BWAHAHAHAHAAHAHAHAHAHHAAHAHAHA!!!

Oh, wait… you were serious about that?

I can’t get past this line — … faith in Rice based on her distinguished career. (If she can run a group tasked with Iraq stabilization, shouldn’t she be able to handle college basketball?) — without shaking my head in amused disbelief.  Hey, how’s that whole Iraq stabilization thing going these days?

This, on the other hand, is what reality sounds like.

… NCAA president Mark Emmert supported this notion, flashing the type of tough talk that has historically preceded NCAA inaction: “Just to be blunt about it, you don’t waste Condoleezza Rice’s time if you’re not serious about it…” Emmert said. “Everybody that’s involved in college basketball right now recognizes this can’t continue the way it’s continuing.”

To veteran coaches who’ve become jaded by decades of the NCAA’s failure to police and administer the sport, Emmert’s words are as empty as they are familiar. “Most of the people on the Rice Commission don’t know anything about college basketball,” said former USC coach Kevin O’Neill, who works as analyst for the Pac-12 Network. “You need people who’ve been in the streets, dealing with that year-in and year-out. I’m not sure any of the people, with a few exceptions, really know what the culture of basketball recruiting is.”

No doubt this will end well.  At least that’s Emmert’s story and he’s sticking to it.  Until the next crisis, anyway.

Advertisements

49 Comments

Filed under Recruiting, The NCAA

49 responses to “BWAHAHAHAHAAHAHAHAHAHHAAHAHAHA!!!

  1. Dawgxian

    Ever hear of something called the Obama Administration?

    Like

  2. Brandon

    Putting aside the question of whether we ever should have gone to Iraq in the first place, I think most can agree considering the lack of WMD, we shouldn’t have, in all fairness the Bush administration had Iraq pretty stable post-surge. Unfortunately BHO and company came in and supposedly couldn’t get a status of forces agreement negotiated, resulting in a premature withdrawal (get your mind out of the gutter), and a little group called ISIS stepping into the power vacuum and creating a massive refugee problem in addition to doing things like repeatedly raping their child brides and burning people alive. Fortunately, we elected some moron this time around who has pretty much wiped those guys out in a little over a year.

    Like

    • Again, in the real world,

      The U.S.–Iraq Status of Forces Agreement (official name: Agreement Between the United States of America and the Republic of Iraq On the Withdrawal of United States Forces from Iraq and the Organization of Their Activities during Their Temporary Presence in Iraq) was a status of forces agreement (SOFA) between Iraq and the United States, signed by President George W. Bush in 2008. It established that U.S. combat forces would withdraw from Iraqi cities by June 30, 2009, and all U.S. combat forces will be completely out of Iraq by December 31, 2011.[1] The pact required criminal charges for holding prisoners over 24 hours, and required a warrant for searches of homes and buildings that were not related to combat.[1] U.S. contractors working for U.S. forces would have been subject to Iraqi criminal law, while contractors working for the State Department and other U.S. agencies would retain their immunity. If U.S. forces committed still undecided “major premeditated felonies” while off-duty and off-base, they would have been subjected to an undecided procedures laid out by a joint U.S.-Iraq committee if the U.S. certified the forces were off-duty.

      There was an agreement in place before Obama took office and the Iraqis expected us to live up to the bargain.

      Amazing what people can put out of their minds in a decade.

      Iraq post-surge was pretty stable? Just like Afghanistan’s been, right?

      Like

      • Brandon

        I didn’t say Obama negotiated the last SOF agreement. I said he couldn’t get a SOF agreement negotiated which you admit by pointing out that Bush negotiated the last SOF agreement. We had all the leverage to negotiate a new one, the only reason a new one wasn’t negotiated was that BHO didn’t want to. The consequences are his.

        Like

        • Bush negotiated an SOFA with the Iraqi government. Obama was bound by that agreement when he took office. The Iraqis did not want to renegotiate the SOFA. And that was Obama’s fault, because of “leverage”? Right.

          Like

          • Brandon

            With all due respect Senator, it’s what Obama WANTED to do, next you’ll be telling me you believe Nick Saban when he says he just couldn’t talk some underperforming kid on scholarship out of transferring.

            Like

            • What was our leverage? And what do you suggest Obama should have done? No snark here; I’m genuinely curious.

              Like

              • Brandon

                Historically, having an army present provides significant leverage, that’s why the commander of the praetorian guard was always a strong candidate in a crisis to become emperor of Rome. Also, being a primary source of funding also historically provides significant leverage “he who has the gold makes the rules”, etc., we had both. Obama’s administration failed to negotiate a SOF because they wanted too, the White House’s negotiating position was that they wanted to leave between 3,000 and 5,000 non-combat troops there post 2011. That wasn’t enough to matter security wise to the Iraqis, so they were better off having none. They were going to open themselves up to internal political criticism for agreeing to let any U.S. troops stay, so why accept an inconsequential force? Then you get dinged on both sides. To continue with the football analogies, this is like the common situation of deciding whether a football player is good enough to accept the baggage that comes with him. It’s a lot easier to part ways with a player who is a 3rd string back up than an all-conference or All-American player. The Obama administration was offering the Iraqis a third string linebacker with a drug problem, it’s little wonder they refused.

                Like

                • There was already a deal in place, one the Iraqis were satisfied with enforcing. What you’re saying is that Obama should have threatened to keep our armed forces there in violation of the agreement if the Iraqis didn’t play ball.

                  Like

                  • Brandon

                    What I am saying is Obama didn’t offer them anything of value to them, why open themselves up to the internal criticism of having foreign troops remain, when the amount of foreign troops is not significant enough to mean anything to them safety wise? Do you disagree that a current armed presence and substantial funding confer significant leverage?

                    Like

                    • ChiliDawg

                      “Do you disagree that a current armed presence and substantial funding confer significant leverage?”

                      Sure, if you’re a hostile foreign occupying force, you can leverage those forces into making them do whatever you want. But since we weren’t a hostile occupying force, but rather a guest of the legitimately recognized sovereign government of Iraq, “leveraging” forces means coercion through force. So in your fantasy world, Obama is to blame because he didn’t threaten the sovereign nation of Iraq with force to nullify a treaty signed by his predecessor and keep US forces in country. Yeah, I’m sure your right wing radio talkheads would have been very kind to Obama had he done that.

                      Like

                    • Brandon

                      Here are a couple of pull quotes from that ultra-right wing propaganda rag, the New York Times on October 22, 2011 (linked below):

                      “At the end of the Bush administration, when the Status of Forces Agreement, or SOFA, was negotiated, setting 2011 as the end of the United States’ military role, officials had said the deadline was set for political reasons, to put a symbolic end to the occupation and establish Iraq’s sovereignty. But there was an understanding, a senior official here said, that a sizable American force would stay in Iraq beyond that date”.

                      “President Obama’s announcement on Friday that all American troops would leave Iraq by the end of the year was an occasion for celebration for many, but some top American military officials were dismayed by the announcement, seeing it as the president’s putting the best face on a breakdown in tortured negotiations with the Iraqis.”

                      “Mr. Maliki was afraid that if he came out publicly in favor of keeping troops without gaining the support of other parties in Parliament, his rivals — particularly the former Prime Minister Ayad Allawi — would exploit the issue to weaken his shaky coalition government. Eventually, he got authorization from the group to begin talks with the Americans on keeping troops in Iraq.

                      In August, after debates between the Pentagon, the State Department and the White House, the Americans settled on the 3,000 to 5,000 number, which was reported in August. According to two people briefed on the matter, one inside the administration and one outside, the arguments of two White House officials, Thomas E. Donilon, the national security adviser, and his deputy, Denis McDonough, prevailed over those of the military.”

                      In other words, the political appointees prevailed over the career military’s recommendations about what troop levels to offer to remain.

                      Like

                    • Brandon

                      Again, we didn’t get a new SOF agreement worked out because the Obama administration didn’t want to get one worked out. The end of the agreement was just a pre-text for doing what they wanted to do. Sure, the Iraqis are going to turn down 3-5 thousand troops, what good would that be to them?

                      Like

                    • ChiliDawg

                      Brandon, if military leadership got what they wanted all the time we’d still be at war in Vietnam. Military brass have a laughably strained relationship with the truth when it comes to Iraq. If your “a-ha” submission is that the pentagon wanted to push for more troops in a new SOFA, then you’re just not getting it.

                      Like

                    • ChiliDawg

                      There wasn’t a new SOFA because Iraq said “no thanks.” I don’t know how you reach the conclusion that it would have been more appealing to them if we’d pushed to send 10,000 more troops at a time when they wanted us out already. That’s some trumplican logic, for sure.

                      Like

                    • Brandon

                      The main “pro” of having U.S. Troops in Iraq from the Iraqi government’s point of view was having increased stability and security for the government. The main “con” was the presence of “foreign troops” being used by demagogues to stir up opposition to the government. The Obama administration was offering the worst of both worlds, not enough troops to really help them out much, and still enough to provide the demagogues with their political ammo. Of course they said no thanks, its the opposite of the Godfather, Obama made them an offer he knew they’d refuse.

                      Like

            • Gaskilldawg

              Brandon, it did not matter what Candidate Obama wanted when sitting President Bush signed the deal.

              It was clear the American voters wanted us out, too. So, the object of what Obama, as you put in all caps, “WANTED”was to abide by an American treaty.

              Like

          • Hogbody Spradlin

            I’m probably gonna regret chiming in on this subject, but (1) previous agreements and rules weren’t much of a barrier to Obama when they didn’t coincide with his interests, and (ii) there is something to the thought that what Obama did or didn’t do adds his administration to the responsible list.

            That thought from one who is as conservative as they come, and thinks we needn’t/shouldn’t have gone into Irag in 03.

            Like

            • Gaskilldawg

              Hog, you understand the Status of Forces Agreement wasn’t some little rule, do you not? It is a treaty with a sovereign nation. If we ignored it and stayed we would be an act of war against a sovereign nation. That is a big deal.

              Like

              • Hogbody Spradlin

                According to Hoyle, you’re right. But the world don’t operate according to Hoyle. That’s my last word here.

                Like

            • What international agreement did Obama single-handedly override?

              Look, I’m not defending Obama here. He certainly deserves as much blame for the Afghanistan debacle as anyone else. But this myth that he lost Iraq because he forced a US withdrawal on his lonesome defies reality.

              Like

        • Gaskilldawg

          Brandon, whomever the US President was on January 18, 2009 was would have to negotiate a new status of forces agreemen5 with the Iraqi government in order to keep US troops there after December 31, 2011. Iraq was, and is, a sovereign nation at all times after January 18, 2009. Iraq wanted us out. As a sovereign nation it had the right to say, “Out no late4 than December 31, 2011,” and no one, even the worlds greatest deal maker now at the White House, could get Iraq to change its mind.

          Like

          • Brandon

            Iraq didn’t want us out, they just didn’t want to stick their necks out politically for a minor force that wouldn’t be much use to them anyway. You guys can say “detached from reality” all you want but you are the ones re-sending history. It isn’t hard to search the internet for contemporary news articles which back me up. We left Iraq at the end of 2011 for one reason, BHO wanted to, that is obvious from the WH statements at the time, and the course of dealing with Iraq, no matter how much after the fact ass covering you and the Senator want to do in regard to saying the last SOF agreement was signed by Bush. And of course ISIS stepped into the power vacuum we left behind, just as numerous people told BHO that someone would.

            Like

  3. Hogbody Spradlin

    On a more germane subject, hiring Condoleeza Rice shows the commission isn’t serious. Seems everything Mark Emmert does is inept or bullshit, or inept bullshit.

    Like

    • Whiskeydawg

      Maybe Condi can get one of them SOF agreements with Kentucky B ball before they pull out of the SEC. If she can’t it will clearly be Obama’s fault.

      Like

  4. Gaskilldawg

    To get the comments back on topic, read the list of committee members. A former White House counsel? For the love of Mike. No members who have coached and recruited in years. Only one who ever was a coach and recruiter.

    I am not arguing that any member is not competent in his or her field, but they are not competent in the field necessary to identify problems and solutions.

    Emmert is on the commission. It appears to be the same idea as a McGarity search firm. Cover for his decisions.

    Liked by 1 person

  5. Got Cowdog

    Cool. International relations, this is new.

    Like

  6. ChiliDawg

    Well, the reigning idiot saw fit to bring back John Bolton as NSA because FOX News or something. At least Condi Rice isn’t back in a position to start another war and kill tens of thousands of people on false pretenses.

    Like

  7. W Cobb Dawg

    Regardless of your party preference, we all know of former officeholders who, after leaving office, go on to make great contributions to society. Others do or say anything to keep the checks rolling in. I’d say Rice is unfortunately getting solidly set in the latter category. She should at least put Emmert and his ilk on notice not to be using her as a token ex-officeholder, token minority or token woman – take your pick.

    Like

  8. TN Dawg

    “Most of the people on the Rice Commission don’t know anything about college basketball,” said former USC coach Kevin O’Neill, who works as analyst for the Pac-12 Network. “You need people who’ve been in the streets, dealing with that year-in and year-out.

    ….

    What a stupid comment.

    As this blog demonstrates, you clearly don’t have to deal with foreign policy year in and year out to be an armchair expert on it.

    Like

  9. Captain Obvious

    Senator, when r you going to learn you cant argue with trump supporters over iraq; you’re not the dumb f#!k whisperer..

    Like

  10. Brandon

    More reality for you reality lovers, modern progressivism, smugness and condescension with a side order of wrong: http://foreignpolicy.com/2011/10/21/how-the-obama-administration-bungled-the-iraq-withdrawal-negotiations/amp/

    Like

  11. Mike Cooley

    Any of you Iraq experts ever been there? Because I have. And we had the enemy ready to quit when the great healer of the world decided to announce we were getting ready to start withdrawing. Then they knew all they had to do was just hang on long enough. You can say whatever you want and can even think you know what you’re talking about but that’s the truth.

    Liked by 1 person

  12. and the beat goes on and on and on. and people with the truth have the truth because the truth shall set you free. my mind is made up, yes sir ree.

    Like

    • Mike Cooley

      Most people doing like the truth regardless of how they vote because they are too weak to handle it.

      Like