Now certainly it is smart to pick someone that can talk and relate to the group the ambassador is sent to, but when that group starts holding the process hostage it's time to say "enough is enough" and stick to your guns "You're getting an American who will promote American interests"
Actually I don't know why the Vatican or any country can demand an ambassador that holds their own values.
ReplyDeleteWasn't the reason we liked Bolton so much was that he did NOT have the U.N.'s values? rather he had American values? Doesn't the same principle apply here, no matter how we feel about the Vatican?
Ambassadors represent the country that they are from. They don't need to also represent the country they are sent to, in fact that is probably one of the problems of the State Department - their ambassadors seem to keep "going native" and stop trying to promote US interests but instead run around apologizing for the evil US, esp. when Republicans are President.
Now certainly it is smart to pick someone that can talk and relate to the group the ambassador is sent to, but when that group starts holding the process hostage it's time to say "enough is enough" and stick to your guns "You're getting an American who will promote American interests"
Andrew,
ReplyDeleteYour uneducated remark is as impressive as your spelling.
A clever headline, to be sure, but it somewhat obscures what is going on. Cathoic condemnation of abortion is not a ritual matter, like having two sets of dishes, nor a doctrinal matter, like the nature of the Holy Spirit. Abortion is objectively evil, whether committed by a Catholic, a Jew, a Muslim or an Atheist.
ReplyDelete"Some of us spent 8 years sulking because Bush was in the White House and now it is your turn. "Of course you COULD grow up and support the president..."
ReplyDeleteSo, do as you say, not as you did? And you're telling the coservatives to grow up, after you admit to sulking like a child who didn't get his way. The cognitive dissonance in this comment is - well, typical for the left, actually.
As to the post itself, IIRC, any country can refuse to accept any othr country's ambassador, for any reason whatever. Anybody out there got confirmation/refutation of this?
Anonymous said...
ReplyDeleteAndrew,
Your uneducated remark is as impressive as your spelling.
Thu Apr 09, 10:49:00 AM
Anonymous said...
"Oduhma"...so cute. idiot.
Hope these two aren't the same "anonymous". ROFL!
Anon, WE COULD GROW UP?! All that you did was sulk?! That is soooo rich! Listen, I come from a family of "sulkers" and believe me, some did not just "sulk"! Just the mention of the name GEORGE W. BUSH sent these people into a stratosphere unseen by man. At least be intellectually honest about how you on the left were the eight years of the Bush presdency. As far as a nation accepting ambassadors, any nation has a right to reject any ambassador that another nation wants to send. The Vatican is well within its right to reject.
ReplyDeleteLOL And here's a framed artist's conjecture portrait of Mohammed for the Saudi King...
ReplyDeleteI'm with Joshua here. I didn't vote for Obama and I support very few of his policies. Yet I think it's actually the Vatican who's making the gaffe here.
ReplyDeleteShould we have only nominated Communist sympathizers for ambassadors to the U.S.S.R during the cold war?
Should we only nominate Maoists (who are secret kleptocrats) for our ambassador to China?
Should we only nominate Muslims for our ambassador to Islamic countries in the Middle East?
As a matter of Diplomatic and Consular law (eg Vienna Convention on Consular Relations - 1963), the host country/state has the right to accept or not the credentials of any and all diplomatic and consular personnel that are presented. This is usually done since these are technical relations done by mutual consent.
ReplyDeleteStrikes me that in an effort to prevent a public rejection of the selection, this is being handled through channels, as is quite normal with diplomatic posts. The Brits aren't happy, btw, with Obama's selection for ambassador to the UK and often careerists at State are alienated at being passed over for prestige posts (like London)that go to political donors rather than professionals.
All ambassadors are subject to the receiving country's review and may be rejected for any reason, or no reason at all.
ReplyDeleteAllow me to snark that maybe The One should appoint the president of the University of Notre DOH! as ambassador.
"Allow me to snark that maybe The One should appoint the president of the University of Notre DOH! as ambassador." Hee hee. But no can do. Rules promulgated by the Vatican prohibit clergy from political positions and they either have to leave the position or clergy. For instance, Fr. Robert Drinan was a US Rep from the publics republic of Mass was had to stand down in 1981 from the office. Besides that, as clergy, Fr. Jenkins would have a conflict of interest. :)
ReplyDeleteAre some actually comparing the function of an ambassador to the UN (or a major ally or rival, for that matter)to the function of an ambassador to a city-state seat of a major religion? Do you not understand the difference by choice or by simple ignorance?
ReplyDeleteIs Obama such a rigid idealogue that he cannot name an ambassador who is pro-life to the Vatican for Chr*st's sake (npi)? Or is he not paying enough attention to that little detail when vetting... Not sure which is worse.
Any president hoping to bridge the issues that divide Americans would NOT send an ambassador to the Vatican with strong views either way on the abortion issue. So would you send a Jew as ambassador to Saudi Arabia? Damn leftist idiots!
ReplyDeleteAre you all still being cry babies because your man lost?
ReplyDeleteNo, actually we're noting smugly that he clearly is the clueless empty-suit amateur we said he was during the campaign.
Actually I don't know why the Vatican or any country can demand an ambassador that holds their own values.
ReplyDeleteDo you think going through life ignorant is a good thing?
Oh I get it. Jews don't like cheese.
ReplyDeleteSchmuck.
The point of all this is that if you are really practicing "Smart Diplomacy" then you would keep the views of the host country in mind when appointing an ambassador. Certainly the administration is not obligated to send an ambassador that is anti-abortion. However, if you were smart, you would do so thus ensuring that you have good relations with that country and that you have the ambassador in place in time to lay the groundwork for your upcoming visit. It is analogous to not appointing an anti-Semite to be the ambassador to Israel and should not be hard to do. After all, our new leader was willing to prostrate himself before the Saudi King. Compared to that, what is finding an anti-abortion Catholic to represent the US? Even in the Democrat party there are a few of them. And Clinton was pro-choice and managed to do this without fumbling. Surely The One can do so as well.
ReplyDeleteNote that the Vatican has handled this well. They have made the rejections quiet when they could have made a spectacle.
Funny how the Vatican never had a problem with torture. Maybe Obama should just call his policies "aggressive interogation" by a woman and her doctor.
ReplyDeleteHam sandwich beats a good old fashon shower gassing.
ReplyDeleteLet's get real people. A country has the right to accept any ambassador they wish. If the Vatican want's to make an issue about abortion, they can do that. If Obama want's to make a fool of himself by pushing the issue that's fine.
ReplyDeleteWhat this shows is the Obama Administration is so sure of the righteousness of their beliefs that they are willing to look the fool in front of the world. It's just as arrogant as the Bush Administration's policy of preemptive strike.
The problem in America today is not the person or even the party, but the imperial presidency is the problem. That and the grasping petty special interests who are willing to sell us all out to get their piece of the pie.
Eric said...
ReplyDeleteI'm with Joshua here. I didn't vote for Obama and I support very few of his policies. Yet I think it's actually the Vatican who's making the gaffe here.
Should we have only nominated Communist sympathizers for ambassadors to the U.S.S.R during the cold war?
Should we only nominate Maoists (who are secret kleptocrats) for our ambassador to China?
Should we only nominate Muslims for our ambassador to Islamic countries in the Middle East?
===========================
Uh, God is in control if and when He wants to be. He gives us free will and look at the mess we make of it. God has the true power, not Obama or any global world order or any fundamentalist from any side or any country. Wake up and smell the realllllll power and glory.....Pro life + pro the realllllll God will wake us up if we cannot do it on our own as free individuals. God can let evil take us over or crown thy good with brotherhood from sea to shining sea. It is His choice, not ours that makes the final decision. It is our choice on whether or not we want to believe. The Vatican has human error as well as anyone but they are closer to God than the right or the left wing or any fundamentalist from any country or any so called religion. I'd be respectful of God and even the Vatican if I were either side or anyone for that matter.
Anon 3:53 said...Funny how the Vatican never had a problem with torture. Maybe Obama should just call his policies "aggressive interogation" by a woman and her doctor.'
ReplyDeleteActually, the Vatican has often objected to 'torture' by the US. Its this kind of comment that makes Liberals look so stupid. But then facts never have gotten in the way of most Liberals.
@anonymous:
ReplyDeleteI thought the 'gas' joke was anything but a gas. While not favoring censorship, you are encouraged to consider the meaning of 'tasteful' in the future.
Anonymous on Thu Apr 09, 09:05:00 AM wrote, Some of us spent 8 years sulking because Bush was in the White House and now it is your turn. Of course you COULD grow up and support the president but I see that isn't happening any time soon.
ReplyDeleteYou and your side could've "grown up", too, but they didn't. Why do you expect us to take your hypocritical advice?
Shorter rephrasing of the quoted post: "They aren't supporting us totally. They're mean and childish. WAAAAAAAAH!"
Jim C.
demento.fan -at- gmail dot com
"The Pope was a member of the Nazi Youth."
ReplyDeleteSo liberals are still repeating this slander? Figures. There is no lie so scurrilous that the left will not repeat it forever.
Ratzinger was a little kid at the time, an anti-Nazi, and the son of a fervent anti-Nazi. Nazi law required all children to join. The Ratzingers resisted and stalled as long as possible, then he went to only a few meetings and stopped going as soon as he felt he could get away with it.
Sheesh, what a lying POS.
-------Should we have only nominated Communist sympathizers for ambassadors to the U.S.S.R during the cold war?
ReplyDeleteShould we only nominate Maoists (who are secret kleptocrats) for our ambassador to China?-----
So Obamma's goal is to overthrow the Vatican as our goal was to defeat Communism during the Cold War?
Thanks for the clarity of your goals.