We were unable to load Disqus. If you are a moderator please see our troubleshooting guide.
Wow! She did a great interview there. Really a model for what all reporters should be doing.
Thanks for bringing this to light, Mr. Larison.
I don't suppose you'll be interviewing Pompeo any time soon Daniel. I very much appreciate your being so honest about what you see and hear.
Pompeo would either storm out or have a stroke.
Left out was the part when pompeo had one of his minions bring out a blank world map and challenged her to find the Ukraine which she immediately did - i wonder if trump could find it
Apparently, Pompeo has suggested Kelly had pointed to Bangladesh, not Ukraine, on the map, and commented "It is worth noting that Bangladesh is NOT Ukraine."
I don't suppose we are ever likely to see conclusive evidence that will establish for certain where she pointed.
It's probably just a matter of looking at their respective records of lying, cheating, and stealing, and making a guess based on that.
She has Masters degree in European Studies from Cambridge and has been a foreign affairs correspondent for 20 years. I'd put my money on her.
Having googled, I now see that she was also born in Augsburg in Germany, and worked with the BBC when she was in the UK. To be honest, Pompeo is increasingly looking like someone who is not just dishonest, but who has, as Daniel Larison suggests, major problems.
To put it bluntly, he gives the impression that he is either trying to make a fool of himself, or is deranged.
My God, can he get any worse. I suppose so since his boss always falls to a lower level. There is no bottom. Just admit that everyday brings a new low. Only thing surprising is that we get surprised at their despicable behavior.
That's the problem with Trump henchmen: they can always get worse. There is no bottom, for to have a limit below which the henchmen will not go would embarrass the Capo di Tutti Capi for blowing through it on the way down. Henchmen have bills to pay, too, you know, just like people.
As I said awhile back, lies are debts that must be repaid.
Looming over her and leering down at her? What a creep!
I’m sorry, is the “conservative” in the name of this blog some kind of parody? You all sure sound like liberal democrats. Never been here before, won’t be coming back.
Oh, and you forgot about the part where Pompeo came ready to discuss one topic, which was agreed to beforehand, and the interviewer transitioned to a new topic. And the way she did so was to ask Pompeo if he owed Marie Yanokovich an apology. Yes, riveting journalism devoid of partisan bias. Lol! But it was Pompeo. Right.
To the person who down voted me, I don’t care. Honestly I’m glad you butthurt whiners have a place to share your hurt feelings. Maybe if you’re lucky Joe Biden will be President soon and you can all rejoice that “decency” is back, or something.
Actually a lot of people downvoted you, because apparently you didn't read the post, or know anything about what happened, e.g. that Pompeo's people agreed before hand that Ukraine would be discussed.
How do you know that actually happened, because the obvious anti Trump and Pompeo author of this article says so.
And I guess you are completely impartial, right?
LOL as if, no doubt another Trump cultist who worships him and believes every word he says.
Because in a credibility contest between pompeo and an NPR reporter I believe the reporter. Funny that.
We all have to decide what the truth of the matter when there are competing accounts. Pompeo did not deny the abuse he put her through. No credibility issue there. Pompeo contends obliquely that an European scholar chose Bangladesh over The The Ukraine. Even I know that the Ukraine borders Russia not India. Credibility goes against Pompeo and in a crude way he shows his ignorance. The only real issue then left is if the topics were agreed upon. I do not care if this was so or not. Pompeo is a public servant and should answer reasonable questions topical of the day. He also has strategies available to deflect. He chose in stead to act out in anger. All points in the direction not to trust Pompeo as the honest broker. Simple as that. Pompeo also has going against him that he has failed before in being an honest broker. He no longer gets the benefit of the doubt. He chose to put himself in the position he finds himself. To flame throw against the press is right out of the Trump playbook. We all know Trump has lied 15000 proven times. So now we only need to see his lips move to decide when he is either lying or deflecting.
"The only real issue then left is if the topics were agreed upon."
I'm sure the Secretary of State's office would like to pretend that this is still a debatable issue; Unfortunately for them, the Washington Post printed the e-mails today. As astounding as it might seem, the e-mails support Parker's story and contradict Pompeo's. She explicitly said that they would start with questions about Iran, and then move on to other subjects, including Ukraine. They also explicitly state she will not agree to any limits on the subjects to be covered.
That does not really diminish your main point, but does remove the one allowance you were willing to grant to Pompeo.
Thanks. That is remarkable then that Pompeo took the route he chose. So utterly stupid. Only thing that I can think that he would contend that the subjects were more limited is that his staff misinformed him because they couldn't withstand his wrath knowing that they did not tell him about the scope of the topics. Anyway just another day in margaritaville. Wish it was only about getting drunk because this is all happening while they are sober.
You're the one who seems butthurt
You can't take any criticism of your heroes.
Don't cry, snowflake.
Apparently Pompeo can only keep so many talking points in his head. One topic only. Are we to believe the Secretary of State can't expound on more than a single subject? It must be true, otherwise he wouldn't go around insisting he will only talk about one subject during an interview. I expect he won't be getting many invites for interviews outside of FOX. Just as well, he's a bag of hot air anyway.
I think there are many conservatives writing and commenting on this site. But perhaps you are confusing "conservative" with "republican". There is little conservatism left in the republican party.
"...Pompeo came ready to discuss one topic, which was agreed to beforehand, and the interviewer transitioned to a new topic."
Oh, the humanity!
Secretary Pompous couldn't just give a little chuckle and say something like "Now, now. You know we agreed to talk only on one topic, so let's get together on another day to discuss other topics". ?
Just another guy in power who is too full of himself.
It's terrible when the citizenry goes off-script, isn't it?
and you forgot about the part where Pompeo came ready to discuss one topic, which was agreed to beforehand, and the interviewer transitioned to a new topic.
And you forgot
QUESTION: I confirmed with your staff last night that I would talk about Iran and Ukraine.
And that the reporter transitioned from asking questions about Iran to asking questions about Ukraine.You also forgot this is The American Conservative. American conservatives are, theoretically, skeptical of government, not slavishly obedient to it. Perhaps you would be happier reading The Franco Conservative, The Mussolini Conservative or The Czar Nicholas II, Autocrat of All the Russians Conservative.
Yeah, because it is you who gets to define what is and isn`t conservative. You might as well become a flaming communist, you can personally insult other posters with the best communists, er, democrats around.
So he doesn't get to define it. You do?
In any case, however you can complain about the title, this site has always been a dove site. it was created as a way for those on the Right to speak against the Iraq War when everyone else, Republican and Democrat, wanted to support it. It's maintained it's stance against military action.
If you are pro-war, you will find no allies here no matter your affiliation.
I have to disagree with you on one point, there was lots of opposition from Democrats and those most loudly fighting against it were liberals. Liberal media, true liberal media, was strongly against the war.
Conservatives viciously and loudly attacked those opposed to the war, the conservative anti-war voice was very much in the minority among conservatives. Antiwar voices in nearly all conservative media except for this one were shouted down and ignored.
There were a lot of places that were for the war. I will give you the point though: most of the voices were on the left, and those that were for it were quicker to shift their stance.
Really nobody ought to be "pro-war". War is a hugely tragic and costly undertaking, to be chosen only when there is no other option.
"I hate war as only a soldier who has lived it can, only as one who has seen its brutality, its futility, its stupidity" Eisenhower
My apologies for the term. Few REALLY enjoy war like that. Though in the same regard few are in the reverse: so passive any act of fighting is considered immoral. Even if we don't like it there will be some point when we say that it's time for war.
The question is just where you put the bar between being a dove and being a hawk.
The matter at hand is if you believe the recent actions in the middle east are acceptable points for armed combat.
And my post meant that TAC was created and maintains their stance that it is not. If you believe it is you will not find allies here.
Of course, one must never speak ill of a fellow conservative, whether it's true or not.
Conservative and reactionary aren't the same things.
So Pompeo doesn't have the intellectual capacity one might normally expect from a secretary of state and isn't able to discuss the full range of US foreign policies off the cuff? The poor dear has to be protected from any mental exertions.
I come here as a real liberal. I find most writers here to be true conservatives rather than the ideologically rigid, "I hate liberals", know-nothing, faux conservative blowhards of today. And I find we liberals have some things in common with real conservatives. We disagree on a lot, but share some common ground. You might be happier at Fox News, where insulting "liberals" is your only ideology.
Why leave. Perhaps this blog needs your voice. I never understand why someone like you would only want to read articles that you agree with. Don't pick up your marbles and go home, tell us the counter point. Conservatives are not monolithic.
Sorry, Johah, but TAC ain't Breitbart. We like it that way.
"Conservative" doesn't mean "Republican." What have the Republicans ever conserved?
Pompeo just tweeted this statement about the NPR interview::
QUESTION: My question, again: How do you stop Iran from getting a nuclear weapon?
Italicized/bold text was excerpted from the website www.dni.gov within a US National Intelligence Estimate published in Nov2007 titled:
Iran: Nuclear Intentions and Capabilities
ANSWER: Key Judgements
A. We judge with high confidence that in fall 2003, Tehran halted its nuclear weapons program; we also assess with moderate-to-high confidence that Tehran at a minimum is keeping open the option to develop nuclear weapons. We judge with high confidence that the halt, and Tehran's announcement of its decision to suspend its declared uranium enrichment program and sign an Additional Protocol to its Nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty Safeguards Agreement, was directed primarily in response to increasing international scrutiny and pressure resulting from exposure of Iran's previously undeclared nuclear work.
Italicized/bold text was excerpted from the website fas.org a report published (updated 20Dec2019) by the Congressional Research Service titled:
Page 53, 2nd paragraph -
Iran's Nuclear Program: Status
Director of National Intelligence Coats reiterated the last sentence in May 2017 testimony.330He testified in January 2019 that the U.S. intelligence community “continue[s] to assess that Iran is not currently undertaking the key nuclear weapons-development activities we judge necessary to produce a nuclear device.” Subsequent statements from U.S. officials indicate that Iran has not resumed its nuclear weapons program. According to an August 2019 State Department report, the “U.S. Intelligence Community assesses that Iran is not currently undertaking the key nuclear weapons development activities judged necessary to produce a nuclear device.” Any decision to produce nuclear weapons “will be made by the Supreme Leader,” Clapper stated in April 2013.
I don't want the Secretary of State to defend members of the Foreign Service. Defending the interests of the United States is quite sufficient. Members of the Foreign Service are just as bureaucratic as any members of other departments and fiefdoms. You can have your pity party for them and for your NPR journalists. I would prefer Pompeo to make sure that, should any problems arise regarding their security in their overseas assignments, the US reacts quickly to defend the lives of Foreign Service personnel. That's about it.
He is the worst Secretary of State. If his mouth is moving, then he is lying. There are ways to show disagreement without being abusive but he is a pompous, overbearing bully.
I think this is one area where Trump's business acumen and background have proven better than previous administrations political background. From Trump's point of view, you need to be removed from your position when you have either completed your mission or you are no longer effective. In both cases, it is long over due for Pompeo to go. My guess is that Trump is hesitant to make too many personnel changes while under the spotlight of impeachment and with the election only a few months away. I expect a lot of people to leave during Trump's 2nd term. I personally could not work for Trump. I could not work for a boss or a company that is so dryly political and where there is no stability or security but as we learned from Jimmy Carter (and others like Obama) the world is not stable nor is it just nor is it fair. Jimmy Carter turning over the Panama Canal to Panama in effect turned it over to the Chinese. Jimmy Carter's belief in human rights opened the door to radical islam all over the Islamic world. Look at Pakistan before Jimmy Carter and the spread of radical Islam. Women had rights and dressed and socialized in ways we in the west would relate. After Jimmy Carter and the fall of the Shah of Iran we saw burkas and hijabs and the denial of women's rights into the narrow confines of Shariah. The point being that it takes a man who knows how the world is managed and manipulated. It takes a man who knows the evil in the world and the evil in men's hearts. It takes a man who knows the world is not just or fair and is capable of dealing with that reality. Politicians are often blinded to that truth but many businessmen do not have the luxury of being blind to facts, reality and the ways of the world. Its why at the top levels of the White House, at that level you can only stay in your position until you have completed your mission or your no longer effective...then you have to leave.
You appear to be buying into the myth that Donald Trump is a successful businessman, rather than just playing one on TV.
Pakistan is primarily Sunni, and influenced much more by Saudi Arabia than Iran. In particular, Saudi funding of Wahhabist madrassas in Pakistan has contributed to the spread of a very rigid interpretation of Islam.
Wowzaa, what a little cuck!