Bush Chooses Condoleezza Rice to Replace Colin Powell

[Kane]

http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/6492238/

Thoughts?http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2004/11/15/politics/main655685.shtml

 

[SenseiBear]

this is all so depressing.

go ahead.

laugh.

have your fun.

(weep)

 

[michaeledward]

Thoughts?

I think a National Security Advisor that doesn't read the National Intelligence Estimate is not qualified for any position, much less Secretary of State. She has been incompetent in her current position, and there is little reason to expect competency in her new position.

Topic: Weapons of Mass Destruction
Speaker: Rice, Condoleezza - National Security Advisor
Date: 9/10/2002
Quote/Claim:
“We do know that [Saddam] is actively pursuing a nuclear weapon.” [Source: Telegraph]
Fact:
“We have not uncovered evidence that Iraq undertook significant post-1998 steps to actually build nuclear weapons or produce fissile material.” - Bush Administration Weapons Inspector David Kay, 10/2/03

Topic: Weapons of Mass Destruction
Speaker: Rice, Condoleezza - National Security Advisor
Date: 9/8/2002
Quote/Claim:
"[The tubes] are only really suited for nuclear weapons programs, centrifuge programs." [Source: CNN]
Fact:
"Ms. Rice's staff had been told [in 2001] that the government's foremost nuclear experts seriously doubted that the tubes were for nuclear weapons…The experts, at the Energy Department, believed the tubes were likely intended for small artillery rockets." - New York Times, 10/3/04

Topic: Iraq - Al Qaeda Links
Speaker: Rice, Condoleezza - National Security Advisor
Date: 9/7/2003
Quote/Claim:
"And there was an Ansar al-Islam, which appears also to try to be operating in Iraq. So yes, the al Qaeda link was there." [Source: Fox News Sunday transcript]
Fact:
Ansar al-Islam was based in the Kurdish area of Iraq beyond Saddam Hussein's control. - Waxman Report

Topic: September 11th
Speaker: Rice, Condoleezza - National Security Advisor
Date: 5/23/2002
Quote/Claim:
"The overwhelming bulk of the evidence was that this was an attack that was likely to take place overseas." [Source: White House Web site]
Fact:
"The top-secret briefing memo presented to President Bush on Aug. 6 carried the headline, 'Bin Laden Determined to Strike in U.S.,' and was primarily focused on recounting al Qaeda's past efforts to attack and infiltrate the United States, senior administration officials said." -Washington Post, 5/19/02

Page 204 of the Joint Congressional Inquiry into 9/11 noted that "In May 2001, the intelligence community obtained a report that Bin Laden supporters were planning to infiltrate the United States" to "carry out a terrorist operation using high explosives." The report "was included in an intelligence report for senior government officials in August [2001]." In the same month, the Pentagon "acquired and shared with other elements of the Intelligence Community information suggesting that seven persons associated with Bin Laden had departed various locations for Canada, the United Kingdom, and the United States." - Joint Congressional Inquiry Report, 12/02

Topic: September 11th
Speaker: Rice, Condoleezza - National Security Advisor
Date: 5/16/2002
Quote/Claim:
“I don't think anybody could have predicted that these people would take an airplane and slam it into the World Trade Center, take another one and slam it into the Pentagon. [No one predicted] that they would try to use an airplane as a missile, a hijacked airplane as a missile." [Source: CBS Web site]
Fact:
“White House officials acknowledged that U.S. intelligence officials informed President Bush weeks before the Sept. 11 attacks that bin Laden's terrorist network might try to hijack American planes.” - ABC, 3/16/02

"A Congressional inquiry into intelligence activities before Sept. 11 found 12 reports over a seven-year period suggesting that terrorists might use airplanes as weapons." - NY Times, 4/4/04

I can continue, if I need to. Or you can look yourself at 'Claim V Fact', here:
http://www.americanprogress.org/site/apps/custom/cap/findorg.asp?c=biJRJ8OVF&b=45294

Thanks

 

[Touch Of Death]

I think a National Security Advisor that doesn't read the National Intelligence Estimate is not qualified for any position, much less Secretary of State. She has been incompetent in her current position, and there is little reason to expect competency in her new position.






I can continue, if I need to. Or you can look yourself at 'Claim V Fact', here:
http://www.americanprogress.org/site/apps/custom/cap/findorg.asp?c=biJRJ8OVF&b=45294

Thanks

She wasn't chosen for her ability to think and draw conclusions, she was chosen because she can convey a point. That point being the Bush point.
Sean

 

[someguy]

I figured she was chosen as she's a yes man errrr umm yes woman.

 

[Touch Of Death]

I figured she was chosen as she's a yes man errrr umm yes woman.

That and she is undeniably a telented speaker.
Sean

 

[Mark Weiser]

Another factor to consider in that being a black female most of the Third world and or Isalmic countries will not even pay her any attention. They will say go home and be a housewife and make babies. They will not listen to a female in posititions of authority due to thier own religious ideations.

 

[michaeledward]

I think that argument is not a terribly strong argument. Indira Ghandi, Margaret Thatcher, Madeline Albright. These strong women have had many successful dealings with leaders all over the world.

 

[Erik]

She's a good sheep - doesn't think for herself and her most sensible speech resembles the bleating of "baaah baaah bush baaah bush baahhhh bahhhhhh."

 

[Flatlander]

She's a good sheep - doesn't think for herself and her most sensible speech resembles the bleating...

As the President's representative internationally, I think that Ms. Rice's loyalty and congruity with his approach are quite likely very important qualities to him. Is it possible that, rather than condemn her as a yes-person, it would be possible that she is, in fact, capable of thinking for herself? That perhaps her policy stance is just very similar to the President's?

 

[heretic888]

Either way, flatlander, we're screwed.

 

[Flatlander]

Either way, flatlander, we're screwed.

I'm certainly not disputing this. :asian:

 

[hardheadjarhead]

Here are links to Rice and Powell stating that Saddam was contained, and was no threat. It ties in with Michael's post above:

http://www.thememoryhole.org/war/powell-no-wmd.htm

http://www.informationclearinghouse.info/article6456.htm

http://100777.com/node/view/589


So...he went from not being a threat to being a threat to not being a threat. All in about three years. Busy man, Saddam.


Regards,


Steve

 

[TonyM.]

Coupla phone calls waiting here. Gidget called and wants her hair back, and Uncle Tom called and wants his act back.

 

[someguy]

I'll raise this question for you all to answere. Is it bad to have them allways on the same page?

 

[michaeledward]

I'll raise this question for you all to answere. Is it bad to have them allways on the same page?

While there is always a risk of 'Analysis Paralysis', rigorous debate is usually considered a benefit when determining a course of action. Eventually, a decision on a course of action must be taken, and at that time, it would be expected that all members of the Administration will be on the same page.

But, the current administration has been observed to push away all ideas that do not conform with their pre-determined positions. We have discussed this in several threads on this board (Quarrantining Dissent, for instance). I would prefer to have a President that listens to those with whom he disagrees before he makes a decision.

 

[Phoenix44]

“I don't think anybody could have predicted that these people would take an airplane and slam it into the World Trade Center, take another one and slam it into the Pentagon."

I could have predicted this--expecially if I'd had the PDB entitled "Bin Laden determined to strike in US." I think I should be Secretary of State.