Printable View
I think Condoleezza Rice would make a great president.
She's got it all.
Brainy, Black, Butch.
Perhaps she's too smart to go for it.
She'd be far better than the 2 bit TV actor Fred Thompson!
Hey you can't call yourself a man till you've split black oak!:)
Rice's name has been floated and advocated for a Senate or Presidential position for over 3 years. Now, it's quite about her. Silence. But 3 years ago there was numerous articles on her.Quote:
Originally Posted by Mr Earl
Why?
Because she's a black woman, IMO. Articulate, Statemwoman like, etc., and is a GOPer.
But there are a lot of negatives. And perhaps that's why she is not mentioned anymore.
Her statements on Iraq have been recorded on video, and trascribed. She's made over 100 factually false statements about Iraq.
She is heavily tied to....Iraq.
She is in an administration that is very unpopular. And she is an insider in that administration. (Independents would go for her.)
She's not a politician. She's an academic, and a diplomat.
We don't know her views on anything. Because she's a bureaucrat.
She has many critics along the entire spectrum about her job at NSC, and now State. Many claim, she didn't and still isn't doing a good job.
In sum, nobody has even talked to Rice about these matters.
People tied to GWB are not popular.
Been there, done that.Quote:
Hey you can't call yourself a man till you've split black oak!:)
pathetic...on so many levels.
Condi has always seemed to me like a female 'Uncle Tom'.
She is really just a mouthpiece for Cheney & Co. The State Department has no meaningful input into US foreign policy under the neo-Con's, it has largely been relegated to a bunch of PR hacks and apologists for the Bush administration. Which is why Condi got the job in the first place. I mean, Donald Rumsfeld would not even take her calls- real heavyweight. :rolleyes:
Condi- absolutely not President material imo.
Colin Powell- maybe yes.
^^^ You got it, aside from being experienced and articulate, she's black and a woman.
Being a Bush insider has positive aspects too.Quote:
Originally Posted by Milkman
But you're right as long as the Iraq war outcome remains dubious her involvement will be seen as a liability.
I like the fact that she isn't a politician.
The Bush administration doesn't poll too well!
But gotta give them credit for not running things according to opinion polls with so many people still living in the year 2000 and are still inconsolable over Al Gore's defeat.
I don't think she is butch at all. Not terribly attractive, but quite femminine.
^Yea but "butch" made a better thread tittle!;)
do you think earl realizes that rice is firmly opposed to military action against iran?
Can't see military action against Iran by the US. Not ruling out a strike by Israel, which would anyway place the US at the brunt of the backlash, but if action is deemed necessary they'll have a good alibi.
^Economic sanctions and some specific black opps would be enough to destabilize Iran. They are playing with fire arming and training Iraqi insurgents.
wow earl, sounds like you must have some serious military training to be throwing around lingo like that.....but you don't do you?Quote:
Originally Posted by Mr Earl
you avoided the military during the vietnam era, and you don't have the guts to do anything now either...do you?
you think it's like a movie, don't you tough guy?Quote:
Originally Posted by Mr Earl
but they're doing it with impunity, taking full advantage of the fact that the West is already under severe islamic strain and in no mood to open a new front, which in this case would rapidly turn global...add that to the real possibility of economic devastation if oil supplies were harshly disrupted, and for now it seems the whackjob can do virtually as he pleases.
my iraqi mate is in syria for a new wife, and according to him they're not doing so well in the clean and bright stakes either, which has to do not only with their traditional values but also their dependence on iranian largesse.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Mr Earl
um i hate to bump in on this cyber warrior circle jerk, but can either one of you provide PROOF that tehran is doing this?Quote:
Originally Posted by keda
here, i'll help you....no, you can't. and neither can the pentagon.
FT.com / Home UK / UK - America’s illusory strategy in IraqQuote:
"US commanders seem to have no trouble detecting the hand of Tehran everywhere. This largely evidence-free blaming of serial setbacks on Iranian forces is a bad case of denial. First, the insurgency is overwhelmingly Iraqi and Sunni, built around a new generation of jihadis created by the US invasion. Second, to the extent foreign fighters are involved these have come mostly from US-allied and Sunni Saudi Arabia, not Shia Iran. Third, the lethal roadside bombs with shaped charges that US officials have coated with a spurious veneer of sophistication to prove Iranian provenance are mostly made by Iraqi army-trained engineers -- from high explosive looted from . . . unsecured arms dumps.
^ :rofl:
Excellent article Ray.
It would be totally out of character for the US administration to simply make up reasons to go to war surely!Quote:
Originally Posted by raycarey
Oh...
all this BS is coming from cheney's office....and the lemmings can't get enough.
^ Slightly off topic, but what astounded me when this whole debarcle kicked off was just how unbelieveably willing everyone was to be fed a line on it.
Firstly we were told that Saddam/Iraq were involved in 9/11, suggest otherwise and you'd be called a 'freedom-hating, left-wing pinko' etc etc. Turns out they didn't have anything to do with it.
Next we were told that Saddam/Iraq had WMD and wanted to kill every 'freedom loving person on Earth', suggest otherwise and you'd be called a 'freedom-hating, left-wing pinko' etc etc. Turns out they didn't have WMD capabilities.
Next it was the 'We must remove this tyrant from power and bring freedom and democracy to the poor Iraqi's!' (even though we've previously supplied him the means to oppress his people). Suggest otherwise and you'd be called a 'freedom-hating, left-wing pinko' etc etc.
So basically, line after line was not only swallowed but wholeheartedly adopted. Mind-boggling! Is it just that some people really like using terms like "freedom-hating, left-wing pinko" etc etc, do they enjoy being lied to by their Govt? Or are they jut really, really stupid and incapable of the kind of independent thought that might have them question what they are being told in the first place?
and as you stated, they're doing the EXACT same thing now with iran.
everyone except the necons (and the woefully uninformed) realize it would be a HUGE disaster for the US to attack iran....either directly or through a proxy.
and simply to play devil's advocate.....if positions were reversed, wouldn't the US be doing exactly what it is accusing iran of doing?
Considering that the Iranian Islamic Republic was a reaction to the Shah that was installed by a CIA covert action in the 50's, it's all rather ironic.
"Reap what you sow" comes to mind.
Nope, it's all a jooish conspiracy supported by the USofA, scum through and through...Quote:
Originally Posted by raycarey
wtf are you on about...besides attempting to distract from the fact that you're woefully mis and uninformed on this issue.
So brainy is William, black is Mad_Dog:) and Butch is erm, well Butch.
:rofl: I wonder where David Gardner gets his info? Paul Krugman maybe?:rofl:Quote:
Originally Posted by sabang
I'm quite sure it has nothing to do with fundamentalist Islam.:rolleyes:Quote:
Originally Posted by Sir Burr
Not just the USA but many other developed nations have influenced events throughout the world and through known history, which according to the quoted line of reasoning means we are responsible for everything that goes rotten...don't bother giving credit for what turns out right.Quote:
Originally Posted by Sir Burr
Also, don't even consider that the result of non-involvement would also have reaped a reality, unless of course you know in the case of Iran it would have turned out to be a model Islamic state.
Bit suspicious that you may even be suggesting the West turn towards isolationism, or that they only get involved when the outcome is conclusively known and positive.
Nope, twas the USofA, scum of the earth.Quote:
Originally Posted by Mr EarlI'm quite sure it has nothing to do with fundamentalist Islam.:rolleyes:Quote:
Originally Posted by Sir Burr
Now waiting for the jooish conspiracists to bang their drums.