2
   

What the hell has Condi Rice been smoking?

 
 
Reply Thu 3 Jun, 2004 12:37 pm
Get this woman a shrink - quick! ---BBB

Bush will rank high, Rice says
Security chief believes he will be compared with Roosevelt and Churchill
By Bob Deans
Associated Press
Thursday, June 03, 2004 - WASHINGTON

As President Bush begins a week of foreign diplomacy, national security adviser Condoleezza Rice insists that he will one day rank alongside such towering pillars of 20th century statecraft as President Franklin D. Roosevelt and British Prime Minister Winston Churchill.

"Statesmanship has to be judged first and foremost by whether you recognize historic opportunities and seize them," Rice said in an interview with Cox Newspapers.

"When you think of statesmen, you think of people who seized historic opportunities to change the world for the better, people like Roosevelt, people like Churchill, and people like Truman, who understood the challenges of communism. And this president has been an agent of change for the better -- historic change for the better."

Her assessment, as Bush leaves Thursday for Europe, stands in stark contrast to the election-year critiques of the president's political opponents and many policy analysts. They charge that he has pursued a go-it-alone approach to diplomacy that has strained U.S. alliances and divided world opinion rather than uniting it.

"The United States has been dismissive of our allies," said Samuel "Sandy" Berger, who served as national security adviser under President Clinton and now is advising Sen. John Kerry, D-Mass., who is challenging Bush for the White House. "There's not been much diplomacy in this administration."

Nor has the criticism come just from Democrats.

"The diplomacy is deficient," Senate Foreign Relations Committee Chairman Richard Lugar, R-Ind., told reporters recently. Looking around the world, he said, "Not many people agree with us or like us or, for that matter, are prepared to work with us."

Rice chalked up such criticism as the price for leadership amid turmoil.

It was Bush, she said, who first recognized "that it was time to stop mumbling about the need for a Palestinian state" and spoke out in favor of a two-state solution to the decades-old Arab-Israeli conflict.

She said Bush is engaged in a "classical American role" by trying to rally international support for efforts to help shift the Arab and Muslim worlds toward democracy and economic integration in ways meant to undermine the roots of militant Islam.

She praised the invasion Bush ordered that toppled the Taliban regime in Afghanistan, where Rice said democracy is taking root and "women are being schooled, not beaten, where people are planting their crops and building their stores and building their homes without fear of being whipped in a public stadium."

And she insisted that in Iraq, the outcome would justify the difficulty and sacrifice of a mission that has left 812 American troops dead and another 4,882 wounded since March 2003.

"The Iraqi people now have a chance to build a free and democratic Iraq, which will make a huge difference in creating a different kind of Middle East," said Rice. "And, unless you create a different kind of Middle East, unless you deal with the circumstances that produced the ideologies of hatred that led people to fly airplanes into buildings in New York and Washington on September the 11th, we are never going to be able to fully deal with the terrorist threat."

Critics point out that the alleged Iraqi weapons of mass destruction, upon which Bush based his case for war, have yet to be found. At one point during the interview late Tuesday, Rice was asked whether the administration misjudged the challenge in Iraq or has anything to apologize for regarding the mission to topple the regime of Saddam Hussein.

"I feel badly that the Iraqi people had to live under that monster for as long as they did," she replied.

"We can let history judge what tactical things might have been done differently here or there, what decisions might have been taken that were different here or there," said Rice.

"But historic times tend to be pretty turbulent, and what you have to do is to get the direction right, the strategic direction right...What history will judge is that the strategic decision here was the right decision."

Bush leaves Thursday for a week of intensive diplomacy centered around securing international support for efforts to stabilize and rebuild Iraq and to nurse its fledgling political life toward democratic elections in January.

He goes first to Rome, where he will meet with Pope John Paul II and Prime Minister Silvio Berlusconi. Bush travels Saturday to Paris, where he will be hosted by President Jacques Chirac, an opponent of the Iraq war. And on Sunday Bush goes to Normandy to mark the 60th anniversary of the D-Day invasion that opened U.S. and Allied efforts to liberate Europe from Nazi occupation.

From there, Bush travels to Sea Island, Ga., to host the annual summit of leaders from the so-called Group of Eight industrialized democracies: the United States, Britain, Canada, France, Germany, Italy, Japan and Russia.

The flurry of diplomatic activity will cast Bush in an election-year role most presidents savor -- that of American statesman-in-chief. It will also provide his reelection campaign with fresh images of Bush touching down in world capitals aboard Air Force One, then leading his big-power counterparts in Sea Island summitry, amid a pitched presidential battle analysts expect to be heavily influenced by national security policy and foreign affairs.

From the presidential campaign trail, Kerry has blasted Bush's stewardship of foreign policy, accusing his administration of a "failed approach" in Iraq.

"They looked to force before exhausting diplomacy. They bullied when they should have persuaded. They have gone it alone when they should have assembled a team," Kerry told supporters in a campaign speech last week. Bush, Kerry summed up, "has divided the world instead of uniting it."

In the 40-minute interview in her West Wing office, Rice presented a vigorous and at times passionate rebuttal. She argued that Bush has embraced the challenges and opportunities the country has faced since being attacked by terrorists three years ago.

"If you ask yourself what has been the response of this president to the fundamentally changed environment in which we find ourselves after September the 11th, on just about every front that you could name he has been someone who has recognized historic opportunities and seized them," Rice concluded. "Statesmanship is judged by whether you can do that and by historical outcomes, not by the day's headlines."
  • Topic Stats
  • Top Replies
  • Link to this Topic
Type: Discussion • Score: 2 • Views: 2,022 • Replies: 27
No top replies

 
NickFun
 
  1  
Reply Thu 3 Jun, 2004 12:44 pm
Actually, he will one day be ranked among such venerables as Adolph Hitler and Milosevitch . He has ruthlessly ordered the slaughter of tens of thousands of innocent people, not to mention our own soldiers. It was his dad who enabled Saddam to kill tens of thousands of resisters after he promised them protection.
0 Replies
 
McGentrix
 
  1  
Reply Thu 3 Jun, 2004 12:52 pm
NickFun wrote:
Actually, he will one day be ranked among such venerables as Adolph Hitler and Milosevitch . He has ruthlessly ordered the slaughter of tens of thousands of innocent people, not to mention our own soldiers. It was his dad who enabled Saddam to kill tens of thousands of resisters after he promised them protection.


Speaking of smoking something, you must be on crack to believe this!
0 Replies
 
dyslexia
 
  1  
Reply Thu 3 Jun, 2004 01:13 pm
Bush is HIGH
on powerful gasoline
a clean windshield
and a shoeshine.
0 Replies
 
doglover
 
  1  
Reply Thu 3 Jun, 2004 01:33 pm
Condi isn't any more dilusional than the rest of that motley crew currently in the White House. They're all pretty much about the same. Rolling Eyes
0 Replies
 
NickFun
 
  1  
Reply Thu 3 Jun, 2004 02:14 pm
Hey there McGentrix! I am on a drug called "reality". Saddam said there were no WMD's and the UN confirmed there were no WMD's and we could not find any WMD's and it is a fact that Iraq was not in league with Al Qeda and they had nothing to do with 9/11. The Iraqi people did not ask us to be there. We were under no threat from Iraq. Nonetheless, Bush and his band of thieves attacked the country costing tens of thousands of lives. Bush should be tried for crimes against humanity.
0 Replies
 
McGentrix
 
  1  
Reply Thu 3 Jun, 2004 02:32 pm
Nickfun, your reality is wrong.
0 Replies
 
ehBeth
 
  1  
Reply Thu 3 Jun, 2004 02:38 pm
cool

Buddhist v Buddhist
0 Replies
 
joefromchicago
 
  1  
Reply Thu 3 Jun, 2004 03:13 pm
dyslexia wrote:
Bush is HIGH
on powerful gasoline
a clean windshield
and a shoeshine.

This is no movie, this is real!
Which real?
0 Replies
 
NickFun
 
  1  
Reply Thu 3 Jun, 2004 03:46 pm
Hey McGentrix! Explain the wrong parts. Aside from my opinion about what should be done with the murdering thieves (i.e. Bush and his gang) What is there in my statement that was incorrect? Is McGentrix a Buddhist, Beth? What kind of Buddhist would support the Bush regime?
0 Replies
 
dyslexia
 
  1  
Reply Thu 3 Jun, 2004 03:46 pm
reel three
0 Replies
 
doglover
 
  1  
Reply Thu 3 Jun, 2004 04:02 pm
McG...reality is for those who can't handle drugs. :wink:

Dys...could you please translate your quote for me?
0 Replies
 
dyslexia
 
  1  
Reply Thu 3 Jun, 2004 04:06 pm
doglover, Radio Free Oz
0 Replies
 
Radikal
 
  1  
Reply Thu 3 Jun, 2004 04:39 pm
!
For awhile there I was thinking that Condi and w were lovers but now it's more possible that they share the same crack pipe. Laura is out of the loop because she is heavily sedated like a Stepford wife.
0 Replies
 
McGentrix
 
  1  
Reply Fri 4 Jun, 2004 07:01 am
NickFun wrote:
Actually, he will one day be ranked among such venerables as Adolph Hitler and Milosevitch . He has ruthlessly ordered the slaughter of tens of thousands of innocent people, not to mention our own soldiers. It was his dad who enabled Saddam to kill tens of thousands of resisters after he promised them protection.


NickFun wrote:
Hey there McGentrix! I am on a drug called "reality". Saddam said there were no WMD's and the UN confirmed there were no WMD's and we could not find any WMD's and it is a fact that Iraq was not in league with Al Qeda and they had nothing to do with 9/11. The Iraqi people did not ask us to be there. We were under no threat from Iraq. Nonetheless, Bush and his band of thieves attacked the country costing tens of thousands of lives. Bush should be tried for crimes against humanity.


First, comparing Bush to Hitler and Milosevic is completely wrong. There is NO comparison. Secondly, you use the word slaughter to evoke an emotional response, which is a typical liberal move. Feel, don't think. War is hell, but what saddam was doing was worse. If you can't see that, then there is something wrong. But, then again, you are trying to compare Bush with 2 of the biggest villians of the 20th century.

Saddam was a known liar, so why would we trust what he says? The UN confirmed nothing except for the fact that Iraq was completely uncooperative in allowing inspectors to perform their jobs. Had they been allowed to function unfettered, then the war could have been avoided, but Saddam didn't think the US would actually attack because of the whispers in his ear from France and Russia.

Do you deny that Saddam supported terrorists and terrorist activities? Do you have any evidence of the Bush administration saying that Saddam had anything to do with 9/11? The only ones on that boat are from the left. You also confuse the Iraqi people with the minority of militants making life hell for the Iraqi people. They didn't ask for us to be there, but they sure are glad we did. Now they are getting a government that won't be killing them, that won't be supporting terrorists, and won't be a dictatorship. You tell that that the Iraqi people don't want that and that they want Saddam back.

"Bush and his band of thieves" Is that straight from Al Franken? and crimes against humanity? Please.
0 Replies
 
Rick d Israeli
 
  1  
Reply Fri 4 Jun, 2004 12:34 pm
Quote:
Hey McGentrix! Explain the wrong parts. Aside from my opinion about what should be done with the murdering thieves (i.e. Bush and his gang) What is there in my statement that was incorrect? Is McGentrix a Buddhist, Beth? What kind of Buddhist would support the Bush regime?


What kind of Buddhist can judge others only on their political views? :wink:
0 Replies
 
NickFun
 
  1  
Reply Fri 4 Jun, 2004 01:14 pm
Hey McGentrix! Granted, Saddam was all those nasty things you mentioned. You failed to mention that it was the US that put him in power in the first place. I don't use the word "slaughter" lightly. Granted, war is hell, therefore it should be the purpose of the President to avoid war as much as humanly possible. Instead of seeking a diplomatic solution, Bush took to guns and granted himself war time powers. Saudi Arabia is also a brutal dictatorship with a much worse human rights record than Iraq - and they have a direct connection to 9/11! Why haven't we gone in there with guns blazing and promising them Democracy? I find it hard to support a man who chooses war with a country hardly able to defend themselves over diplomacy.
0 Replies
 
NickFun
 
  1  
Reply Fri 4 Jun, 2004 01:16 pm
Oh, by the way Rick, I am sure McGentrix is a wonderful human being, loves his wife and kids and cooks a mean barbecue but I would never support anyone who supports this war.
0 Replies
 
Rick d Israeli
 
  1  
Reply Fri 4 Jun, 2004 01:21 pm
Quote:
...but I would never support anyone who supports this war


In that case, it's OK to me. :wink: (but who am I to judge over you) :wink:
0 Replies
 
McGentrix
 
  1  
Reply Fri 4 Jun, 2004 01:23 pm
NickFun wrote:
Hey McGentrix! Granted, Saddam was all those nasty things you mentioned. You failed to mention that it was the US that put him in power in the first place. I don't use the word "slaughter" lightly. Granted, war is hell, therefore it should be the purpose of the President to avoid war as much as humanly possible. Instead of seeking a diplomatic solution, Bush took to guns and granted himself war time powers. Saudi Arabia is also a brutal dictatorship with a much worse human rights record than Iraq - and they have a direct connection to 9/11! Why haven't we gone in there with guns blazing and promising them Democracy? I find it hard to support a man who chooses war with a country hardly able to defend themselves over diplomacy.


*sigh* You should really read this whole article.

Quote:
The path to power

The Iraqi president was born in a village just outside Takrit in April 1937. In his teenage years, Saddam immersed himself in the anti-British and anti-Western atmosphere of the day. At college in Baghdad he joined the Baath party and in 1956 he took part in an abortive coup attempt.

After the overthrow of the monarchy two years later Saddam connived in a plot to kill the prime minister, Abdel-Karim Qassem. But the conspiracy was discovered, and Saddam fled the country.

In 1963, with the Baath party in control in Baghdad, Saddam Hussein returned home and began jostling for a position of influence. During this period he married his cousin Sajida. They later had two sons and three daughters.

But within months, the Baath party had been overthrown and Saddam was jailed, remaining there until the party returned to power in a coup in July 1968. Showing ruthless determination that was to become a hallmark of his leadership, Saddam gained a position on the ruling Revolutionary Command Council.

For years he was the power behind the ailing figure of the president, Ahmed Hassan Bakr. In 1979, Saddam achieved his ambition of becoming head of state. The new president started as he intended to go on - putting to death dozens of his rivals.



See? The US had nothing to do with his coming to power. Shame on you for not doing proper research!

Had Clinton or the UN done more (OMG! I brought Clinton into this discussion!) to back up the multitude of resolutions against Hussein other than making more resolutions to be ignored by Saddam, then Bush may not have needed to Invade. There comes a time when threats must be dealt to lessen suffering. Surely you understand that. Sometimes that means war and as unfortunate as that is, sometimes it must be done.

Simply because the terrorist were from Saudi arabia does not implicate the country od Saudi Arabia, now does it? You are claiming to abhor war, while at the same time calling for the invasion of another country somehow more deserving in your eyes.
0 Replies
 
 

Related Topics

Obama '08? - Discussion by sozobe
Let's get rid of the Electoral College - Discussion by Robert Gentel
McCain's VP: - Discussion by Cycloptichorn
Food Stamp Turkeys - Discussion by H2O MAN
The 2008 Democrat Convention - Discussion by Lash
McCain is blowing his election chances. - Discussion by McGentrix
Snowdon is a dummy - Discussion by cicerone imposter
TEA PARTY TO AMERICA: NOW WHAT?! - Discussion by farmerman
 
  1. Forums
  2. » What the hell has Condi Rice been smoking?
Copyright © 2024 MadLab, LLC :: Terms of Service :: Privacy Policy :: Page generated in 0.03 seconds on 12/26/2024 at 05:30:20