Condi Rice: The Right Choice?

[Rob Lister]

In the "A Picture Is Worth A Thousand Words" theme, I humbly offer...

So, was she the right choice? All things considered? I don't remember anyone kissing Madeleine Albright, not that she wouldn't have punched them for doing so.

Edit to add a few things:
1) Bush looks jealous and I think he's chased her around the desk a time or two.

2) You can't tell from the photo but Clinton is checking out a Nun's habit.

 

[fishbob]

So, was she the right choice? All things considered? I don't remember anyone kissing Madeleine Albright, not that she wouldn't have punched them for doing so.

Edit to add a few things:
1) Bush looks jealous and I think he's chased her around the desk a time or two.

2) You can't tell from the photo but Clinton is checking out a Nun's habit.

Interesting. I did not know that kissing was part of the cabinet level job descriptions.

How was this requirement evaluated for Bush's attorney general selection? Maybe that explains Guckert's access to the White House.

 

[Rob Lister]

Re: Re: Condi Rice: The Right Choice?

Interesting. I did not know that kissing was part of the cabinet level job descriptions.

Huh? How the #$^! do you think the job is aquired?

Come on. You voted yes. I know you did. You're just being coy...sort of like Condi.

 

[fishbob]

What I really want to know is what nun's habit would Clinton be interested in?

 

[SezMe]

Is that Rummy down at the lower right? Looks like he's thinking, "Oh, dear Pope Paul, I gotta take a dump and your minions are going to be prattling on for how many more hours?"

Other fun captions are invited to keep this thread from fading....

 

[SezMe]

I got another one: Bush is thinking, "Gawd, Condi always wears these high-neck outfits. When am I gonna get a peek?"

OK, good night.

 

[clk]

Rob:
Chirac also kissed Laura Bush's hand. Does that mean Laura Bush would have made a good Secretary of State?

To answer your question: yes, Condi Rice was the right choice to be Secretary of State, assuming you are using the Bush principle: reward the most incompetent.

 

[Rob Lister]

Rob:
Chirac also kissed Laura Bush's hand. Does that mean Laura Bush would have made a good Secretary of State?

Maybe. I think Hillary would/would have. Did anyone kiss her hand?

To answer your question: yes, Condi Rice was the right choice to be Secretary of State, assuming you are using the Bush principle: reward the most incompetent.

Sort of like Sandy Berger?

 

[clk]

Sort of like Sandy Berger?

Hmm...I don't remember Sandy Berger starting wars on false pretenses. Or being warned about Al Qaeda, then ignoring the warning, and then lying about being warned in the first place. What did Sandy Berger do that was so incompetent, and how many American lives did it cost? Also, how much money did it cost the US government/American taxpayers?

edit to add: Berger is still irrelevant to the topic at hand. I can see that you are using the common Republican tactic of shifting focus from Bush to Clinton because you have no argument. Even if Berger is incompetent, it is irrelevant for the following reasons:
1. I claimed that Bush promotes/rewards people who have proven to be incompetent. Berger's issues with handling classified material were revealed well after he was Sec. of State.
2. Berger's issues with classified info. would make him a bad head of the National Archives. They do not reflect on his skills as a diplomat. Actually, during Clinton's 8 years, the US was well respected in many countries in which it is now despised. So in that sense, Berger was a success.

 

[fishbob]

Other fun captions are invited to keep this thread from fading....

Bush: Hmmm, Condi has a pearl necklace. . . . where have I heard that before? Hey Bill . . .

 

[Rob Lister]

Hmm...I don't remember Sandy Berger starting wars on false pretenses. Or being warned about Al Qaeda, then ignoring the warning, and then lying about being warned in the first place. What did Sandy Berger do that was so incompetent, and how many American lives did it cost? Also, how much money did it cost the US government/American taxpayers?

edit to add: Berger is still irrelevant to the topic at hand. I can see that you are using the common Republican tactic of shifting focus from Bush to Clinton because you have no argument. Even if Berger is incompetent, it is irrelevant for the following reasons:
1. I claimed that Bush promotes/rewards people who have proven to be incompetent. Berger's issues with handling classified material were revealed well after he was Sec. of State.
2. Berger's issues with classified info. would make him a bad head of the National Archives. They do not reflect on his skills as a diplomat. Actually, during Clinton's 8 years, the US was well respected in many countries in which it is now despised. So in that sense, Berger was a success.

Clk, I want to thank you for that post. I am curious however if you recall what the documents that Sandy found fit to destroy related too. It's okay. We know. It's now in the public record...more or less.

ETA: Sandy was never SecState was he? He likely would have been SecState under Kerry but, alas, that never panned out.

 

[clk]

Clk, I want to thank you for that post. I am curious however if you recall what the documents that Sandy found fit to destroy related too. It's okay. We know. It's now in the public record...more or less.

Again, how is this relevant to the fact that Bush promotes/rewards the most incompetent people in his administration? Berger's misdeeds were only revealed after Clinton left office, so your point is even more irrelevant. And Berger's acts were 1000 times less serious than what Condi, Rumsfeld and Wolfowitz did. How much money did Berger cost the government when he stuffed some papers in his socks? How many soldiers were killed because of it? And even if people were somehow harmed by what he did, does that justify Bush's promoting incompetent people? The last time I checked, two wrongs didn't make a right.

ETA: Sandy was never SecState was he? He likely would have been SecState under Kerry but, alas, that never panned out.

My mistake...for some reason I was confusing Berger with Warren Christopher.

And I don't think Berger would have been Sec. State under Kerry. I think Biden or Holbrooke would have been much more likely picks.

 

[Rob Lister]

Again, how is this relevant to the fact that Bush promotes/rewards the most incompetent people in his administration? Berger's misdeeds were only revealed after Clinton left office, so your point is even more irrelevant. And Berger's acts were 1000 times less serious than what Condi, Rumsfeld and Wolfowitz did. How much money did Berger cost the government when he stuffed some papers in his socks? How many soldiers were killed because of it? And even if people were somehow harmed by what he did, does that justify Bush's promoting incompetent people? The last time I checked, two wrongs didn't make a right.[/B]

We disagree as to the incompetent nature or the acts or the persons. Mistakes were certainly made but these had less to do with the administration and more to do with what the CIA was reporting. Even Kerry said, time and again, that the weapons were there. He even said (and I'll dig up the exact quote if you like) something to the effect that if you don't believe the weapons are there, you shouldn't vote for him. I think Rummy, Condie, and to a lesser extent Wolfowitz are probably the most competent people ever to hold those positions. Rummy especially. And if you seriously disagree with the term 'competent' (and I know that you do) then feel free to replace it with the word 'effective'. But okay, fine, you don't like her. I like her enough for both of us. BTW, if you had done what Sandy did you wouldn't get a $10,000 fine, you'd get 20 years in Camp Cupcake.

My mistake...for some reason I was confusing Berger with Warren Christopher.

And I don't think Berger would have been Sec. State under Kerry. I think Biden or Holbrooke would have been much more likely picks. [/B]

Maybe but my reading (before the fact and after) had most pundits on both sides putting Sandy in that office above all others. What position do you think he was aiming for?

 

[clk]

We disagree as to the incompetent nature or the acts or the persons. Mistakes were certainly made but these had less to do with the administration and more to do with what the CIA was reporting. Even Kerry said, time and again, that the weapons were there. He even said (and I'll dig up the exact quote if you like) something to the effect that if you don't believe the weapons are there, you shouldn't vote for him.

What Kerry has said or done in the past is irrelevant to this topic.

I think Rummy, Condie, and to a lesser extent Wolfowitz are probably the most competent people ever to hold those positions. Rummy especially.

Are you kidding? Rumsfeld is responsible for Abu Ghraib. Rumsfeld lied about what he originally claimed before the war.

SCHIEFFER: Well, let me just ask you this. If they did not have these weapons of mass destruction, though, granted all of that is true, why then did they pose an immediate threat to us, to this country?

Sec. RUMSFELD: Well, you're the--you and a few other critics are the only people I've heard use the phrase `immediate threat.' I didn't. The president didn't. And it's become kind of folklore that that's--that's what's happened. The president went...

SCHIEFFER: You're saying that nobody in the administration said that.

Sec. RUMSFELD: I--I can't speak for nobody--everybody in the administration and say nobody said that.

SCHIEFFER: Vice president didn't say that? The...

Sec. RUMSFELD: Not--if--if you have any citations, I'd like to see 'em.

Mr. FRIEDMAN: We have one here. It says `some have argued that the nu'--this is you speaking--`that the nuclear threat from Iraq is not imminent, that Saddam is at least five to seven years away from having nuclear weapons. I would not be so certain.'

Sec. RUMSFELD: And--and...

Mr. FRIEDMAN: It was close to imminent.

Sec. RUMSFELD: Well, I've--I've tried to be precise, and I've tried to be accurate. I'm s--suppose I've...

Mr. FRIEDMAN: `No terrorist state poses a greater or more immediate threat to the security of our people and the stability of the world and the regime of Saddam Hussein in Iraq.'

Sec. RUMSFELD: Mm-hmm. It--my view of--of the situation was that he--he had--we--we believe, the best intelligence that we had and other countries had and that--that we believed and we still do not know--we will know.

Condi lied repeatedly about warnings before 9/11:

"Richard Clarke had plenty of opportunities to tell us in the administration that he thought the war on terrorism was moving in the wrong direction and he chose not to."

"No al Qaeda plan was turned over to the new administration."
-Rice

Hmm...I wonder what this memo, dated January 2001, is about? Whoops, looks like Condi was caught lying. Too bad, she made an interesting gambit, probably thinking that it would be many years before that memo was declassified.

Wolfowitz claimed that Iraq's oil would pay for it's own reconstruction. Wrong. He also claimed that we would not need more troops after the war than before the war. Wrong again.

The lies and miscalculations of Wolfowitz, Rumsfeld and Rice have cost us over 1000 American lives, hundreds of billions of dollars, tens of thousands of Iraqi lives, and our global reputation. Tell me, if that is not incompetent, then what on Earth would they possibly have to do to be considered incompetent?? Stuff papers in their socks? And please explain how they are actually more competent than Albright, Berger and Cohen. During Clinton's 8 years, the US was widely respected in many parts of the world where we are now heavily despised. After 9/11, the entire world was behind us, even the Iranians sympathized us. We could have done a lot of good with that kind of support. But within only a span of a year, Bush and his gang managed to turn unprecedented support of the US into unprecedented hatred. Again, if that is not incompetence, then what is?

BTW, if you had done what Sandy did you wouldn't get a $10,000 fine, you'd get 20 years in Camp Cupcake.

Yeah? And if Gore had been President and if the Republicans would have found out he had been warned about Al Qaeda but did nothing, then they would have tried to impeach him (and probably would have succeeded).

Maybe but my reading (before the fact and after) had most pundits on both sides putting Sandy in that office above all others. What position do you think he was aiming for?

After the controversy sprung up around Berger, he quit as an adviser to Kerry. And I doubt Kerry would have nominated him to that position given how Kerry was sensitive to that kind of political controversy and bad publicity. This source says that Kerry would likely have picked Biden for the Secretary of State post:
http://www.timesonline.co.uk/article/0,,3-1334724,00.html

But again, what does Berger have to do with anything?
Explain how Berger is relevant to the fact that Bush has repeatedly promoted the most incompetent members of his administration.

 

[wahrheit]

Is that Rummy down at the lower right? Looks like he's thinking, "Oh, dear Pope Paul, I gotta take a dump and your minions are going to be prattling on for how many more hours?"

Exactly my first thought when I saw that photo

 

[Upchurch]

In the "A Picture Is Worth A Thousand Words" theme, I humbly offer...

Following SezMe's example:

"Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice landed a strong right hook to French President Jacques Chirac's jaw despite his attempts to ward off the blow. In order to avoid an international incident, President Bush and former President Clinton pretended to not notice the brawl."

 

[Kodiak]

Maybe. I think Hillary would/would have. Did anyone kiss her hand?

Slick Willie kissed something of hers after the Lewinsky scandal, but I don't think it was her hand...

 

[Rob Lister]

Slick Willie kissed something of hers after the Lewinsky scandal, but I don't think it was her hand...

I think you are right. Are you up for a little speculative gossip?

Are they even together anymore? (I mean Bill and Hillary in case it isn't clear) I bet they're not except on politically-social occasions. Bill's doing his thing in New York and Hillary's doing her thing in Washington. I bet they date, kinda, but that's about it. I bet they love each other, kinda, but not like a typical husband/wife. I think that's fine, BTW. But I just wanted to gossip about it.

 

[Kodiak]

I think you are right. Are you up for a little speculative gossip?

Are they even together anymore? (I mean Bill and Hillary in case it isn't clear) I bet they're not except on politically-social occasions. Bill's doing his thing in New York and Hillary's doing her thing in Washington. I bet they date, kinda, but that's about it. I bet they love each other, kinda, but not like a typical husband/wife. I think that's fine, BTW. But I just wanted to gossip about it.

I think that they are a couple in name only. If you listened to any of her speeches as highlighted by this last Sunday's political news shows, you know she's already campaigning for the next presidential race. She'll need Bill at least that long, and longer if she also has her sights set on any ambassadorships, or possibly a seat on the Supreme court.

 

[clk]

I feel kind of bad for Rob. I mean, he's desperately trying to cling to the notion that Rice was a competent NSA. But what was he going to say? He can't say that Rice did everything possible to battle terrorism before 9/11, because in reality she ignored the warnings and then later lied about it. He can't say that the Iraq war was a success because we defeated a large threat to the US, since that is not true either. And he can't claim that Rice help make the US more respected around the world, because the Bush administration turned unprecedented world wide support for us into hatred. Rob can't really say much to justify Bush's appointing Rice to Secretary of State. All he can do is put a picture of Chirac kissing her hand and then say: Look! Chirac kissed her hand! He didn't do that to Albright, so that must mean Rice is better!
Then, when confronted with the fact that Rice is incompetent, he completely changes the topic and starts talking about Sandy Berger. I mean, if Sandy Berger is incompetent, then surely that justifies Bush's promotion of other incompetent people, right?

It's sad, really.