Secretary of State, Condoleezza Rice

Cheetah

Deity
Joined
Dec 20, 2002
Messages
8,010
Location
the relative oasis of CFC
I just watched this on CNN, and there was a few interesting things said there. So I looked up the related article on CNN.com: Boxer spars with Rice.

A few quotes by Rice:
- I have to say that I have never, ever, lost respect for the truth in the service of anything.

- I really hope that you will refrain from impugning my integrity.

- I do sit every day and look at the terrorist threat report that's coming in. We are making a lot of progress on this.

- North Korea is a very dangerous power. This is a very closed and opaque society. ... We will continue to work on that issue.

- The time for diplomacy is now.

The article said:
Boxer pointed out what she said were inconsistencies in Rice's statements about the imminent threat of nuclear weapons in Iraq.

"This is a pattern here of what I see from you," Boxer said. "It's very troubling. ... It's hard for me to let go of this war because people are still dying."

She said Rice has not acknowledged those deaths, has not laid out an exit strategy for Iraq and has been unwilling to admit mistakes -- including going to war over weapons of mass destruction found later not to exist.

Rice insisted the war in Iraq was not launched solely over WMD. Deposed Iraqi leader Saddam Hussein, she said, welcomed terrorists, attacked his own neighbors and paid suicide bombers in the conflict between Israel and Palestinians.

But Boxer said the bill passed by Congress authorizing the war in Iraq was, "WMD, period."

"Let's not rewrite history, it's too soon for that," Boxer said.
Attacked Iran, supported by the USA, attacked Kuwait and was attacked by the USA and others, paid suicide bombers. But welcomed terrorists??

I don't like her. :undecide:
 
lol :goodjob:

oconnor.gif
 
Rather her than Wolfowitz!

(She still gives me the creeps though.)
 
I never liked her, and this article doesn't surprise me. The impression I get from her is the one of a headless brainwashed gal that lives to prove the world she is a strong independant woman. A little extreme maybe, but you get the picture.
 
hahaha I love Liberals... she's black, from the deep south and grew up when they were " nightstickin them negros real good ya hear " and not a single lib has mentioned that or what it reflects on the way times have changed.

But that failure known as Albright, libs were going out of there way to sing the praises... she even gave the north koreans the means to build there nukes!

:lol:

Condi is a good canidate, and will be a great asset now that the limp wrist Powell is out.

Moderator Action: Warned for trolling
Please read the forum rules: http://forums.civfanatics.com/showthread.php?t=422889
 
Attacked Iran, supported by the USA, attacked Kuwait and was attacked by the USA and others, paid suicide bombers. But welcomed terrorists??

We will go over these one by one.

Attacked Iran - Yes, and rightfully so. It's been American policy since 79.

Supported by the USA - Read post one, it's been that way since 79.

Attacked Kuwait - Yes he did, and Saudi Arabia and Israel and Iran... that's only four of his neighbors.

Paid Suicide bombers - Yep, nice huh?

Welcomed Terrorists - He ran the show in that country, had several training camps and Zarquai was reciveing the best in Iraqi medical care long before the war. I guess cause he and OBL wern't making passionate love in a threesome with Satan that's not good enough :rolleyes:
 
Now Rice is being blamed for not laying out an exit strategy? Are you friggin kidding me? Its not a politician's job to make strategic military decisions! That's what we have officers for!
 
Keirador said:
Now Rice is being blamed for not laying out an exit strategy? Are you friggin kidding me? Its not a politician's job to make strategic military decisions! That's what we have officers for!

The strategic military decision that the officers make being "get all our troops on transport aircraft and fly them home". The exit strategy is indeed up to the SecDef, National Security Advisor, other advisors, and ultimately the President.
 
Bronx Warlord said:
hahaha I love Liberals... she's black, from the deep south and grew up when they were " nightstickin them negros real good ya hear " and not a single lib has mentioned that or what it reflects on the way times have changed.

There are Liberals under the bed - Look out!

:D

Bronx Warlord said:
But that failure known as Albright, libs were going out of there way to sing the praises... she even gave the north koreans the means to build there nukes!

The North Koreans were given that chance when the USA gave up and didn't crush the vile regime in the 1950s.

Another foe created via apathy and inaction at the vital moment.

Bronx Warlord said:
Condi is a good canidate, and will be a great asset now that the limp wrist Powell is out.

What a statement devoid of sense! :lol:

Powell was one of the USA's most capable statesmen in recent years.
Now you attack him because he did not advocate the mindless
diplomatic strutting and the profitless adventures that perhaps
are sympathetic to your blatant world outlook?

"Its out with the highly-qualified limp wrists! In with the dittohead party faithful!"

Hold on while I catch my breath from laughing!

:lol:

Moderator Action: Warned for flaming
Please read the forum rules: http://forums.civfanatics.com/showthread.php?t=422889
 
I have read an interview with Rice in the Volkskrant (slightly to the left Dutch quality paper, according to American standards extremely left-wing), more than a year ago.

There she passionately stood up for what she called American Idealism of spreading Freedom&Democracy all over the world. She is quite aware of the risks and possible failures!

Though I think the path chosen by the Bush administration sometimes shows a lack of any common knowledge of history, Rice seems to be an exception (though still not like Powell).
I think she is a fine choice.
 
1) Rice is extremely intelligent; she graduated college at 19 years old. She probably has the highest IQ of anyone in any administration for the last 20 years. I've watched her twice in front of the Senate, and she was awesome both times, with detailed knowledge about more subjects than anyone I've ever seen.

2) The authorization by Congress for the war in Iraq listed 23 reasons, which I've posted in multiple threads. Only 2 of the reasons mention WMD, so it certainly was NOT "WMD period" as Boxer misrepresented. Yes, it is to soon to rewrite history.

3) Not, not, not her job to lay out an exit strategy. There are others that should have done that.
 
Condoleezza Rice, President George W Bush's nominee as secretary of state, has identified "outposts of tyranny" where the US must help bring freedom.
They are Cuba, Iran, North Korea, Zimbabwe, Burma and Belarus.

Ms Rice was answering questions during a session of the US Senate, which is expected to confirm her in the post.

The comments were reminiscent of Mr Bush's "axis of evil" speech in 2002, in which he identified Iraq, Iran and North Korea as threats to US security.
http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/americas/4186241.stm

I wonder why Iran is included in the list. They have actual elections there and theres a great deal of freedom of speech, compared with the rest of the Arab world. Just because a country doesnt like us doesnt mean theyre automatically a tyranny.

A'AbarachAmadan, yes she's very intelligent but it doesnt amount to much. You can be extremely intelligent and still have poor judgement and zero common sense, she's basically a well educated dummy, like just about everyone else in the administration, except for Powell.
 
Bozo Erectus said:
I wonder why Iran is included in the list. They have actual elections there ...

In the US and most of the West, the elected government has full control of the military. In Iran they have none, it is controlled by the self-appointed 'clerics.' If these self-appointed rulers don't want a candidate to run, they are not allowed, which happened to THOUSANDS of moderate candidates in the last election. There is much dissatisfaction since the people can't vote for whom they choose. Not a 'real' democracy.

Bozo Erectus said:
she's basically a well educated dummy...

Diagree on this. In order of respect I give to members of the Bush senior staff: Powell = #1, Rice = #2. I'll be sorry to see Powell go, but I can't think of a better replacement for Secretary of State.
 
I watched the whole thing on C-SPAN so had the opportunity to see Sen. Obama in action for the first time and thought his line of questioning interesting, particularly why Iraq but not Saudi if the war is against terrorist breeding grounds. Good show for a rookie.
 
A'AbarachAmadan said:
In the US and most of the West, the elected government has full control of the military. In Iran they have none, it is controlled by the self-appointed 'clerics.' If these self-appointed rulers don't want a candidate to run, they are not allowed, which happened to THOUSANDS of moderate candidates in the last election. There is much dissatisfaction since the people can't vote for whom they choose. Not a 'real' democracy.
True, by our standards, Iran is an imperfect democracy. But what gives us the right to invade and occupy countries because they dont live up to our standards? Its possible that in other parts of the world, with vastly different cultures and religions, different forms of government will be tried and occasionally succeed that bear no resemblance to what we enjoy in the West. A thousand years ago, we felt their religion was intolerable, so we launched the Crusades, which were mostly miserable failures, today, we feel their systems of government are intolerable, so we launch things like "Operation Iraqi Freedom", which is another miserable failure in the making. When are we going to learn?
 
For a black chick she's whiter than I am, which to anyone who knows me, realizes that I trust her about as much as any other white person. Same went for Colin Powell.

To quote Navin R. Johnson: Lord loves a workin' man; don't trust whitey; see a doctor and get rid of it.
 
Bozo Erectus said:
...today, we feel their systems of government are intolerable, so we launch things like "Operation Iraqi Freedom", which is another miserable failure in the making. When are we going to learn?

Well, we don't launch invasion based upon their government, we launch it because we consider them a threat. (Whether they were is debatable, it was just the reason.) I think in the cases of Iran and NK, we will try to do it politically, where Iraq was a comparitively easy military target. From all the ex-pats I've met from Iran, I wouldn't be surprised to see an internal change due to the extreme internal dis-satisfaction. Always best for something to happen from within. While other forms of government could exist well, democracy seems to work the best, whether the very different Western style or Eastern style doesn't really matter.
 
Back
Top Bottom