Sec of State

[mrbiggs]

Condoleezza Rice is gonna be our new Secretary of State. *Breathes sigh of releif*. She's a great leader, and really deserves this position. I'm happy it's her and not some random right-wing person.

This administration might turn out to be OK after all!

[lochinvar]

Great. We've moved from someone I at least thought had some brain cells to someone I despise.

So far, it's shaping up to be a bad four years coming...

[mrbiggs]

Originally Posted by lochinvar

Great. We've moved from someone I at least thought had some brain cells to someone I despise.

So far, it's shaping up to be a bad four years coming...

More out of curiosity than anything else, why? She's a very smart person who is in politics, which is pretty rare nowadays. From what I hear, she did a pretty good job as the NSA.

Of course, maybe I haven't heard the right things.

[telkanuru]

I agree with lochnivar. She's a puppet, and a tool to garner minority/women voters.

[mrbiggs]

Originally Posted by telkanuru

I agree with lochnivar. She's a puppet, and a tool to garner minority/women voters.

Maybe, but she's educated, and certainly has the credentials to be in any political office.

[The0ne]

agreed. . .

[CutLass]

One concern is that she may not have enough significant experience in foreign policy. A second is that as a non-expert in state affairs, her ability to persuade could be viewed as insignificant and weak. Her job in NSA was to advise the president on issues of great importance and significance and persuade him to action. She missed the boat on the nuclear programs and communications on the status of Iraq. No bets that she'll have the state job under control either.

[felicote]

Congratulations to Mr. Powell. But he should have done this a couple of years ago.

[BOliver]

Condi's a toady, and not a very good one. Good grades obviously don't equate to brains.

Check out this quote (http://www.washingtonpost.com/ac2/wp...6904-2002May16):



On May 16, 2002 Rice said: ".. had this president known of something more specific or known that a plane was going to be used as a missile, he would have acted on it.."

On the same day Rice said, "I don't think anybody could have predicted that these people would take an airplane and slam it into the World Trade Center, that they would try to use an airplane as a missile - a hijacked airplane as a missile."

How can she reconcile this with :

- The recent, brave, statements of whistle blower, and former FBI translator Sibel Edmonds that "I saw papers that show US knew al-Qa'ida would attack cities with aeroplanes"

- The fact that Abdul Hakim Murad, one of the bombers in the first World Trade Center attack in 1993, described while under interrogation in 1995 a plot to use airplanes as missiles."

- The fact that, just weeks before 911 anti-aircraft measures were taken specifically to protect buildings from the use of hijacked planes as weapons at the Genoa G8 summit, just one of many instances of such measures.

How can Rice reconcile these huge differences, and why should we believe her now?

Many other examples of her craven-ness at:

http://www.unansweredquestions.org

[CutLass]

Know how she handles it Bill, just like every other scum in the administration does. She just ignores the accusations and the facts and the truth and the media wimps let it go!

[FoilyGeezer]

Originally Posted by mrbiggs

Maybe, but she's educated, and certainly has the credentials to be in any political office.

Condi is a cheerleader, which is probably precisely what Bush II wants in that position. Powell kept annoy the admistration by actually trying to conduct diplomatic foreign policy and frequently getting over-ruled or just plain contradicted. It was never his intention to stay longer than his four year hitch. Now Bush will have someone who won't say anything until after she's been told what to say. She know's the drill.

[BOliver]

What I can't figure is how the Administration can rationalize sending some that has, time and again, proven to be "damaged goods" to our allies. (see:
http://www.americanprogressaction.or...JcP7H&b=100480)

She's pissed off the French and Germans.

She's publicly admited to being either a bald-faced lier, or simply incompetant (the aluminum tubes in Iraq being only usable for nuclear weapons production.)

Her leadership in post-war Iraq has been called by the White House as "a policy adrift. (http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn...2004May17.html)

This is the person that is going to negotiate accords with Communist China? Or convince North Korea not to product nuclear weapons? Or help eliminatge the genocide in Central Africa? Not to mention, deal with the impending blow-up in Palestine!

On the other hand, Dubya gets props for posting a women and a person of color to such a position. Minorities have made great strides in his administration. I just hope we all survive to take advantage of this progressive behavior....

[mrbiggs]

Originally Posted by BOliver

Condi's a toady, and not a very good one. Good grades obviously don't equate to brains.

Check out this quote (http://www.washingtonpost.com/ac2/wp...6904-2002May16):



On May 16, 2002 Rice said: ".. had this president known of something more specific or known that a plane was going to be used as a missile, he would have acted on it.."

On the same day Rice said, "I don't think anybody could have predicted that these people would take an airplane and slam it into the World Trade Center, that they would try to use an airplane as a missile - a hijacked airplane as a missile."

How can she reconcile this with :

- The recent, brave, statements of whistle blower, and former FBI translator Sibel Edmonds that "I saw papers that show US knew al-Qa'ida would attack cities with aeroplanes"

- The fact that Abdul Hakim Murad, one of the bombers in the first World Trade Center attack in 1993, described while under interrogation in 1995 a plot to use airplanes as missiles."

- The fact that, just weeks before 911 anti-aircraft measures were taken specifically to protect buildings from the use of hijacked planes as weapons at the Genoa G8 summit, just one of many instances of such measures.

How can Rice reconcile these huge differences, and why should we believe her now?

Many other examples of her craven-ness at:

http://www.unansweredquestions.org

I don't think that those statements are at all unreasonable. No one thought that the terrorists would use planes as missiles; it had never been done before. Sure, it was possible, but it was far under nukes, grenades, car bombs, snipers, regular bombs, etc. It was known to be a possibility, but no one considered it likely enough to take action.

Protection of an international summit and the WTC are completely different. Sumits such as those have to be protected by ALL measures possible because the terrorists have so much to gain by attacking them. There are hundreds of targets in the U.S, with the WTC being only one. We can't protect all of them against such an attack.

What I can't figure is how the Administration can rationalize sending some that has, time and again, proven to be "damaged goods" to our allies. (see:
http://www.americanprogressaction.o...WJcP7H&b=100480)

She's pissed off the French and Germans.

She's publicly admited to being either a bald-faced lier, or simply incompetant (the aluminum tubes in Iraq being only usable for nuclear weapons production.)

Her leadership in post-war Iraq has been called by the White House as "a policy adrift. (http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dy...-2004May17.html)

This is the person that is going to negotiate accords with Communist China? Or convince North Korea not to product nuclear weapons? Or help eliminatge the genocide in Central Africa? Not to mention, deal with the impending blow-up in Palestine!

Replace "she" with President Bush, and your statements are equally, if not more, valid. For the majority of those situations, she was simply going along with the policy of the administration.



By the way, I'm playing devils advocate here. I'm open to another opinion on Rice, I just like to know that my opions are well-backed.

[BOliver]

Here's a few gems from that paragon of conservatism, Ronnie:

Politics is supposed to be the second oldest profession. I have come to realize that it bears a very close resemblance to the first.
Ronald Reagan

The best minds are not in government. If any were, business would hire them away.
Ronald Reagan

History teaches that wars begin when governments believe the price of aggression is cheap.
Ronald Reagan, Address to the Nation, Jan 16, 1984

My fellow Americans, I am pleased to tell you I just signed legislation which outlaws Russia forever. The bombing begins in five minutes.
Ronald Reagan, Said during a radio microphone test, 1984

Hmm. Never thought of him as a prophet....

Then again, Franken paraphrased Condi Rice, in advance:

I’m good enough, I’m smart enough, and dog-gone it, people like me.
Al Franken, Stuart Smalley in Saturday Night Live, catchphrase


and, how about deja vu all over again?


[George Bush] has raised taxes on the people driving pickup trucks and lowered taxes on the people riding in limousines. We can do better.
Bill Clinton (1946 - ), Democratic National Convention, July 16, 1992

We have to ask the wealthiest Americans to pay their fair share again. Their incomes went up in the 1980s and their taxes went down. We can't ask the middle class to pay more; their incomes went down and their taxes went up.
Bill Clinton (1946 - ), U.S. Conference Of Mayors, Houston, June 22, 1992

Opportunity for all means making taxes fair. I'm not out to soak the rich. But I do believe the rich should pay their fair share. For twelve years, the Republicans have raised taxes on the middle class. It's time to give the middle class tax relief.
Bill Clinton (1946 - ), Announcement Speech, October 3, 1991

[Inquartata]

Originally Posted by mrbiggs

Of course, maybe I haven't heard the right things.

Meh, I think it's the left things that you haven't heard.

[Inquartata]

Folks, you simply must realize that anyone who works for Ole Debbil Bush is, a priori, evil, stupid, worthless or all three. Q.E.D. It remains only to rationalize after the fact exactly why any given Bush associate must be despicable, never a difficult task for a zealous Democrat...

[scrapinpeg]

Besides, they've got this whole puppet analogy backwards. It's not Condi dancing on Bush's string, it's the other way around. Bush is implementing her foreign policy.

By the way, think of all the wonderful things the Left has called Condi (and Powell, to a lesser extent) and the words used. Now imagine she was in a Democrat administration and the Right was saying such things. Just imagine all the vociferous indignation, the accusations of racism and bigotry, comparisons to the KKK, etc. But where is the outcry now?

[Peach]

That argument's a "straw man." She's replacing a well-respected, thoughtful African-American with credentials who sometimes disagreed with the President but knew what he was talking about. Those who are objecting to Rice's appointment are objecting because they object to her qualifications for the position.

Originally Posted by scrapinpeg

Besides, they've got this whole puppet analogy backwards. It's not Condi dancing on Bush's string, it's the other way around. Bush is implementing her foreign policy.

By the way, think of all the wonderful things the Left has called Condi (and Powell, to a lesser extent) and the words used. Now imagine she was in a Democrat administration and the Right was saying such things. Just imagine all the vociferous indignation, the accusations of racism and bigotry, comparisons to the KKK, etc. But where is the outcry now?

[scrapinpeg]

Originally Posted by Peach

That argument's a "straw man." She's replacing a well-respected, thoughtful African-American with credentials who sometimes disagreed with the President but knew what he was talking about. Those who are objecting to Rice's appointment are objecting because they object to her qualifications for the position.

I'm not talking about the thoughtful objections. I'm talking about the stuff I've been reading in the Leftist press, websites and other media using such words as "Mammy," "House N----r," "Lackey," etc., as well as descriptions that do not use hurtful words but nevertheless convey the same concept.

I'm not suggesting these are common or to be found in mainstream media. What I am saying is that they are out there and nobody's raising the hue and cry that there would have been had the politics been reversed.

In other words, the world's full of hypocrites. Yes, this isn't news, you're right.

[FoilyGeezer]

Originally Posted by Inquartata

Folks, you simply must realize that anyone who works for Ole Debbil Bush is, a priori, evil, stupid, worthless or all three. Q.E.D. It remains only to rationalize after the fact exactly why any given Bush associate must be despicable, never a difficult task for a zealous Democrat...

My belief is that Powell was respected by many in the world community because he disagreed with Bush, regardless of whether he got over-ruled by him or not. Powell has consistently sought diplomatic solutions to problems the adminstration wanted to strong-arm solutions to. I see the move to put Rice in that position as a move to present a homogenous view of Bush's agenda, which would appear at first glance to be a good management move. However Condi is not going to garner the same feeling of respect and integrity that Powell had...not because she's a woman, not because she's an African-American, but because she hasn't earned it.