« Carnival of the Trackbacks XXXIII | Main | Child's play and the highest court »

3 Things that don't scare Condoleezza Rice

1) Bombs.

2) Rockets.

3) Dictators.

How can you not love this woman?


Comments (32)

Easy her failure to be cons... (Below threshold)
Robert:

Easy her failure to be consistent with the terrorists in Iraq and the terrorists residing in the PA.

Until the same standard is held to ALL terrorists I hold her in less esteem.

Good mini-roundup there on ... (Below threshold)
Ray:

Good mini-roundup there on Condi. Sometimes less is really more.

Yo Robert, this one's for y... (Below threshold)
Ray:

Yo Robert, this one's for you. The point of the post was to show here courage I do beleive, not for a place holder for your cheap shot. Cheers.

And she speaks Russian, ice... (Below threshold)

And she speaks Russian, ice skates well and plays piano near perfectly. You know, maybe we ought to make her our leader.

If Margaret Thatcher was th... (Below threshold)
Maggie:

If Margaret Thatcher was the Iron Maiden, I suggest we start calling Condi the Leather Maiden.

She wears it well!

Add to the list: World Lead... (Below threshold)
JAT0:

Add to the list: World Leaders with $alls!

Yo Ray,That does n... (Below threshold)
Robert:

Yo Ray,

That does not discount the fact that she is continuing the failed state department policy in holding double standards for terrorists. She has had some successes in other areas of the world. Great, that is terrific. However there is one place in the world where she is failing and that is Israel and dealing with the terrorists who run and want to participate in the government (if you can call the PA a government). Her successes does not discount/overlap or add to her credibility when she continues the double standard in trying to prop up a terrorist state in Gaza and the West Bank. Nor does it explain away the political double talk that she has done in regards to Hamas. Little Green Footballs has posted enough info from her comments, press releases and other sayings from her that make me want to cringe whenever she discusses Israel or the Terrorists running the PA/Hamas.

Robert. Only pure... (Below threshold)
epador:

Robert.

Only pure authoritarian rule allows no compromise. If the current policy toward the PA is distasteful, perhaps it is a measured step towards untangling the Gordian knot of Middle East politics. I am sure you feel that a quick slash here or there might cut through the morass, but as such alternatives raise their own complications, they are also not ideal.

Everyone
CR is an intelligent and powerful person in our country and abroad. How would you rate her against Henry Kissinger or Adalai Stevenson? (I bet they weren't favorites of yours, or are they before your time?) Benjamin Franklin or John Adams?

Hmmmm."perhaps it ... (Below threshold)
ed:

Hmmmm.

"perhaps it is a measured step towards untangling the Gordian knot of Middle East politics"

We've had so many "measured steps" in the past 50 years I vote we change the blurb to "measured hiking trails".

3 things that Condoleeza Ri... (Below threshold)
cat:

3 things that Condoleeza Rice and her bosses used to scare America:

1) Non-existent bombs

2) Non-existent rockets carrying non-existent WMD

3) Dictators with harmless goo

Don't you just despair that a woman so talented should rise so high, but be dragged down so low?

Is there an award for most ... (Below threshold)
B Moe:

Is there an award for most persistent beating of a dead horse?

B Moe, I don't know about d... (Below threshold)
cat:

B Moe, I don't know about dead horses, but how about 1,970 dead Americans?

Or, by the most conservative counting, upwards of 26,000 dead Iraqis?

Are they dead horses, or dead people?

Great, Robert doesn't like ... (Below threshold)
Ray:

Great, Robert doesn't like a SOS that's a woman who has balls.

And Cat, the ever present Anti-Whatevermovementicanfindwithoutpayinganddue

Cat, you fail to realize that

1.In another place and time YOU HAVE NO VOICE. Period. End of discussion.
2.If not us who? Who? The Russians? The Chinese? The Jamacians?
3.Stop driking the Kool-Aide.

Robert, you posted alot but didn't say anything. Really you didn't. You just bitched like a little girl that your not getting what YOU want. I'll bet good money you don't even if live there, no someone who lives there, or the closet you've ever been to the ME is going by the airport.

Cheers

"Some have said we must no... (Below threshold)
B Moe:

"Some have said we must not act until the threat is imminent. Since when have terrorists and tyrants announced their intentions, politely putting us on notice before they strike? If this threat is permitted to fully and suddenly emerge, all actions, all words, and all recriminations would come too late. Trusting in the sanity and restraint of Saddam Hussein is not a strategy, and it is not an option."

-George Bush, State of the Union Address. January 2003

I try to be calm and polite most of the time in these posts, but it gets to me sometimes just how fucking dense alot of the anti-war crowd is.

If you are capable of reading on even a rudimentary level, and are the least bit honest, the above words obviously indicate the President did not consider the threat yet imminent, that he considered waiting until we were sure Saddam had stockpiles of weapons too late, because the only way to be sure would be after he nuked Israel.

Is that the world you are desirous of? Or would you prefer to starve hundreds of thousands of Iraqi children annually with continued economic sanctions?

Ray you crack me up. Your ... (Below threshold)
Robert:

Ray you crack me up. Your arguement is the same as the looney moonbat left who say that since conservatives who are not in the military are chickenhawks. Now if that is the best arguement that you have in your head...you have lost.

I seem to recall President Bush stating that we will be going after states who support or fund terrorism and those plethora of terrorist groups. I also seem to recall that Hamas is on some terrorist watch lists. Now I voted for the President partially because he stated those things. Now here we are four years later dealing with the same terrorists, trying to legitimize them and depending on what text you are reading from CR might even allow Hamas apart of the ruling coaltion of the Palestinian Territories. If that happens, Bush will have lost my support. I cannot see how we aid a people who danced and cheered @ 9/11.

Now you might not think I said anything, but by the very nature of your response you have found enough motive to respond, so either refute my arguement with fact or just don't respond.

Re B. Moe post at 4:51 pos... (Below threshold)
Steve Crickmore:

Re B. Moe post at 4:51 post, quoting Bush's words Some have said we must not act until the threat is imminent . What did scare Dubya and Condi were questions from the National Commission on 911 and their dreaded appeareances to explain how they didn't take seriously the threat of Al Qaeda From Rice's public testimony. (Dubya as you remember would only appear in private accompanied by Cheney. Rice even though she first refused to appear before this democratic body, had less choice):

ROEMER: You have said several times that your responsibility, being in office for 230 days, was to defend and protect the United States.

RICE: Of course.

ROEMER: You had an opportunity, I think, with Mr. Clarke, who had served a number of presidents going back to the Reagan administration; who you'd decided to keep on in office; who was a pile driver, a bulldozer, so to speak -- but this person who you, in the Woodward interview -- he's the very first name out of your mouth when you suspect that terrorists have attacked us on September the 11. You say, I think, immediately it was a terrorist attack; get Dick Clarke, the terrorist guy.

ROEMER: Even before you mentioned Tenet and Rumsfeld's names, "Get Dick Clarke."..........

RICE: Now, as to -- I think you know the sensitivity of presidential decision memoranda. And I think you know the great lengths to which we have gone to make it possible for this commission to view documents that are not generally -- I don't know if they've ever been -- made available in quite this way.

Now, as to what Dick Clarke said on September 4th, that was not a premonition, nor a warning. What that memorandum was, as I was getting ready to go into the September 4th principals meeting to review the NSPD and to approve the new NSPD, what it was a warning to me that the bureaucracies would try to undermine it.

Dick goes into great and emotional detail about the long history of how DOD has never been responsive, how the CIA has never been responsive, about how the Predator has gotten hung up because the CIA doesn't really want to fly it.

And he says, if you don't fight through this bureaucracy -- he says, at one point, "They're going to all sign on to this NSPD because they won't want to be associated -- they won't want to say they don't want to eliminate the threat of al Qaeda." He says, "But, in effect, you have to go in there and push them, because we'll all wonder about the day when thousands of Americans" and so forth and so on.

RICE: So that's what this document is. It's not a warning document. It's not a -- all of us had this fear.

I think that the chairman mentioned that I said this in an interview, that we would hope not to get to that day. But it would not be appropriate or correct to characterize what Dick wrote to me on September 4th as a warning of an impending attack. What he was doing was, I think, trying to buck me up, so that when I went into this principals meeting, I was sufficiently on guard against the kind of bureaucratic inertia that he had fought all of his life.

ROEMER: What is a warning, if August 6 isn't and September 4th isn't, to you
RICE: Well, August 6 is most certainly an historical document that says, "Here's how you might think about al Qaeda." A warning is when you have something that suggests that an attack is impending.

And we did not have, on the United States, threat information that was, in any way, specific enough to suggest that something was coming in the United States.

The September 4th memo, as I've said to you, was a warning to me not to get dragged down by the bureaucracy, not a warning about September 11.

ROEMER: Thank you, Dr. Rice

Cricky, the previous admini... (Below threshold)

Cricky, the previous administration had eight years to get serious about al Qaeda.

What were they afraid of?

B MoeBush, Cheney,... (Below threshold)
cat:

B Moe

Bush, Cheney, Powell, Rice, Blair and Straw all said Iraq had massive stockpiles of biological and chemical weapons. In reality, Iraq and UNSCOM had already destroyed the vast majority of those weapons, and those that remained were too old to be of any military use.

The same politicians said Iraq was actively pursuing nuclear weapons. It was not. Iraq had tried to develop nuclear weapons in the 1980s, but that program had ended and could not have been restarted without being detected.

I think you must be confusing me with someone else, because I know Bush didn't say Iraq was an imminent threat. But all the above politicians said repeatedly that Iraq was already a serious threat, and that threat was growing.

"The danger to America from the Iraqi regime is grave and growing....Iraq has stockpiled biological and chemical weapons, and is rebuilding the facilities used to make more of those weapons."

There were no stockpiles of biological and chemical weapons. Nor was Iraq rebuilding facilities to make more. And Iraq had been reduced to one of the weakest countries in the Middle East.

And no, I certainly did not prefer the killing of hundreds of thousands of Iraqi children through sanctions. The effects of sanctions were catastrophic. They were maintained throughout the 1990s on the basis of a lie - that they were intended to force Saddam Hussein to disarm. He was already effectively disarmed and Madeleine Albright said the sanctions would never be lifted while Saddam was still in power. In other words their purpose was regime change.

But the sanctions were also counterproductive. They weakened Iraq's infrastructure, but strengthened Saddam's grip on power because everyone in the country became dependent on rations to survive. Those rations were witheld from anyone who didn't obey instructions, like giving Saddam 100% approval in fake elections.

So I have no more respect for those who said sanctions were working than I have who said Iraq was a serious and growing threat and had to be invaded.

Saddam Hussein's regime was obnoxious, but both these claims were lies.

It is all so clear now, he ... (Below threshold)
B Moe:

It is all so clear now, he didn't have chemical or biological weapons, it was carefully syncronized farting on a massive level that killed all those Kurds and Iranians. And he refused to cooperate with UNSCOM because he didn't want us to know that the awful secret was just that Iraqi women were horrible cooks.

The only thing I was confusing you with was someone with a glimmer of intelligence, you have pretty much cleared that up over the past few weeks though.


Let me explain it a differe... (Below threshold)
B Moe:

Let me explain it a different way, I have fucked up in my life and been arrested before. I have spent time on probation. One of the terms of my probation was the cops could show up anytime, without a warrant, and search my house for drugs and alcohol. I did not play games when they did. I did not say you can only search certain rooms and certain times. I did not say you can come in my house until tomorrow. If I had played games, I would have got knocked down, hand-cuffed and drug off to jail.

And they would not have apologized and let me out if it turned out there were no drugs in the house. Saddam was on UN probation, he didn't cooperate, he got busted. Why he didn't cooperate really doesn't matter to me.


B MoeDid you read ... (Below threshold)
cat:

B Moe

Did you read what Scott Ritter was saying long before the war?

I know I've already posted it twice, so I apologize for being boringly repetitive. Reality is a little more complex than a Hollywood movie. Perhaps you can't deal with that complexity, or perhaps you don't want to.

I'll try to put it simply:

1) Iraq once had an unsuccessful nuclear weapons program that was terminated.

2)Iraq once had a biological weapons program, but did not use it.

3)Iraq once had large quantities of chemical weapons and did use them against Iran and the Kurds.

4)After the first Gulf War, the vast majority of chemical and biological weapons were destroyed, but many were never properly accounted for.

5)In 2003, UNMOVIC still had unanswered questions to complete process of accounting for the missing weapons. It asked for several more months to finish that job, but was not given the chance to do so.

Had them...used them...destroyed them...failed to properly account for that destruction...finally started to cooperate fully...was invaded.

Is that too complicated to understand?

As for Iraq's non-cooperation with UNSCOM, one reason was that Saddam rightly believed UNSCOM was being used by the CIA in an effort to overthrow him.

i think that Condi is fearf... (Below threshold)
DL:

i think that Condi is fearful of speechifying"
Her voice quivers a lot when she has to speak. She should ask Bill CLinton to help her as he doesn't even falter when he's lying...which is, whenever he speaks. He's a profession huckster, and probably the best there is, in part because he has a friendly media to protect him from his often slick but absurd statements.

I guess we have different d... (Below threshold)
B Moe:

I guess we have different definitions of cooperating fully, and in case you didn't notice, Scott Ritter is a political whore who will say anything to protect his job. When the UN needed them to have weapons, Ritter's opinion was they had weapons, Saddam was obstructionist, and the UN needed more time and money to do the inspection. When the UN was being fired by a fed up US, suddenly the inspections were working, the UN just needed more time and money. It could be a coincidence, but I think not.

I don't love her because sh... (Below threshold)

I don't love her because she's been revealed as an Arabist stooge, a protoge of James "F the Jews" Baker III, and a protector of the State Department's lush Saudi-paid retirement plan.

She's latched onto the Saudi teat harder than a Rottweiler clenches on an intruder.

But if you're willing to see a second Holocaust 70 years after the first one, I guess she's kinda OK.

Isn't it possible that Dr. ... (Below threshold)

Isn't it possible that Dr. Rice might be giving the Saudis and the Paleostinians the rope they need to hang themselves?
And as far as a Holocaust goes...it's also possible that this time around it won't be the Israelis who will be wiped off the face of the Earth.

B Moe, let's see if I can s... (Below threshold)
cat:

B Moe, let's see if I can sum up your argument:

1) Questioning the main reason given by the British and American governments for a war that has now killed 1975 Americans (five more have died since yesterday’s discussion) is flogging a dead horse.

2) Saying that the main reason given by the British and American governments for that war was false because by 2003 Iraq had no functioning WMD - a fact that David Kay has verified - is the same as saying that Saddam Hussein never had them, never used them...and he killed the Kurds by farting on them.

3) Your arrest for substance abuse and your subsequent cooperation with the police under the terms of your parole because you didn't want to be arrested again is an appropriate simile for Saddam Hussein's war crimes and other crimes against humanity, leading ultimately to the invasion Iraq (the result of which did indeed lead to the arrest of Saddam Hussein, but also led to the violent deaths of tens of thousands of innocent Iraqis).

4) You're not remotely interested in the question of how Saddam's regime could be stupid enough to not cooperate fully with weapons inspections, when those weapons no longer existed.

5) Republican former marine and former Bush voter Scott Ritter's testimony can be totally dismissed because he is a political whore...despite the fact that everything he said over a number of years about Iraq's WMD programs turned out to be right.

Did I miss something out?

I'm sorry, but isn't the world just a bit more complicated than that.

1) Questioning the main rea... (Below threshold)
B Moe:

1) Questioning the main reason given by the British and American governments for a war that has now killed 1975 Americans (five more have died since yesterday’s discussion) is flogging a dead horse.

It is if your vocabulary is advanced enough to understand what "main" means, and it you understand the difference between "main" and "only".

2) Saying that the main reason given by the British and American governments for that war was false because by 2003 Iraq had no functioning WMD - a fact that David Kay has verified - is the same as saying that Saddam Hussein never had them, never used them...and he killed the Kurds by farting on them.

See above. Kay and the UN said the had none, everyone else in the rational world thought they did.

3) Your arrest for substance abuse and your subsequent cooperation with the police under the terms of your parole because you didn't want to be arrested again is an appropriate simile for Saddam Hussein's war crimes and other crimes against humanity, leading ultimately to the invasion Iraq (the result of which did indeed lead to the arrest of Saddam Hussein, but also led to the violent deaths of tens of thousands of innocent Iraqis).

No. My arrest and probation was a simile for the UN cease fire treaty after Saddam invaded Kuwait. His repeated violations of his probation were cause enough to take him out.

4) You're not remotely interested in the question of how Saddam's regime could be stupid enough to not cooperate fully with weapons inspections, when those weapons no longer existed.

Actually that is one of the reasons why I question that the weapons never existed. Just because we haven't found them doesn't mean they don't exist.

5) Republican former marine and former Bush voter Scott Ritter's testimony can be totally dismissed because he is a political whore...despite the fact that everything he said over a number of years about Iraq's WMD programs turned out to be right.

Given that at some point during his career Ritter has taken every position and spent hours in front of the camera proclaiming these positions, of course a few of them would be correct. It is really easy to say "I told you so" afterwards. Too bad Ritter couldn't fucking prove his allegations before the war BECAUSE SADDAM WOULDN'T LET HIM IN THE FUCKING COUNTRY. Sorry, I need a drink.

Did I miss something out?

I'm sorry, but isn't the world just a bit more complicated than that.

Speaking of complicated, if we hadn't invaded Iraq, all of these outside insurgents and freedom fighters would be attacking us in Afghanistan. Given the complete lack of an infrastructure, and the much more difficult terrain, how many more American troops would we have lost there?

I surrender! I'll ... (Below threshold)
cat:

I surrender!

I'll stick with reality, you stick with your dreams.

You know, with the plethora... (Below threshold)
B Moe:

You know, with the plethora of online dictionary's out there, there is really no excuse for being as illiterate as you are. Reality is based on facts, not opinions. It would behoove you to learn the difference.

Macker,Name one thin... (Below threshold)

Macker,
Name one thing the State Department has ever done that benefitted Israel.

Ever read Joel Mowbray's "Dangerous Diplomacy", which documents just how deeply State Department employees are financially dependent on the Saudis?

Israel can't afford to lose one war.

Again, look at Rice's background as a protegé of James "F the Jews" Baker III.

We don't even insist on a modern equivalent of the Jackson-Vanik amendments -- which we used to regulate trade with the USSR based on their human rights record -- to be applied to the nations which constitute the very worst in the annual Freedom House rankings of nations according to civil and political rights.

You're painfully naive.

Rice was a Sovietologist. She and her mentors just don't get normative Islam.

Apparently, neither do we.

B MoeAt least ther... (Below threshold)
cat:

B Moe

At least there is one thing we agree on - there is a difference between fact and opinion. It is certain that even if we agreed on all the facts, we would still differ on how those facts should be interpreted. Our disagreement would be based on opinion.

On any issue, there are some facts that are disputed. But there are others, such as "the world is round," that simply cannot be denied if one wants to be considered sane.

The reason I gave up in despair was your insistence on "facts" that are the equivalent of saying that the world is an oblong piece of cheese.

Let's just take one of your last statements on Iraq's WMD:

"Kay and the UN said they had none, everyone else in the rational world thought they did."

Help!

Just as Powell and Cheney said they knew precisely where Iraq's WMD were, Kay was adamant before and after the war that Iraq had large stockpiles of them. He said he would definitely find them - and he was given a team of 1,400 people and plenty of dollars to help him do just that.

After months of searching, he gave up, concluding that there weren't any. "We were all wrong," he said.

I'm not sure what he meant by "we." Does that include the large number of intelligence analysts in the US, Britain, Australia, Russia etc, etc who said the intelligence that suggested those weapons were there was very shaky and came from highly unreliable sources? Does it include all the people who said that the evidence to the contrary was stronger?

Kay did not say before the war that there were no weapons of mass destruction in Iraq. He said those weapons were definitely there. He was one of the people who you claim to be "everyone else in the rational world."

But what about all the intelligence analysts in countries all over the real world - including the United States - who said that the evidence of WMD in Iraq was highly suspect? They said this before the war. They said it after the war. Just because the media failed to properly report most of this, and through that failure betrayed America, are you saying that all these intelligence analysts were not part of the "rational world" - even though they were right?

The last time I checked a dictionary, the word "rational" was not defined as "being wrong."

Let's get back to David Kay's claim that "we were all wrong." Presumably, by we, he meant people who agreed with him....like Judith Miller, whose incompetence (that's being charitable) helped deceive America, but who has recently developed a fondness for that same phrase when referring to WMD in Iraq.

A year and a half earlier, when she tried to pull the same face-saving scam as Kay, claiming the weapons were secretly moved to Syria, she had a slightly different take on things. I'm sure you'd approve of her language:

"You know what? I was proved f***ing right"

Now, who does that sound like?

Meanwhile, the number of Americans killed in this war has risen to 1,976 - one more has died since we last spoke....six more since we started this discussion two days ago. There are no reliable figures for how many Iraqis have died. They don't count...and they are not counted. If we were discussing an abstract piece of philosophy that virtually no one cares about, facts would not matter. But we are talking about real lives and real deaths. And facts do matter.

Jay Tea,You've sid... (Below threshold)

Jay Tea,

You've sidestepped providing ANY evidence that Condi isn't firmly in the pocket of the Arabist wing of the State Department.

Name a single concession State has ever gotten out of Muslims to get them to reconsider any of their doctrinal evangelism of dhimmitude. Crackdown on Pali terror post-Arafat? Puh-f-ing-leeze.

Condi is James Baker's puppet and there is NO evidence to the contrary.

Every time you praise Condi, I get ill.

Aaron




Advertisements









rightads.gif

beltwaybloggers.gif

insiderslogo.jpg

mba_blue.gif

Follow Wizbang

Follow Wizbang on FacebookFollow Wizbang on TwitterSubscribe to Wizbang feedWizbang Mobile

Contact

Send e-mail tips to us:

[email protected]

Fresh Links

Credits

Section Editor: Maggie Whitton

Editors: Jay Tea, Lorie Byrd, Kim Priestap, DJ Drummond, Michael Laprarie, Baron Von Ottomatic, Shawn Mallow, Rick, Dan Karipides, Michael Avitablile, Charlie Quidnunc, Steve Schippert

Emeritus: Paul, Mary Katherine Ham, Jim Addison, Alexander K. McClure, Cassy Fiano, Bill Jempty, John Stansbury, Rob Port

In Memorium: HughS

All original content copyright © 2003-2010 by Wizbang®, LLC. All rights reserved. Wizbang® is a registered service mark.

Powered by Movable Type Pro 4.361

Hosting by ServInt

Ratings on this site are powered by the Ajax Ratings Pro plugin for Movable Type.

Search on this site is powered by the FastSearch plugin for Movable Type.

Blogrolls on this site are powered by the MT-Blogroll.

Temporary site design is based on Cutline and Cutline for MT. Graphics by Apothegm Designs.

Author Login



Terms Of Service

DCMA Compliance Notice

Privacy Policy