Come again? You won’t believe why State Dept. spox doesn’t like Kissinger-Schultz column

Bless her heart, State Department spokeswoman Marie Harf is under fire again, and this time from an unlikely source — The New York Times.

It’s not that the oft-ridiculed Harf decided to take on such diplomatic luminaries as former secretaries of state Henry Kissinger and George Schultz, but the manner in which she did so.

Kissinger and Schultz co-authored a Wall Street Journal column critical of the agreement President Obama struck with Iran, asserting that the deal only focuses on the nuclear issue while ignoring Iran’s disruptive behavior in the region.

Obama: ‘I start tearing up in the middle of the
day, and I can’t explain it . . . why am I so sad?’

When asked by a reporter about the column Harf, the architect of the well-lambasted “Jobs for Jihadis” remark, dismissed the two respected diplomats, saying she “didn’t hear a lot of alternatives” from them.

“I heard a lot of sort of big words and big thoughts in that piece, and those are certainly – there’s a place for that, but I didn’t hear a lot of alternatives about what they would do differently.”

New York Times columnist David Brooks was quick to rip into Harf in an appearance Wednesday on the talk radio program “The Hugh Hewitt Show,” calling her response as “the lamest rebuttal” possible.

“A lot of big words? Really?” Hewitt asked.

“Are we in nursery school?” Brooks replied. “We’re not, no polysyllabic words?”

“That’s about the lamest rebuttal of a piece by two senior and very well-respected foreign policy people as I’ve heard,” he added. “Somebody’s got to come up with better talking points, whatever you think.”

Better talking points, or a better spokesperson?

Tom Tillison

Tom is a grassroots activist who distinguished himself as one of the top conservative bloggers in Florida before joining BizPac Review.
Tom Tillison

Comments

Latest Articles