There is nothing 'sharped tongued' about Susan Rice. She is a diplomat and used to straight talk. She is not a politician. She has never exhibited anything but professional conduct and straight forward statements regarding any of the duties in her capacity. The description plays to hatred and bias.
The word to describe Ambassador Rice style of speech is terse. She is devoid of superficiality. Not sharped tongued. Kindly remember that.
That really describes the style of the Obama administration, now that I think of it. His State of the Unions have been terse. The American people aren't used to that. They like Hollywood, not straight forward facts. The Republicans like hate in their speech. Viciousness.
Sat Nov 24, 2012 10:41am EST
* Her behavior at U.N. seen as blunt, rude by some diplomats
* Supporters say has the credentials to be top U.S. diplomat
* Has had some impressive successes for U.S. at the U.N.
By Louis Charbonneau and Susan Cornwell
UNITED NATIONS/WASHINGTON, Nov 24 (Reuters) - Susan Rice has had a series of diplomatic triumphs as U.S. ambassador to the United Nations. President Barack Obama, an old friend, showed he has her back when last week he publicly challenged her Republican critics over the Benghazi controversy to "go after me" rather than her. She knew former Secretary of State Madeleine Albright from the age of 4...
The so called heavy weights of the party. You know the ones with all the 'political capital' believe they can carry out an agenda of lies and manipulation.
Ripping U.N. Amb. Susan Rice (click here) for telling the American public that the Sept. 11 Benghazi terrorist attack was due to rioting from a viral YouTube video defaming the Prophet Mohammed, Sen. John McCain (Ariz.) and Sen. Lindsay Graham (S.C.) accused her of either incompetence or deliberately misleading the public....
Senator McCain has little political capital with the GOP. He is primarily an icon of war and therefore able to speak about it with an authority due to his service and POW years which left him somewhat paralyzed. But, political capital? I do believe he had quite a run for his money during his last election. He sort of ranks in there with Newt; useful but not endorsable.
Graham on the other hand amounts to nothing more than a bad habit. He was some kind of lawyer in the military and that has provided him an easy seat in DC. But, I can't he has done much in the way of improving the circumstances of the country; especially the past four years. Are most of his cronies and contsitutents white guys or something?