November 17, 200421 yr After all of the things she did during the first Bush term, I don't think she should still be working in the cabinet. Let's go over some incidents, shall we: -Even though the CIA knew that the Saddam-Niger yellow cake nuclear buy was a false story, Rice did not object to it being added to the President's State of the Union address in 2003. -She testified before the 9/11 commission, saying that an August 2001 memo entitled "Bin Laden Determined to Strike in U.S." wasn't a clear indication that Bin Laden was a threat to U.S. national security. -Should be held at least somewhat responsible for the intelligence failures leading up to the Iraq war.
November 17, 200421 yr You just outlined a case against the Administration, not why Condoleeza isn't the best choice.
November 17, 200421 yr Author You just outlined a case against the Administration, not why Condoleeza isn't the best choice. 616226[/snapback] They go hand-in-hand.
November 17, 200421 yr If nothing else all the tolerant liberals of the country should rejoice that an intelligent black woman gets such a high post in the US govt
November 17, 200421 yr If nothing else all the tolerant liberals of the country should rejoice that an intelligent black woman gets such a high post in the US govt 616330[/snapback] If nothing else all the race blind nonliberals should not want her there just because she is black but because they want a good sec of state.
November 17, 200421 yr I agree with Legacy, she is an intelligent person. However, it doesn't make me happy, because she is black or a woman. That is besides the point. The problem that I see with her appointment has nothing to do with her intelligence, gender or race, it has more to do with her actions as National Security Advisor. During the 9/11 hearings she was exposed for her inept attitude prior to the attacks... HELLO! "Bin Laden determined to attack inside the US"! What does that spell to you if not "DANGER"??? Anyway, there is nothing I can do, she will be secretary of state, as planned all along. We will have 4 more years of the same. I just hope that the partisan CIA Bush is creating gives him good intelligence and not what HE wants to hear... Perhaps that way we can really prevent another catastrophe... Let's hope Condi has better judgement this time and does her job well.
November 17, 200421 yr OMG I like can't believe Bush chose a republican for Secretary of State. :plain
November 17, 200421 yr I agree with Legacy, she is an intelligent person. However, it doesn't make me happy, because she is black or a woman. That is besides the point. The problem that I see with her appointment has nothing to do with her intelligence, gender or race, it has more to do with her actions as National Security Advisor. During the 9/11 hearings she was exposed for her inept attitude prior to the attacks... HELLO! "Bin Laden determined to attack inside the US"! What does that spell to you if not "DANGER"??? Anyway, there is nothing I can do, she will be secretary of state, as planned all along. We will have 4 more years of the same. I just hope that the partisan CIA Bush is creating gives him good intelligence and not what HE wants to hear... Perhaps that way we can really prevent another catastrophe... Let's hope Condi has better judgement this time and does her job well. 616358[/snapback] Clearly, the Clinton administration dealth with the threat the correct way *AFTER the attacks during his administation (in the US too!) :whistle
November 17, 200421 yr I agree with Legacy, she is an intelligent person. However, it doesn't make me happy, because she is black or a woman. That is besides the point. The problem that I see with her appointment has nothing to do with her intelligence, gender or race, it has more to do with her actions as National Security Advisor. During the 9/11 hearings she was exposed for her inept attitude prior to the attacks... HELLO! "Bin Laden determined to attack inside the US"! What does that spell to you if not "DANGER"??? Anyway, there is nothing I can do, she will be secretary of state, as planned all along. We will have 4 more years of the same. I just hope that the partisan CIA Bush is creating gives him good intelligence and not what HE wants to hear... Perhaps that way we can really prevent another catastrophe... Let's hope Condi has better judgement this time and does her job well. 616358[/snapback] Clearly, the Clinton administration dealth with the threat the correct way *AFTER the attacks during his administation (in the US too!) :whistle 616446[/snapback] Whatever CF. I am not going down the Clinton road because that was clearly years ago. I am talking about the administration we are under. Unless you are telling me that Condoleezza worked with Clinton too...
November 17, 200421 yr of course rice isnt exactly officially in this position yet. there is a thing called confirmation by the senate...doesnt that have to be by a 2/3 majority? she will get grilled on the key issues...that much i am almost certain about. is she a good choice? debatable. i really dont care what color the skin is or what their gender is....its debatable whether or not she is the best choice. only time will tell that.
November 17, 200421 yr I agree with Legacy, she is an intelligent person. However, it doesn't make me happy, because she is black or a woman. That is besides the point. The problem that I see with her appointment has nothing to do with her intelligence, gender or race, it has more to do with her actions as National Security Advisor. During the 9/11 hearings she was exposed for her inept attitude prior to the attacks... HELLO! "Bin Laden determined to attack inside the US"! What does that spell to you if not "DANGER"??? Anyway, there is nothing I can do, she will be secretary of state, as planned all along. We will have 4 more years of the same. I just hope that the partisan CIA Bush is creating gives him good intelligence and not what HE wants to hear... Perhaps that way we can really prevent another catastrophe... Let's hope Condi has better judgement this time and does her job well. 616358[/snapback] Clearly, the Clinton administration dealth with the threat the correct way *AFTER the attacks during his administation (in the US too!) :whistle 616446[/snapback] Whatever CF. I am not going down the Clinton road because that was clearly years ago. I am talking about the administration we are under. Unless you are telling me that Condoleezza worked with Clinton too... 616471[/snapback] The road needs to be revisited, as you have brought up the "failure to address a serious threat" issue. Just being fair
November 18, 200421 yr I agree with Legacy, she is an intelligent person. However, it doesn't make me happy, because she is black or a woman. That is besides the point. The problem that I see with her appointment has nothing to do with her intelligence, gender or race, it has more to do with her actions as National Security Advisor. During the 9/11 hearings she was exposed for her inept attitude prior to the attacks... HELLO! "Bin Laden determined to attack inside the US"! What does that spell to you if not "DANGER"??? Anyway, there is nothing I can do, she will be secretary of state, as planned all along. We will have 4 more years of the same. I just hope that the partisan CIA Bush is creating gives him good intelligence and not what HE wants to hear... Perhaps that way we can really prevent another catastrophe... Let's hope Condi has better judgement this time and does her job well. 616358[/snapback] Clearly, the Clinton administration dealth with the threat the correct way *AFTER the attacks during his administation (in the US too!) :whistle 616446[/snapback] Whatever CF. I am not going down the Clinton road because that was clearly years ago. I am talking about the administration we are under. Unless you are telling me that Condoleezza worked with Clinton too... 616471[/snapback] The road needs to be revisited, as you have brought up the "failure to address a serious threat" issue. Just being fair 616628[/snapback] No CF you are not being fair. You are trying to blame Clinton's administration for an oversight and a clear failure of this administration in taking terrorism seriously. Did terror attacks happened during Clinton, yes, but I have to remind you that the greatest, most deadliest attack on the US happened under the watch (or lack thereoff) of Bush's administration.
November 18, 200421 yr there is a thing called confirmation by the senate...doesnt that have to be by a 2/3 majority?616534[/snapback] I'm pretty sure it's a simple majority
November 18, 200421 yr I agree with Legacy, she is an intelligent person. However, it doesn't make me happy, because she is black or a woman. That is besides the point. The problem that I see with her appointment has nothing to do with her intelligence, gender or race, it has more to do with her actions as National Security Advisor. During the 9/11 hearings she was exposed for her inept attitude prior to the attacks... HELLO! "Bin Laden determined to attack inside the US"! What does that spell to you if not "DANGER"??? Anyway, there is nothing I can do, she will be secretary of state, as planned all along. We will have 4 more years of the same. I just hope that the partisan CIA Bush is creating gives him good intelligence and not what HE wants to hear... Perhaps that way we can really prevent another catastrophe... Let's hope Condi has better judgement this time and does her job well. 616358[/snapback] Clearly, the Clinton administration dealth with the threat the correct way *AFTER the attacks during his administation (in the US too!) :whistle 616446[/snapback] Whatever CF. I am not going down the Clinton road because that was clearly years ago. I am talking about the administration we are under. Unless you are telling me that Condoleezza worked with Clinton too... 616471[/snapback] The road needs to be revisited, as you have brought up the "failure to address a serious threat" issue. Just being fair 616628[/snapback] No CF you are not being fair. You are trying to blame Clinton's administration for an oversight and a clear failure of this administration in taking terrorism seriously. Did terror attacks happened during Clinton, yes, but I have to remind you that the greatest, most deadliest attack on the US happened under the watch (or lack thereoff) of Bush's administration. 616653[/snapback] I am not blaming Clinton for 9/11, I'm blaming both of our leaders. Of course, one could make the case that the 7 1/2 years after Bin Laden first struck the WTC were much longer than the 9 months of Bush in office prior to 9/11, but we won't go there, terror is terror, and an attack is an attack.
Join the conversation
You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.
Note: Your post will require moderator approval before it will be visible.