NEW UN DELEGATE USES DOUBLE SPEAK!

PRESIDENT OBAMA'S NEWLY APPOINTED DELEGATE TO THE UNITED NATIONS HAD THIS TO SAY TO THE PRESS AFTER HER FIRST MEETING WITH THE UN SECRETARY GENERAL.
"Susan Rice says the new administration led by US President Barack Obama will engage in "direct diplomacy" with Iran.

"She warned, however, of further action unless Tehran meets UN Security Council demands to suspend uranium enrichment as a prelude to talks on its nuclear program".

Rice spoke to reporters shortly after meeting with UN Secretary-General Ban Ki-moon on her first day on the job Monday.

She said the US plan for "vigorous diplomacy that includes direct diplomacy" with Iran "must go hand in hand" with a firm message from the US and international community that Iran must meet it UN Security Council obligations.

Iran's "continuing refusal to do so will only cause pressure to increase," she added.

What I would like to know is how long will Obama use the useless and effete UN that has been proven to be a bloated bureaucracy with veto control by Leftist Countries, as a conduit to get Iran to stop it's production of nuclear weapons?

The experts who have insight into the Iranian nuclear program have already said that Iran will have enough nuclear material for two nuclear bombs within two years. This does not leave a lot of time to negotiate(jaw-jaw-jaw)with the Country led by a maniac who has said he wants to eliminate Israel and do serious damage to the USA!

Ms. Rice is a Brookings Institute fellow and an article that she was involved in writing with Connie Graft and Janet Lewis entitled "Poverty and Civil WAR" gives a glimpse of how this new delegate thinks.In my opinion she is more of an internationalist than OUR delegate should be!

The conclusion of the article written in December of 2006 follows:" Finally, in Iraq, civil conflict is intensifying and devolving into full-scale civil war. Upon leaving the post of commander of the Multinational Corps in Iraq in late 2006, Lt. Gen. Peter Chiarelli said that finding jobs for "angry young men" and taking them "off the street" was "absolutely critical to...lowering the level of violence" and "just as important as growing the size of their army."8 To date, however, relatively little attention has been devoted to the economic drivers of this conflict. No doubt, the civil conflict in Iraq is rooted substantially in sectarian differences that were exacerbated by Saddam's tyranny. It is stoked by foreign jihadists, meddling neighbors and by resentment of the U.S. occupation. Yet, roughly 50 percent of Iraqis were unemployed in 2005 and real per capita GNI stands at only a fraction of what it was in the 1980s. Deteriorating economic conditions have almost certainly contributed in some measure to the rising violence in Iraq.

These and other cases of civil conflict may each in isolation offer policymakers some useful insights. Yet, viewed together, they beg an overarching question: is there a significant and demonstrable link between income poverty and the risk that a country will slide into civil war? Could U.S. foreign policy benefit from greater emphasis on promoting economic growth and alleviating poverty? The answers to these questions bear directly on several current challenges to U.S. national security from the Middle East to South Asia and Africa.bold letters added by me for emphasis!

In her appointment we have one more example of what I believe Obama has in mind when he says CHANGE! I believe that he is man who believes in One World and thinks that redistribution of wealth will include sending our tax dollars to Third World Countries. And by the way the Stimulus package monies that is being given to banks has no restrictions on to whom they lend.