So Condi Rice as Sec. of State

[LadyShea]

I cannot stand this woman. How on Earth does she think she can improve foreign relations when she is a lying waffler? Interesting tidbits from her confirmation hearing:

"Despite Paul Bremmer saying he thought they needed more troops, despite General (Eric) Shinseki talking about more troops, despite the acknowledged mistake by so many people, certainly all the leaders I met with in the region in recent days....despite the failure to guard ammo dumps...despite the security level that we today, you sat there this morning and suggested it was the right level of troops, contrary to the advice of most thoughtful people who have been analyzing this." — Sen. John Kerry (news - web sites), D-Mass.

"The time for diplomacy is now," -Rice
"The time for diplomacy is long overdue." -Sen. Joseph Biden

"Your loyalty to your mission you were given overwhelmed your respect for the truth, and I don't say it lightly," -Sen. Boxer

"I have never, ever lost respect for the truth in service of anything. It is not my nature, it is not my character. And I would hope that we can have this conversation ... without impugning my credibility or my integrity."-Rice

"I'm not going to give views on specific interrogation techniques," -Rice (in respnse to a question about dunking restrained prisoner under water)

A visibly frustrated Dodd told her he was disappointed, and suggested that Rice ask a former prisoner of war in Vietnam, Sen. John McCain about torture and the risk to American troops if the U.S. government gives "waffling answers" about it.

Apparently she also commented on how the tsunami presented a "wonderful opportunity" for the United States to reach out to countries in the Muslim world and build good will. What a tool.

[Corwin]

In what little I saw of it, she came off as a lying bitch.

I LOVED how Barbara Boxer hammered at her.

[Goliath]

No, no, Shea, you don't understand. Rice is a republican, so she isn't waffling, she's being decisive.

[livius drusus]

The Daily Show is nailing her on the confirmation hearing. They just showed the Condi/Boxer exchange:

Rice: "Sen. we can have this discussion in any way that you would like, but I really hope that you will refrain from impugning my integrity."

Boxer: "I'm not, I'm just quoting what you said. You contradicted the president and you contradicted yourself."

Stewart: "And Rice replied 'No I did.'"

[The Lone Ranger]

Would any sane person have believed just 5 years ago that the President of the United States would nominate someone like Rice for Secretary of State? Would any sane person have believed that the PotUS would nominate a person who wrote memos justifying torture and who referred to the Geneva Conventions as "quaint" for Attourney General?


There are times when I simply cannot believe this administration! It's like they're thinking: "Okay, let's do this -- it's far too radical, of course, and nobody will let us get away with it, but we'll look like we've made 'concessions' when we promote our real plan for consideration." Except in this Twilight Zone version of reality, no one raises more than a token objection to the ultra-radical plan in the first place, and so that's the one that's adopted!



This am Bizarro World! Me am so happy!

Michael

[Godless Dave]

All Democratic Senators except Boxer are now officially on my shit list. Did any of them ask her why Al Qaeda was such a low priority prior to September 11, 2001? Did any of them bring up her certainty that Iraq had nuclear weapons, based on intelligence that was highly suspect at the time and is known to be completely untrue now? Either she's a liar or she's incompetent. Neither is acceptable in a Secretary of State.

Remember how Republican Senators treated Clinton's nominees? Remember how they kept winning elections afterward?

[Corwin]

Originally Posted by Godless Dave

All Democratic Senators except Boxer are now officially on my shit list. Did any of them ask her why Al Qaeda was such a low priority prior to September 11, 2001? Did any of them bring up her certainty that Iraq had nuclear weapons, based on intelligence that was highly suspect at the time and is known to be completely untrue now? Either she's a liar or she's incompetent. Neither is acceptable in a Secretary of State.

Remember how Republican Senators treated Clinton's nominees? Remember how they kept winning elections afterward?

I think this highlights a problem with the Democrats... one we need to fix by throwing out the fucking DLC. The more I look at it, the more damage I see Clinton's 'centrist/moderate democrats' (who really aren't terribly centrist OR moderate) doing to the party.

[godfry n. glad]

I'm just smug.

Thirty years ago, I took shiploads of crap for suggesting that the idea that women in power would do wondrous things was presumptuous and rather unlikely. Women in power are hardly distinguishable from men in power. They seem to be just as misguided and venal. All that "talk-talk" about how women would improve politics was just so much bullshit.

Of course, I'm not surprised, either. C'mon, guys, did you really think you'd get anything better than the first round....just because Bushette got a second round?

godfry

....and, what'd you expect? They're all bush league.

[Shake]

From a semi-related thread at II, I made this post. Apparently, there are some folks who want her to run for Pres. in '08!

[FormerFundie2004]

Originally Posted by godfry n. glad

I'm just smug.

Thirty years ago, I took shiploads of crap for suggesting that the idea that women in power would do wondrous things was presumptuous and rather unlikely.

Maybe your opinions were somewhat....biased....

Women in power are hardly distinguishable from men in power.

Yes, especially when they are imitating men in power.

They seem to be just as misguided and venal. All that "talk-talk" about how women would improve politics was just so much bullshit.

Not necessarily. When women copy men in power, they behave as men and make the same mistakes as men. War is a male invention; Rice is simply following what she knows, and towing the party line.

They're all bush league.

You summed up the problem quite nicely.

By the way, I used to be excited about Rice, even wanting her to be President. But that was only because I was a Republican feminist at the time. It didn't take long for me to realize that most women don't get far in the Republican Party (unless they tow the party line very, very well).

[wildernesse]

Originally Posted by FormerFundie200419

Maybe your opinions were somewhat....biased....

Yes, especially when they are imitating men in power.

Not necessarily. When women copy men in power, they behave as men and make the same mistakes as men. War is a male invention; Rice is simply following what she knows, and towing the party line.

You summed up the problem quite nicely.

By the way, I used to be excited about Rice, even wanting her to be President. But that was only because I was a Republican feminist at the time. It didn't take long for me to realize that most women don't get far in the Republican Party (unless they tow the party line very, very well).

I think your ideas of women are much more insulting than godfrey's. You are asserting that many women today are simply aping men and unable to strike out on their own, as opposed to godfrey's "everyone is equal in their aptitude for poor leadership and misfeasence".

War is a male invention? Good grief--how would you ever prove that? War (competition for resources and dominance, even violently) seems to be a natural part of the biological world, nothing human male invented about it.

[Godless Dave]

First, let me say that the ideas Godfry was objecting too seem, to me, to be held by only a small minority of feminists.

The facts are these:

Men and women are equally capable of doing good or evil.

Power corrupts.

[Godless Dave]

Originally Posted by godfry n. glad

Of course, I'm not surprised, either. C'mon, guys, did you really think you'd get anything better than the first round....just because Bushette got a second round?

Of course not. I did hold some vain hope that the Democrats would act like an opposition party rather than an appeasement party, and that they might mount some opposition to a nominee who is so obviously incompetent and dishonest.

[Corwin]

Originally Posted by Godless Dave

Of course not. I did hold some vain hope that the Democrats would act like an opposition party rather than an appeasement party, and that they might mount some opposition to a nominee who is so obviously incompetent and dishonest.

Patience Dave.... let's get Howard Dean into heading the party and see what happens...

[godfry n. glad]

Originally Posted by wildernesse

War is a male invention? Good grief--how would you ever prove that? War (competition for resources and dominance, even violently) seems to be a natural part of the biological world, nothing human male invented about it.

Agreed. But it's the male that seems to suffer the most for it. Males are the tools of war, regardless.

And I still say that there was a lot of unwarrented gender-aggrandizement at the beginnings of the "feminist" movement. One of those was that an increase in the number of women in power would significantly improve governance. As that blossoms (as well it should), it has proven to be just as misguided as male leadership in power. I do not argue that they should not be in places of power, or that we should return to the gender/power distribution of earlier generations, or that women should play some lesser to nonexistant role in politics. Women should have an equal role to men in wielding and sharing the power of our communities, indeed, given the current biological realities, they should probably dominate places of power.

My point is that when they do, there will be no significant change in the product of politics.

godfry

[wildernesse]

Originally Posted by godfry n. glad

Agreed. But it's the male that seems to suffer the most for it. Males are the tools of war, regardless.

Ah, so the women who are left pulling society along while the men go off to battle, the women who left without partners and must do the jobs of two, the women who are often the spoils of war, and the crimes against women which are often a part of war--that's nothing compared to what the warriors (whose suffering is pretty much glorified in any event) face. I see.

And I still say that there was a lot of unwarrented gender-aggrandizement at the beginnings of the "feminist" movement. One of those was that an increase in the number of women in power would significantly improve governance. As that blossoms (as well it should), it has proven to be just as misguided as male leadership in power. I do not argue that they should not be in places of power, or that we should return to the gender/power distribution of earlier generations, or that women should play some lesser to nonexistant role in politics. Women should have an equal role to men in wielding and sharing the power of our communities, indeed, given the current biological realities, they should probably dominate places of power.

My point is that when they do, there will be no significant change in the product of politics.

I don't see how I'm disagreeing with you at all in this argument. I would say that governance is improved when more members of society are represented in government (and not just at the political level) because it is likely that this will improve awareness and responsiveness of government as a whole--not because women (or any other non-white male) are better managers or some such nonsense.

[godfry n. glad]

Originally Posted by wildernesse

Ah, so the women who are left pulling society along while the men go off to battle, the women who left without partners and must do the jobs of two, the women who are often the spoils of war, and the crimes against women which are often a part of war--that's nothing compared to what the warriors (whose suffering is pretty much glorified in any event) face. I see.

I don't see how I'm disagreeing with you at all in this argument. I would say that governance is improved when more members of society are represented in government (and not just at the political level) because it is likely that this will improve awareness and responsiveness of government as a whole--not because women (or any other non-white male) are better managers or some such nonsense.

I don't think we are disagreeing. You just seem to have taken offense at the manner in which I expressed myself. At least that's how I'm interpreting your response. I'm pretty much in support of the feminist position....it's just that thirty years ago, many feminists (and I won't even try to guess whether they were a small minority or not) expressed the smug conceit that once more women became actively involved in the political process and rose to positions of influence, that somehow the nations which allowed them such access would become more peace-loving and compassionate. I questioned that conceit then and paid for it with nasty reactions (rather like yours, wildy) because I had the temerity to doubt the wonderful prospect of women in power.

Power corrupts...men and women alike.

godfry

(...and, I did not say that males suffer all the horrors of war, but there are disproportionate numbers of males out there with missing limbs and abused psyches, thanks to their being the prime fodder for the war machine. Not to mention the dead.)

[livius drusus]

I remember that whole "if women ran the world there would be no war" line. I believe it was supposed to be uterus related. It never made much sense to me as mothers have sent sons to war since there have been sons to send, so I don't see why women would be inherently less inclined to order large numbers of other mothers' sons into battle.

I haven't heard it in a while, though. Either my circle of acquaintance has become less prone to empty cliche or Margaret Thatcher shut everyone up.

P.S. - I would say that men disproportionately suffer the horrors of combat, but war is a far broader term and an argument could be made that women shoulder its burdens disproportionately. Not that I'm making it, mind you. It's way too big a topic to draw up any reasonable numbers to determine proportion, imo.

[godfry n. glad]

Originally Posted by livius drusus

I remember that whole "if women ran the world there would be no war" line. I believe it was supposed to be uterus related. It never made much sense to me as mothers have sent sons to war since there have been sons to send, so I don't see why women would be inherently less inclined to order large numbers of other mothers' sons into battle.

I haven't heard it in a while, though. Either my circle of acquaintance has become less prone to empty cliche or Margaret Thatcher shut everyone up.

P.S. - I would say that men disproportionately suffer the horrors of combat, but war is a far broader term and an argument could be made that women shoulder its burdens disproportionately. Not that I'm making it, mind you. It's way too big a topic to draw up any reasonable numbers to determine proportion, imo.

Yeah...Meir and then Thatcher...and then Indira and her Pakistani counterparts.

And, agreed. Combat is more specific to the male involvement, but then, combat is the crux of war.

godfry

[livius drusus]

That's probably a subject for another thread (and a really interesting one, too; you should totally start it), but I tend to think there is no one crux of war.

[Shaguar]

Although she is part of your administartion rather than mine I would like to make the following point. I always felt with Powell that he would express his view based on his knowledge of world politics and the shifts and alliances that come with it. I also think his military service was invaluable and he appeared to me a lot less inclined to use force as an answer than those armchair heroes Cheyney and Rumsfeld (who is as mad as cheese IMO).

Condi it seems to me will say whatever she thinks Mr Bush likes to hear and her background in Cold War Russian studies would hardly seem to equip her for the role. She owes her whole political carreer to Mr Bush, there has to be some loyalty payoff, Colin Powell already had a distinguished career.

I really hope Powell writes a warts and all story of his time in the government it could make interesting reading

[godfry n. glad]

I think Powell is more of a conservative "realist" than a neocon ideologue. I'd bet he's tired of fighting the last war and sick of seeing American troops being sent to the meat grinder unnecessarily.

I think you're also right that Condi is there to be the neocon puppet. She's the good girl who does what she's told. But don't expect either Cheney or Rumsfeld to disappear any time soon. They, along with Wolfowitz and

My bet is that they'll spend much of this term attempting to dust off the newish bogeyman (al Kader) or create some new ones (al P'sha'a and al Bun'dee).

Look for an attempt to link al Qaeda (al Kader) to the Social Security system.



godfry

(....I am just amused at the thought of middle-aged white guys in fezzes and balloon trousers on little tricycles, waving cardboard scimitars, as "terrorists". Forgive me my silliness.)

[viscousmemories]

Originally Posted by godfry n. glad

They, along with Wolfowitz and

Hmm... I think you were censored by the Secret Service.

[godfry n. glad]

Originally Posted by viscousmemories

Hmm... I think you were censored by the Secret Service.

Yeah... That's the ticket!... The Secret Service got into my brain and made me forget all those other cabalist names.

I couldn't remember names is all....Then I forgot to look them up... Then I forgot to come back and edit....Sometimer's Disease. It comes with aging.

godfry

[wildernesse]

Originally Posted by godfry n. glad

I don't think we are disagreeing. You just seem to have taken offense at the manner in which I expressed myself. At least that's how I'm interpreting your response.

Wait--was my flip little "equal opportunity for ineptitude" or whatever I said the part where I take offense? I'm not offended--I think that myself. It's probably that I said "much more offensive. . .than godfrey's"--as in godfrey's opinions are right (heehee, because I agree) and FormerFundie2004's seem to me to be a negative portrayal--much more so than her perceptions of your/our opinions being negative. I shouldn't post when I'm tired, because I make no sense--or the sense I make is not what I'm trying to make. I don't know what my excuse is going to be for this post, though.

I'm pretty much in support of the feminist position....it's just that thirty years ago, many feminists (and I won't even try to guess whether they were a small minority or not) expressed the smug conceit that once more women became actively involved in the political process and rose to positions of influence, that somehow the nations which allowed them such access would become more peace-loving and compassionate. I questioned that conceit then and paid for it with nasty reactions (rather like yours, wildy) because I had the temerity to doubt the wonderful prospect of women in power.

Power corrupts...men and women alike.

I understand--and I think the women as peace loving nurturers is not rooted in reality. It's a gender stereotype/role--and women shouldn't be bound to that or told that they're just imitating men when they don't conform to that role. (As I felt FormerFundie2004 did.) I'm sorry that you think my reaction was nasty--that wasn't my intention, I just didn't say what I meant to say somehow.

(...and, I did not say that males suffer all the horrors of war, but there are disproportionate numbers of males out there with missing limbs and abused psyches, thanks to their being the prime fodder for the war machine. Not to mention the dead.)

livius pretty much described what I'm thinking, but in a way that is actually communicating instead of garbledness.