NationStates Jolt Archive

I want Condi Rice for prez for two reasons.

First she is smart and would do a good job.
And second, and sweetest, the idea that the first female, African American president would be a REPUBLICAN would tickle me pink. Democrats would go into fits and foam at the mouth in their hatred. We could watch African American leaders attacking the first African American president as being an Aunt Tom. Oh the beauty and joy of politcal trembling and vitriol that would be released.

I want Condi Rice for prez for two reasons.

First she is smart and would do a good job.
And second, and sweetest, the idea that the first female, African American president would be a REPUBLICAN would tickle me pink. Democrats would go into fits and foam at the mouth in their hatred. We could watch African American leaders attacking the first African American president as being an Aunt Tom. Oh the beauty and joy of politcal trembling and vitriol that would be released.

Complete chaos my friend! Complete chaos! MUHAHAHA! :D

Complete chaos my friend! Complete chaos! MUHAHAHA! :D

Its the end of the world as we know it, but I feel fine.
Just the thought of this happening makes me smile and feel all warm and fuzzy.

condi for prez

no

You do know that Condi has rulled out a run for 2008, righ?
Well, that's no problem. I have Newt Gingrich in mind. If the Dems nominate Hillary, she better not say a word about universal healthcare.

I'm pretty sure there is someone much better for the job than Condi Rice. I'm pretty sure if she ever became president, America would be at war with some nation in two years.

Hillary Clinton, I don't want to see her president either.

If you want to see a black and/or female president, some better choices ought to step into the spotlight soon. Obama, the Sen from Illinois, could be nice pick in about a decade from now.

You do know that Condi has rulled out a run for 2008, righ?
Well, that's no problem. I have Newt Gingrich in mind. If the Dems nominate Hillary, she better not say a word about universal healthcare.

What!? She ruled it out!!!? NOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOO!!

Where have all the good gals gone and where are all the mm I can't remember mm,
I need a hero!! I'm holding out for a hero in the morning light!
And she's gotta be fast and she's gotta be strong and she's gotta be Condi Rice!
I need a hero!!

I'm pretty sure there is someone much better for the job than Condi Rice. I'm pretty sure if she ever became president, America would be at war with some nation in two years.

Hillary Clinton, I don't want to see her president either.

If you want to see a black and/or female president, some better choices ought to step into the spotlight soon. Obama, the Sen from Illinois, could be nice pick in about a decade from now.

Ummm, Obama is a Democrat and a man, thus completely negating the main reason for Condi becoming prez.

What!? She ruled it out!!!? NOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOO!!

Where have all the good gals gone and where are all the mm I can't remember mm,
I need a hero!! I'm holding out for a hero in the morning light!
And she's gotta be fast and she's gotta be strong and she's gotta be Condi Rice!
I need a hero!!

:eek: Okay 31...How much sake' have you had today?

Ummm, Obama is a Democrat and a man, thus completely negating the main reason for Condi becoming prez.

Fully aware. But at least with Obama, you get a black president. I'm not sure what exactly he stands for issues wise, but at least the media hasn't made him sound like a nutjob (yet.)

Let's proceed as if she had not ruled out 2008. Or let's just suppose she runs in 2012.

Condi is an intelligent woman, but would she be a good President? What are her stances on the Issues? What would she seek to do as our President? Where would her political loyalties lie? Is she a neocon? A moderate? A conservative? Something else entirely? I know little about her beyond her recent activity as Secretary of State and her poor performance at the 9/11 hearings.

Fully aware. But at least with Obama, you get a black president. I'm not sure what exactly he stands for issues wise, but at least the media hasn't made him sound like a nutjob (yet.)I know that as the only black Senator, he purposefully intends not to become a "one issue Senator" by focusing completely on black issues; he'll represent his state, not become a national figure in the literal sense. Which is promising.

Fully aware. But at least with Obama, you get a black president. I'm not sure what exactly he stands for issues wise, but at least the media hasn't made him sound like a nutjob (yet.)

You weren't aware! You couldn't be aware!! Only I am aware today!!! (Let me have at least one mental fantasy, something to tide me over until dinner, please, pretty please.)

You do know that Condi has rulled out a run for 2008, righ?

Maybe, but some still hold out hope...

http://www.rice2008.com/

And 3 years is quite a while in Politics.

I have learned to never say never... :p

Regards,
Gaar

What!? She ruled it out!!!? NOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOO!!

Where have all the good gals gone and where are all the mm I can't remember mm,
I need a hero!! I'm holding out for a hero in the morning light!
And she's gotta be fast and she's gotta be strong and she's gotta be Condi Rice!
I need a hero!!
We know that there is no way Dick Cheney is running for pres., meaning that there will be fierce competition for the nomination. Even if Condi tries to run, she will have to go up against many others. Bill Frist may run, as may John McCain. Alan Keyes and Steve Forbes are very reliable in seeking the nomination. Or there may be someone else that may try it.

Its morning here, no sake until afternoon.

I don't know Condi's stance on most issues, would be interested to hear about them. I have read about Obama a bit, not enough to get a sense of his political positions either. However, I couldn't vote for him.
If there was an election and he were running and the Republican was just plan wrong and I disagreed with him/her, I would vote for the Libertarian canidate.
I just cannot vote for a democrat, regardless of their beliefs and actions. It is just a qwerk with me. I don't hate democrats, just can't move my hand in a voting motion to check a democrats name. It might be a motor hand/eye coordination thingy.

if that were to happen I swear to god,alha,buddha, and anyone else that I will either kill myself or swim to cuba. either one would be better if u ask me.

I want Condi Rice for prez for two reasons.

Racism, machoism and democrats would keep her out. She would do as good a job as Bush... . dot... dot dot... dot....making a point with all these dots.... lol

We know that there is no way Dick Cheney is running for pres., meaning that there will be fierce competition for the nomination. Even if Condi tries to run, she will have to go up against many others. Bill Frist may run, as may John McCain. Alan Keyes and Steve Forbes are very reliable in seeking the nomination. Or there may be someone else that may try it.I don't feel Frist has a chance. He has royally messed up as Majority Leader on this Social Security thing. I see McCain or Forbes, on the list you mentioned, as being the most viable for the Republicans. Hell, I'd vote for McCain, and I'm a liberal.

31: That kind of party loyalty is disheartening. :(

Maybe, but some still hold out hope...

http://www.rice2008.com/

And 3 years is quite a while in Politics.

I have learned to never say never... :p

Regards,
Gaar
Well, three years is a long time, but who knows? Maybe she'll be content working on the lecture circuit and writing books. All ex-politicians do it, and it is extremely lucrative.

if that were to happen I swear to god,alha,buddha, and anyone else that I will either kill myself or swim to cuba. either one would be better if u ask me.

Well, I hear they make good cigars down there...

EDIT: Might I suggest a Boat however? 90 miles is 90 miles after all...

Regards,
Gaar

Well, I hear they make good cigars down there...

yea just ask monica or bill clinton

I don't feel Frist has a chance. He has royally messed up as Majority Leader on this Social Security thing. I see McCain or Forbes, on the list you mentioned, as being the most viable for the Republicans. Hell, I'd vote for McCain, and I'm a liberal.

Frist will try to run, but I won't vote for him. He has done a bad job. I wish we still had Trent Lott as majority leader. But maybe we can try someone new to be the majority leader. Perhaps Rick Santorum may work.
Now, another person that may run is Jeb Bush. He is probably the most conservative Bush, and certainly the most intellectual. Besides, he may appoint on his foreign policy team his intellectual soulmate, and a favorite of mine: Francis Fukuyama.

I don't feel Frist has a chance. He has royally messed up as Majority Leader on this Social Security thing. I see McCain or Forbes, on the list you mentioned, as being the most viable for the Republicans. Hell, I'd vote for McCain, and I'm a liberal.

31: That kind of party loyalty is disheartening. :(

Disheartening? I perfer to think of it as pigheaded. Lincoln, Theodore, Eisenhower. . .I just can't bring myself to vote for their nemesis. Nemesis, bwuhahahahahahaha. . .

You do know that Condi has rulled out a run for 2008, righ?
Well, that's no problem. I have Newt Gingrich in mind. If the Dems nominate Hillary, she better not say a word about universal healthcare.
Yeah, yeah, yeah. Politicians always say that. They have to play "the reluctant bride," otherwise too many people think they're too eager or something. :)

Frist will try to run, but I won't vote for him. He has done a bad job. I wish we still had Trent Lott as majority leader. But maybe we can try someone new to be the majority leader. Perhaps Rick Santorum may work.
Now, another person that may run is Jeb Bush. He is probably the most conservative Bush, and certainly the most intellectual. Besides, he may appoint on his foreign policy team his intellectual soulmate, and a favorite of mine: Francis Fukuyama.I think it's best for the Republican party that Lott was forced out of his position. The Republicans would have lost a lot of credit with the civil rights/black caucus [admittedly they aren't in good with that group anyway] if they had kept him in as Majority Leader. He wouldn't have been as effective as he could have been without his pre-Brown v. Board remark.

Personally, I'm opposed to Santorum. I live in Pennsylvania and have had plenty of opportunity to observe the man, and he seems more like a corporate whore / opportunist using Christianity as a disguise. I have no problem with openly religious politicians, but I do have a problem with politicians who use that as a tool.

And I'm not sure about Jeb Bush anymore either. Depends on how this Schiavo thing pans out. He's lost some political capital in that little mess.

I want Condi Rice for prez for two reasons.

First she is smart and would do a good job.
And second, and sweetest, the idea that the first female, African American president would be a REPUBLICAN would tickle me pink. Democrats would go into fits and foam at the mouth in their hatred. We could watch African American leaders attacking the first African American president as being an Aunt Tom. Oh the beauty and joy of politcal trembling and vitriol that would be released.I vote we first elect a COMPETENT black president before you go around reassuring people about racist ideas. Colin Powell for president

I just cannot vote for a democrat, regardless of their beliefs and actions. It is just a qwerk with me. I don't hate democrats
*cough* bullshit *cough*

You don't have Democrats but you can't vote for them even if they held your same beliefs and saved a kitten from a tree once a week? Sounds like an irrational hate to me

I think it's best for the Republican party that Lott was forced out of his position. The Republicans would have lost a lot of credit with the civil rights/black caucus [admittedly they aren't in good with that group anyway] if they had kept him in as Majority Leader. He wouldn't have been as effective as he could have been without his pre-Brown v. Board remark.
True. But he was good at his job. It's just that Washington can be so cold a place.
Personally, I'm opposed to Santorum. I live in Pennsylvania and have had plenty of opportunity to observe the man, and he seems more like a corporate whore / opportunist using Christianity as a disguise. I have no problem with openly religious politicians, but I do have a problem with politicians who use that as a tool.

He's already the third most powerful Republican. Besides, he's not Jim Inhofe.
And I'm not sure about Jeb Bush anymore either. Depends on how this Schiavo thing pans out. He's lost some political capital in that little mess.
Yes, that does seriously change the dynamic. But it will only seriously hurt him if this is a lasting issue. There was definatly an oppritunity for euthanasia to be of debate, especially with Dr. Kevorkian. But it isn't as big as abortion and such, and it probably won't be. Besides, less people die from euthanasia. But nearly a quarter of all fetuses are aborted.

Fully aware. But at least with Obama, you get a black president. I'm not sure what exactly he stands for issues wise, but at least the media hasn't made him sound like a nutjob (yet.)

As near as I can tell he stands for the typical Democrat line of I'll take your money and give it to the down-on-their-luck masses which equates out to anyone who is complacent and loud enough to get it. Nah he's no good, the only reason he won with such a great margin was due to the horrific blunder of importing Alan Keyes for the nomination because Ryan (the other guy) TRIED (with no success) to have controversial sex -- with his wife -- in a public place. Looking back on it now, I can see why he denied it. I would hate to have to admit to everyone that I tried to nail Gerry Ryan in a public place but she blueballed me. Sucks to be that guy.

I hereby nominate Sandra Bullock for first female president. Will someone from the floor second my nomination?

*cough* bullshit *cough*

You don't have Democrats but you can't vote for them even if they held your same beliefs and saved a kitten from a tree once a week? Sounds like an irrational hate to me

*cough* lighten up *cough*

Ain't no hate involved. You on the other hand hate soooooo much.

well, time to go to shopping with the wife and then see a movie. Ja matta.

As near as I can tell he stands for the typical Democrat line of I'll take your money and give it to the down-on-their-luck masses which equates out to anyone who is complacent and loud enough to get it. Nah he's no good, the only reason he won with such a great margin was due to the horrific blunder of importing Alan Keyes for the nomination because Ryan (the other guy) TRIED (with no success) to have controversial sex -- with his wife -- in a public place. Looking back on it now, I can see why he denied it. I would hate to have to admit to everyone that I tried to nail Gerry Ryan in a public place but she blueballed me. Sucks to be that guy.In regards to Obama, he is a charismatic and intelligent man, circumstances aside. He's not a bad choice, in my humble opinion; the ineptitude of his opponents is not his ONLY asset, at least admit that! As to Ryan, he tried to sell himself as a moral, family values Republican, and was shown to be a liar. And as to Alan Keyes, well hell, it's a little cynical of the GOP to import a hypocritical extremist like Keyes to run against Barack on the grounds that he's black \, don't you agree?

True. But he was good at his job. It's just that Washington can be so cold a place.I'll agree that as a majority leader and a politician, Lott ain't half bad.

He's already the third most powerful Republican. Besides, he's not Jim Inhofe.Who's Jim Inhofe? And I'm aware of Santorum's position in the GOP and Senate; I think that came about from his spearheading the Gay Marriage debate in the Senate, right?

Yes, that does seriously change the dynamic. But it will only seriously hurt him if this is a lasting issue. There was definatly an oppritunity for euthanasia to be of debate, especially with Dr. Kevorkian. But it isn't as big as abortion and such, and it probably won't be. Besides, less people die from euthanasia. But nearly a quarter of all fetuses are aborted.Well, the problem is that there's a conflict of issues inherent in it. Perhaps if the federal government had stayed out of the sitation Jeb might have gained additional support in the GOP, but since Congress did, it has mutated into a states' rights issue as well, making a no-win situation for J.B. I'll be curious to see how it all pans out for him. Maybe it's nothing.

What do you think of McCain? My step-father is Republican but has problems with him; I'm curious as to your own opinion on the maverick elephant.

Ummm, Obama is a Democrat and a man, thus completely negating the main reason for Condi becoming prez.
So the fact that Rice is a woman is the main reason you want her for president. As we've been discussing in the "catering to minorities" thread, reverse descrimination isn't nessesarily good. Condi rice seems to have plently of decent qualities you would want in a leader, and as a female, I find that faintly insulting that the mere fact of her gender would secure you support. Though I'm far from saying that a female republican nominee would be a bad thing.

In regards to Obama, he is a charismatic and intelligent man, circumstances aside. He's not a bad choice, in my humble opinion; the ineptitude of his opponents is not his ONLY asset, at least admit that!
He is completely inexperienced, unqualified, and unelectable. Which is too bad, because he seems like a very good man.

Who's Jim Inhofe? And I'm aware of Santorum's position in the GOP and Senate; I think that came about from his spearheading the Gay Marriage debate in the Senate, right?

Yes he did. As for Jim Inhofe, he's an Oklahoma senator, and is like Rick Santorum, only more extreme. He even said something about Islam being an evil religiion once.
Well, the problem is that there's a conflict of issues inherent in it. Perhaps if the federal government had stayed out of the sitation Jeb might have gained additional support in the GOP, but since Congress did, it has mutated into a states' rights issue as well, making a no-win situation for J.B. I'll be curious to see how it all pans out for him. Maybe it's nothing.

I think it'll be minor. Floridians will forget that Jeb even had a role in a few weeks.
What do you think of McCain? My step-father is Republican but has problems with him; I'm curious as to your own opinion on the maverick elephant.
McCain's not my favorite, but I'd support him. He's tough, great on foreign policy (one of my sticking issues), and unlike most Republicans, he actually remembers a time when we were the party of less spending and taxes.

I want Condi Rice for prez for two reasons.

First she is smart and would do a good job.
And second, and sweetest, the idea that the first female, African American president would be a REPUBLICAN would tickle me pink. Democrats would go into fits and foam at the mouth in their hatred. We could watch African American leaders attacking the first African American president as being an Aunt Tom. Oh the beauty and joy of politcal trembling and vitriol that would be released.


I don't want Condi Rice for prez for one reason and one reason alone:

_I_ intend to be the first African-american woman prezident!

Take that! :cool: :p

Lov'n to be a *party* pooper ... having nothing to do with race or gender, Rice simply doesn't deserve any more authority than she already has .... *ahem APPOINTMENT ahem* ....
Fifty-two reasons why. Fifty-two reasons why she lied UNDER OATH regarding memos leading up to the 9/11 attacks, 52 between April and September, and joining the scumsucker whitewashers against Clarke by trying with ONE MEMO to disregard their duty. Try the 9/11 Commission reports, videotaped, which they were, placed on the History Channel, btw, see how she dealt with that scenario. She hasn't the integrity to lead this country anywhere. She should have opted out gracefully like Powell. At least he had some class.

US al-Qaeda warning revealed
From correspondents in Washington
11feb05

EIGHT months before the September 11 attacks the White House's then counterterrorism adviser urged then national security adviser Condoleezza Rice to hold a high-level meeting on the al-Qaeda network, according to a memo made public today.

"We urgently need such a principals-level review on the al-Qaeda network," then White House counterterrorism adviser Richard Clarke wrote in the January 25, 2001 memo.

Mr Clarke, who left the White House in 2003, made headlines in the heat of the US presidential campaign last year when he accused the Bush White House of having ignored al-Qaeda's threats before September 11.

Mr Clarke testified before inquiry panels and in a book that Rice, his boss at the time, had been warned of the threat. Rice is now US Secretary of State.

However, Ms Rice wrote in a March 22, 2004 column in The Washington Post that "No al-Qaeda threat was turned over to the new administration".


Mr Clarke told a commission looking into intelligence shortcomings prior to the attacks, "There's a lot of debate about whether it's a plan or a strategy or a series of options - but all of the things we recommended back in January were those things on the table in September. They were all done, but they were done after September 11."

The document was released by the National Security Archive, an independent US group that solicits government documents for public review.

Another document released by the archive said that from April to September 2001, the US Federal Aviation Administration received 52 intelligence reports on al-Qaeda, including five that mentioned hijackings and two that mentioned suicide operations, according to today's New York Times.

The Times quoted a previously undisclosed report by a commission set up to investigate the September 11 attacks on New York and Washington.

The report criticises the FAA for failing to strengthen security measures in light of the reports and describes as "striking" the false sense of security that appeared to predominate in the civil aviation system before the attacks, the paper said.

http://www.heraldsun.news.com.au/co...255E401,00.html

http://img.photobucket.com/albums/v...ek/memo59ma.jpg

Season to taste.

He is completely inexperienced, unqualified, and unelectable. Which is too bad, because he seems like a very good man.He served in the State Senate for awhile, however. Doesn't that give him some qualifications? Or are we talking about him being elected to President? Because in that case I agree. He isn't ready. Yet.

Does anyone know what Powell's plans are? And if he is even a viable nominee, what with being at odds with the neocons in the GOP?

Right, and I'm going to believe all that just because Clark said it was so.

Right, and I'm going to believe all that just because Clark said it was so.I think the issue isn't so much what Clark said in the hearings or even did, but how Rice dealt with the information given to her by Clark [as evidenced by that memo titled "Bin Laden determined to attack inside America" or something along those lines] and by the FAA. Politics aside, Winter Alliance, it may be a testament to her quality as a leader if she was lacking in this very important synthesization of information.

Lov'n to be a *party* pooper ... having nothing to do with race or gender, Rice simply doesn't deserve any more authority than she already has .... *ahem APPOINTMENT ahem* ....
Fifty-two reasons why. Fifty-two reasons why she lied UNDER OATH regarding memos leading up to the 9/11 attacks, 52 between April and September, and joining the scumsucker whitewashers against Clarke by trying with ONE MEMO to disregard their duty. Try the 9/11 Commission reports, videotaped, which they were, placed on the History Channel, btw, see how she dealt with that scenario. She hasn't the integrity to lead this country anywhere. She should have opted out gracefully like Powell. At least he had some class.

US al-Qaeda warning revealed
From correspondents in Washington
11feb05

EIGHT months before the September 11 attacks the White House's then counterterrorism adviser urged then national security adviser Condoleezza Rice to hold a high-level meeting on the al-Qaeda network, according to a memo made public today.

"We urgently need such a principals-level review on the al-Qaeda network," then White House counterterrorism adviser Richard Clarke wrote in the January 25, 2001 memo.

Mr Clarke, who left the White House in 2003, made headlines in the heat of the US presidential campaign last year when he accused the Bush White House of having ignored al-Qaeda's threats before September 11.

Mr Clarke testified before inquiry panels and in a book that Rice, his boss at the time, had been warned of the threat. Rice is now US Secretary of State.

However, Ms Rice wrote in a March 22, 2004 column in The Washington Post that "No al-Qaeda threat was turned over to the new administration".


Mr Clarke told a commission looking into intelligence shortcomings prior to the attacks, "There's a lot of debate about whether it's a plan or a strategy or a series of options - but all of the things we recommended back in January were those things on the table in September. They were all done, but they were done after September 11."

The document was released by the National Security Archive, an independent US group that solicits government documents for public review.

Another document released by the archive said that from April to September 2001, the US Federal Aviation Administration received 52 intelligence reports on al-Qaeda, including five that mentioned hijackings and two that mentioned suicide operations, according to today's New York Times.

The Times quoted a previously undisclosed report by a commission set up to investigate the September 11 attacks on New York and Washington.

The report criticises the FAA for failing to strengthen security measures in light of the reports and describes as "striking" the false sense of security that appeared to predominate in the civil aviation system before the attacks, the paper said.

http://www.heraldsun.news.com.au/co...255E401,00.html

http://img.photobucket.com/albums/v...ek/memo59ma.jpg

Season to taste.Are you seriously using Richard Clarke as a source? :D

Wow?!?!

So the fact that Rice is a woman is the main reason you want her for president. As we've been discussing in the "catering to minorities" thread, reverse descrimination isn't nessesarily good. Condi rice seems to have plently of decent qualities you would want in a leader, and as a female, I find that faintly insulting that the mere fact of her gender would secure you support. Though I'm far from saying that a female republican nominee would be a bad thing.

No, I want her as pres because she is a woman and African American and Republican. Republican. A female, African American Republican would anger so many people and leave them in such a state of shock that amazing amounts of entertainment would follow. The history books forty years after would be great to read as liberal acedemics threw fits trying to be "sensitive" toward her while at the same time attacking her as worse than Hitler.
The last thing I want her for president for is to fufill some affirmative action qouta. I personally don't give a darn if she is a woman or if a woman or man is president.

I want Condi Rice for prez for two reasons.

First she is smart and would do a good job.
And second, and sweetest, the idea that the first female, African American president would be a REPUBLICAN would tickle me pink.

No. That's just as shallow an approach as passing her over for leasdership BECAUSE she is a black woman. Howabout going against the recent trend and electing someone to office based on MERIT. Electing Condie is just tokenism, and while I respect her for her intelligence, she has demonstrated to the world that she is just another collaborator in America's War Crimes. Electing a US prez affects the entire global picture, so the political infighting within the US is irrelevant to all except the poor fools who are glued to the US media.

No. That's just as shallow an approach as passing her over for leasdership BECAUSE she is a black woman. Howabout going against the recent trend and electing someone to office based on MERIT. Electing Condie is just tokenism, and while I respect her for her intelligence, she has demonstrated to the world that she is just another collaborator in America's War Crimes. Electing a US prez affects the entire global picture, so the political infighting within the US is irrelevant to all except the poor fools who are glued to the US media.

I suppose I could answer you seriously. . .but since this thread was created in a light hearted manner, I won't.

No. That's just as shallow an approach as passing her over for leasdership BECAUSE she is a black woman. Howabout going against the recent trend and electing someone to office based on MERIT. Electing Condie is just tokenism, and while I respect her for her intelligence, she has demonstrated to the world that she is just another collaborator in America's War Crimes. Electing a US prez affects the entire global picture, so the political infighting within the US is irrelevant to all except the poor fools who are glued to the US media.

Condoleeze Rice has a lot of MERIT. Most people in this country don't allow themselves to be brainwashed by foreign powers into making baseless personal character accusations against their leaders. Ironically, the structure of our country is what gives you the freedom to do that.

Right, and I'm going to believe all that just because Clark said it was so.
Even as dark and soulless as his eyes appear to be, he wasn't the only one on that project. You can disbelieve all you want and you can remain ignorant of the actual facts all you want, but i doubt you really have the experience and clout to disagree with him on the level of factual basis and experience he possesses. No one need burst your bubble, though, you'd have to also disbelieve the whole panel's conclusions. Might as well have fun!

Are you seriously using Richard Clarke as a source? :D

Wow?!?!
See above response along these lines. The same applies. Of course, since at least two people here seem to think they can stand against the people i mentioned, then go ahead and toss up your credentials and lessee if you merit anything more than truck stop blathering. Really.

No, I want her as pres because she is a woman and African American and Republican. Republican. A female, African American Republican would anger so many people and leave them in such a state of shock that amazing amounts of entertainment would follow. The history books forty years after would be great to read as liberal acedemics threw fits trying to be "sensitive" toward her while at the same time attacking her as worse than Hitler.
The last thing I want her for president for is to fufill some affirmative action qouta. I personally don't give a darn if she is a woman or if a woman or man is president.
Ah yes, a drama queen (you). Lotsa integrity there.

Condoleeze Rice has a lot of MERIT. Most people in this country don't allow themselves to be brainwashed by foreign powers into making baseless personal character accusations against their leaders. Ironically, the structure of our country is what gives you the freedom to do that.

Fair call. I don't mean to say that Americans are stupid. But I think that Condoleeza compromised what integrity she had when she lied about the 9/11 stuff and collaborated with the WMD fiction to tow the party line prior to the Destruction of Iraq. She's fluent in Russian, she's a brilliant thinker, but she's also a lier. And blatant dishonesty kinda taints her credibility, don'tcha think?

Fair call. I don't mean to say that Americans are stupid. But I think that Condoleeza compromised what integrity she had when she lied about the 9/11 stuff and collaborated with the WMD fiction to tow the party line prior to the Destruction of Iraq. She's fluent in Russian, she's a brilliant thinker, but she's also a lier. And blatant dishonesty kinda taints her credibility, don'tcha think?

Why do people have to continue to portray 4 Independent Report from 3 different Nations as a "lie"?

They took the intelligence they were given and made assessments about it.

For all we know, those assessments were/are correct and we didn't get there soon enough and they are now in the hands of people we were trying to keep them from, or they weren't there at all, but we can actually prove neither of these things, at least right now...

Given the perspective of time, we may be given additional evidence to support either side, and we may even find something "physical" that proves it definitively.

But even if we do "prove" there were no weapons there actually, does that change one bit the information which was provided for them to make their initial assessment of the situation in Iraq at the time? Why is it some "lie" they have told, and not just a misread of Intelligence Sources?

Some were very quick to "blame" our Intelligence Agencies for failing to discover the "plan" that led to the attacks on 9/11...

So are we now going to "blame them" (if it is proven, which hasn't happened yet, in my mind) for maybe jumping the gun when they do act on what they deem to be credible evidence which they even reviewed before the entire World at the UN?

I'm just getting a bit sick of having these events portrayed as some type of "lie" that Bush and his "cohorts" pulled over on the World.

After all, you guys are constantly telling us all how stupid Bush is, right? So are you also going to try and say now that this stupid man was able to put together some "big lie" that got him some War that many claim he was working for from day one?

That type of reasoning is lost on me, sorry...

Regards,
Gaar

I'd vote for just about any somewhat good politician over Hilary Clinton.

They took the intelligence they were given and made assessments about it.

So are we now going to "blame them" (if it is proven, which hasn't happened yet, in my mind) for maybe jumping the gun when they do act on what they deem to be credible evidence which they even reviewed before the entire World at the UN?



I find people often obtain "intelligence" that supports their side of the story if they look hard enough. It's a case of expecting to find something, so you find it. Similar things happen in science (experiments that are subconsciously biased).
Plus, I saw Powell's presentation to the UN. It wasn't remotely convincing, as evidenced by the actions of the nations who saw it.
Finally, though, too say that these reports were "lies" that will hurt the credibility of anyone associated with them is balderdash- otherwise how did Bush get re-elected?

I find people often obtain "intelligence" that supports their side of the story if they look hard enough. It's a case of expecting to find something, so you find it. Similar things happen in science (experiments that are subconsciously biased).
Plus, I saw Powell's presentation to the UN. It wasn't remotely convincing, as evidenced by the actions of the nations who saw it.
Finally, though, too say that these reports were "lies" that will hurt the credibility of anyone associated with them is balderdash- otherwise how did Bush get re-elected?

I understand your point and would ask this...

How would you apply that same Logic to the "supposed" Intelligence that was received that warned of a 9/11 type attack?

And then, if you say the same thing about it not being convincing how would you apply the lessons learned to assessing such Intelligence "after" we had experienced something that not many really even remotely considered a possibility?

Personally, I would rather they err on the side of Freeing a Tyrannically led Nation from that Tyranny, and let History be my Judge...

I thank God every day that we had a man in the White House at the time who chose to do just that!

Regards,
Gaar

I thank God every day that we had a man in the White House at the time who chose to do just that!


Every single day?

I shudder at the idea of Condi Rice for president, first of all she wouldnt get any states that voted for Kerry, because she is too much of a right wing neo-con who served under the Bush administration second she wouldnt get any Bush states because she is black.

You do know that Condi has rulled out a run for 2008, righ?
Well, that's no problem. I have Newt Gingrich in mind. If the Dems nominate Hillary, she better not say a word about universal healthcare.

That's like asking a politician not to talk about politics. :D

Every single day?

Well ok... It was a figure of speech.

But just about every day!

:D

Regards,
Gaar

Please run rice in 2008. It would be nice to have a democratic win this decade.

everyone in europe laughs at Condi behind her back--shes an even bigger joke then Bush is and as a black woman she has no self respect

Rick Santorum For PREZ!!!!

EDIT: Skap..i was having a good time...why u sign off AIM?

Rick Santorum For PREZ!!!!
hes gonna go down for his social security lies and for prolonging Terri Schiavos death

What I really want to see in the 2008 elections is Condi to run against Hillary. How many heads would explode over that one? (A lot. And it'd be fun!)

Oh yeah Jim Inhofe was mentioned earlier and for the record he's a nutjob. I voted against him. Hardly anyone in Oklahoma actually knows who the hell he is and what his political beliefs are(beyond the obvious republicanism).

What I really want to see in the 2008 elections is Condi to run against Hillary. How many heads would explode over that one? (A lot. And it'd be fun!)
I think theyre both dispicable

Please run rice in 2008. It would be nice to have a democratic win this decade.

I believe that's what you guys were saying about Bush in 2004 too, was it not?

And we see how that one worked out for you! :p

All I have to say is...

Be careful what you wish for, you just may get it! :D

Regards,
Gaar

Rick Santorum For PREZ!!!!

EDIT: Skap..i was having a good time...why u sign off AIM?
I thought I got you mad

no i had to move and i lost my wireless signal..i'm here man
....

I believe that's what you guys were saying about Bush in 2004 too, was it not?

And we see how that one worked out for you! :p

All I have to say is...

Be careful what you wish for, you just may get it! :D

Regards,
Gaar
I think that saying applys more to you tho. We all see what 8 years of Bush have given the nation and the world

no i had to move and i lost my wireless signal..i'm here man
....
aight :D

aight :D
if i am mad, i will tell you...i don;lt run away either....

I'd vote for Santorum. However, I think now isn't his time. Let Rice run in 08 with him as her Vice President :)

I think Santorum will wait. He doesn't appear to be maneuvering himself the same way Frist is, for example. Maybe he'll make a run for it in 2012 or 2016.

I think Santorum will wait. He doesn't appear to be maneuvering himself the same way Frist is, for example. Maybe he'll make a run for it in 2012 or 2016.

That is what I'm thinking myself.

Hell no. Bush will have a 3rd term. He'll be behind all of her decisions.

Hell no. Bush will have a 3rd term. He'll be behind all of her decisions.

So will Dcik Cheney still get to be behind all Bush's decisions?

Hell no. Bush will have a 3rd term. He'll be behind all of her decisions.You're kidding me, right? Bush may make a great figurehead, but I think even the Republicans here can agree that he's not the one making all the policy decisions - Rove and Cheney play large roles in this little dance we call the Presidency. If anyone would have undue influence in a Republican presidency in 2008, it would be Rove.

Speaking of which, anybody know what Rove's plans for the future are? Is he scouting for a new Republican to champion?

You're kidding me, right? Bush may make a great figurehead, but I think even the Republicans here can agree that he's not the one making all the policy decisions - Rove and Cheney play large roles in this little dance we call the Presidency. If anyone would have undue influence in a Republican presidency in 2008, it would be Rove.

Speaking of which, anybody know what Rove's plans for the future are? Is he scouting for a new Republican to champion?

That's really the only thing that scares me about Republicans... I was kinda hoping Cheney would step down and let somebody new run for VP last year, but no dice.

I'm sure Cheney is a great guy to go barbecuing with but his policies don't really help us much.

That's really the only thing that scares me about Republicans... I was kinda hoping Cheney would step down and let somebody new run for VP last year, but no dice.

I'm sure Cheney is a great guy to go barbecuing with but his policies don't really help us much.Well, ultimately, the President is always going to be a battleground over which advisors fight for control. It's up to the President to decide who to trust and let guide him and who he should leave by the wayside. Bush simply seems to rely excessively on Cheney and Rove, is all; it's not exactly disturbing to me.

Why isn't anyone suggesting Rove for '08? Or 2012?

Well, ultimately, the President is always going to be a battleground over which advisors fight for control. It's up to the President to decide who to trust and let guide him and who he should leave by the wayside. Bush simply seems to rely excessively on Cheney and Rove, is all; it's not exactly disturbing to me.

Why isn't anyone suggesting Rove for '08? Or 2012?

Maybe because Rove doesn't want it? Maybe because no one cares? Can you prove that Bush is relying on Cheney and Rove?

Maybe because Rove doesn't want it? Maybe because no one cares? Can you prove that Bush is relying on Cheney and Rove?Indeed, I can't! Can you prove that George W. Bush isn't relying on them? It's all about a personal analysis of politics. The positions and roles of Rove and Cheney, as well as Bush's actions, suggest that he relies on them for advice and aid more heavily than Presidents have relied on advisors and vice-Presidents in the past.

I think I'll just ignore your contempt. I'm just trying to have a conversation, Corneliu.

i thought this said "condi rice for PEZ" and i was going to express my pleasure that finally condi and myself agreed on something, but alas, this was not to be. my dissapointment is nothing short of crushing.

Indeed, I can't! Can you prove that George W. Bush isn't relying on them? It's all about a personal analysis of politics. The positions and roles of Rove and Cheney, as well as Bush's actions, suggest that he relies on them for advice and aid more heavily than Presidents have relied on advisors and vice-Presidents in the past.

I think I'll just ignore your contempt. I'm just trying to have a conversation, Corneliu.

I know you are but I'm also tired of the implication that Rove is behind everything. He is a political strategist yes but he doesn't control Bush's actions. That is all I was getting across Trammwerk. Take it easy my PA Brother/Sister!

And no I can't prove that he is relying on them. He probably asks for advice but other than that, all decisions are really left up to the President.

I think that saying applys more to you tho. We all see what 8 years of Bush have given the nation and the world

Yeah, you guys said that after the first four too...

And yet here we are!

:D

So how is that working out for you? :p

Regards,
Gaar

Yeah, you guys said that after the first four too...

And yet here we are!

:D

So how is that working out for you? :p

Regards,
Gaar

Considering he only has had 4 years in office its no easy feat that we already know what happens in the next 4 years already! :D

Why do people have to continue to portray 4 Independent Report from 3 different Nations as a "lie"?

They took the intelligence they were given and made assessments about it.

For all we know, those assessments were/are correct and we didn't get there soon enough and they are now in the hands of people we were trying to keep them from, or they weren't there at all, but we can actually prove neither of these things, at least right now...

Given the perspective of time, we may be given additional evidence to support either side, and we may even find something "physical" that proves it definitively.

But even if we do "prove" there were no weapons there actually, does that change one bit the information which was provided for them to make their initial assessment of the situation in Iraq at the time? Why is it some "lie" they have told, and not just a misread of Intelligence Sources?

That type of reasoning is lost on me, sorry...

Regards,
Gaar
Yeah, i noticed you didn't deal ANY of Charles Duelfer's reports. Good thing there's so many places to find the important things in it ....
Also, clearly, when dealing with the fact that it was 52 reports, not just one "memo", that would make it a lie. You say you've read the 9/11 reports, okay, did you just conveniently forget everything in it? Or did it seem a little thick and pedantic to you so you skipped to Rush Limbaugh's Cliff's Notes?
Quite a few people have mentioned that skipping right along to the war in SPITE of the investigator's OWN conclusions was simply a SPECIFIC IGNORANCE of the facts. You appear to be committing to the same ignorance. Is it working for you?
The LIE was Condi, on the stand, under oath. That's what it was. You are apparently attempting to bait and switch here. Just like you did on the Conservative/Liberal thread.

I know you are but I'm also tired of the implication that Rove is behind everything. He is a political strategist yes but he doesn't control Bush's actions. That is all I was getting across Trammwerk. Take it easy my PA Brother/Sister!

And no I can't prove that he is relying on them. He probably asks for advice but other than that, all decisions are really left up to the President.Sorry. I was reading that Conservatives v. Liberals thread. Got me all riled.

Of course, the decisions are up to the President, but ultimately the decisions the President makes are based on the advice given to him by his advisors - his Cabinent, the Joint Chiefs, and whatever official or unofficial, lesser advisors he may have surrounded himself with. And from what I have observed, of all his advisors, Bush places most of his confidence in Cheney and Rove; and I think it's only logical with Rove, since the man has been with Bush since the beginning of his political career.

You've got to be kidding me.

Yes, the irony is delicious, but she would be the death of us all!!! The death of us, I say!!

Sorry. I was reading that Conservatives v. Liberals thread. Got me all riled.

Notice that I'm not in that thread?

Of course, the decisions are up to the President, but ultimately the decisions the President makes are based on the advice given to him by his advisors - his Cabinent, the Joint Chiefs, and whatever official or unofficial, lesser advisors he may have surrounded himself with. And from what I have observed, of all his advisors, Bush places most of his confidence in Cheney and Rove; and I think it's only logical with Rove, since the man has been with Bush since the beginning of his political career.

Rove is his Political Strategist and Cheney is his Vice President. Yea I can see why people think that. I guess it is a natural reaction :)

Sorry. I was reading that Conservatives v. Liberals thread. Got me all riled.

Of course, the decisions are up to the President, but ultimately the decisions the President makes are based on the advice given to him by his advisors - his Cabinent, the Joint Chiefs, and whatever official or unofficial, lesser advisors he may have surrounded himself with. And from what I have observed, of all his advisors, Bush places most of his confidence in Cheney and Rove; and I think it's only logical with Rove, since the man has been with Bush since the beginning of his political career.
If you're interested, you may glance again at the Con/Lib thread again ....
Just so you know, i agree with you quite often, including specifically this response.

I believe that's what you guys were saying about Bush in 2004 too, was it not?

And we see how that one worked out for you! :p

All I have to say is...

Be careful what you wish for, you just may get it! :D

Regards,
Gaar

I dont know exactly who "us guys" are, but I didn't believe bush was going to lose 2004. For the majority of the election(though I was hopeful in the end), I assumed that bush would win.

Rice would bring splits in the democratic party. For their various reasons, many republicans would be against a woman, or a black, or both, being the president. All the democrats would have to is put up a canidate who had nothing outstandingly controversial in his past, and he would be a shoo-in.

What!? She ruled it out!!!? NOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOO!!

Where have all the good gals gone and where are all the mm I can't remember mm,
I need a hero!! I'm holding out for a hero in the morning light!
And she's gotta be fast and she's gotta be strong and she's gotta be Condi Rice!
I need a hero!!Calm down... after all... G.W. said that he wouldn't run for Presidency... until the last moment.

I dont know exactly who "us guys" are, but I didn't believe bush was going to lose 2004. For the majority of the election(though I was hopeful in the end), I assumed that bush would win.

Rice would bring splits in the democratic party. For their various reasons, many republicans would be against a woman, or a black, or both, being the president. All the democrats would have to is put up a canidate who had nothing outstandingly controversial in his past, and he would be a shoo-in.

Well, you may be right about your 2004 statement, but that wasn't what I was seeing from the majority of Liberals where I live, and there are shit loads of them here, I assure you. But that is in the past and is neither here nor there with regard to the discussion here...

As far as your "many republicans" comment, I can tell you I am a Religious Conservative who has no problem Electing an Intelligent, well spoken, Right minded, Black woman to be the President of the United States of America... And I believe you are overstating the problem "Republicans" would have in doing the same, for one main reason...

What is their alternative, Hillary Clinton?!?!

Perhaps you would tell me why any Republican would not Vote for Rice over Clinton, should that be their choice?

Regards,
Gaar

I dont know exactly who "us guys" are, but I didn't believe bush was going to lose 2004. For the majority of the election(though I was hopeful in the end), I assumed that bush would win.

Rice would bring splits in the democratic party. For their various reasons, many republicans would be against a woman, or a black, or both, being the president. All the democrats would have to is put up a canidate who had nothing outstandingly controversial in his past, and he would be a shoo-in.

Well, I for sure would mobilize every one I knew to throw aside their prejudices and vote for her. Even if the only reason they voted for her was because she was Republican, or a woman, or whatever. Unfortunately I live in an overwhelmingly liberal state (right now at least), so it probably wouldn't do much good.

Now why would you want to elect yet another proven liar into this nation's highest office? I mean, she plays a mean piano but after all, the presidency isn't an orchestra.

Now why would you want to elect yet another proven liar into this nation's highest office? I mean, she plays a mean piano but after all, the presidency isn't an orchestra.

If she has indeed lied, then I would be slightly disappointed with her. I can't really say she has or hasn't... I don't follow her every word looking for her to slip up.

I leave that to the wackjobs who watch and wait at every 9/11 commission hearing to look for someone speaking a syllable out of place and then jump up and down and say "AHA!!! Did you see that! I didn't understand that, it made no sense to me, it must mean all the Republicans are liars! Yes, they must all have lied, since they are all in the same party! Proof of our superiority!"

Now why would you want to elect yet another proven liar into this nation's highest office? I mean, she plays a mean piano but after all, the presidency isn't an orchestra.

Proven liar?

Prove it!

Regards,
Gaar

There's delicious irony in a party that is rabidly opposed to Affirmative Action in every shape and situation trying to put Con-did-lie-za Rice on a pedestal precisely because she is a black woman.

I want Condi Rice for prez for two reasons.

First she is smart and would do a good job.
And second, and sweetest, the idea that the first female, African American president would be a REPUBLICAN would tickle me pink. Democrats would go into fits and foam at the mouth in their hatred. We could watch African American leaders attacking the first African American president as being an Aunt Tom. Oh the beauty and joy of politcal trembling and vitriol that would be released.

You dream 31.

Rick Santorum For PREZ!!!!
Dan Savage for Prez...at least then, when teenage girls in Kenya get raped, the perp might wear a condom.
Yay for condoms. :D

On 9/11 Council:
Condoleezza admitted to documents coming across both hers and Bush's desk on a possible threat by Al Quaida. Clark originally agreed fullheartedly that it was just another random intelligence report, because hundreds or even thousands of these come across each year. Not until 9/11 occurred and hot water came down on him did he change his story and say that Bush did not heed his constant warnings. You can ask anyone, but Clark legitimately discredited himself with this change of story. The fact is he was the one the blame was going to fall on in the end, and he couldn't take everyone turning on him so he flipped to get the pressure of himself. The fact to end all facts, the Bipartisan 9/11 Council claimed the Bush Administration to not be responsible, end of story.

On Iraq:
The fact is many countries, primarily the same ones that opposed us going to war (France, Germany, Russia) all believed, according to their own independent intelligence, that Iraq had or has WMDs. That is a fact. To say there is reason for them to lie, or Condoleezza to lie, when it was thought to be common knowledge world wide, including our own intelligence reports from the CIA, that Saddam had WMDs is inherently stupid to be honest.

Condoleezza Rice:
One of the smartest persons to ever be in a high executive position. No one can deny the fact that she is highly qualified in management and foreign policy, and intelligent enough to work through any problem that comes her way.

And finally, the Democrats are not smart enough to put anyone such as a low key moderate, possibly even slightly conservative leaning Democrat to run for President. Perhaps the worst decision the Democrats ever made was letting Kerry run for President, the most liberal senator in the U.S. The sad thing is, the second person in the running throughout most of the race was Howard Dean who is perhaps the most left leaning candidate to ever try to represent the Democratic Party. When it came down to it, the social policies in particular cut off the Democratic Party from most of the nation, and I think the nation would tend to vote more for their social leaning over racial differences. The South in particular are largely pro-life and conservative on nearly all social issues, and the liberal tag on the Dems will always catch up to them in the end, as it did in this election.

She didn't really achieve much in Asia. I mean, her visit to Japan was pretty ridiculous (I loved how the Japanese shrugged her off over the beef ban). Her pleas to China to get NK back to the talks weren't anything new either, heck I remember China saying they'll get NK back to the talks way before Rice toured Asia, they're just not going to follow her schedule (who would).

It was more a good-will trip nobody really cared about over there.

There's delicious irony in a party that is rabidly opposed to Affirmative Action in every shape and situation trying to put Con-did-lie-za Rice on a pedestal precisely because she is a black woman.

And the fact that she got what she has in life through her own achievements and not because of Affirmative Action makes her the "perfect" Black Woman to take a run at the Presidency...

She is a shining example of why they are not needed if you can stand on your own accomplishments!

I believe that Abraham Lincoln would be proud if the first Black, not to mention Woman President came from the Party that he belonged to...

Regards,
Gaar

And the fact that she got what she has in life through her own achievements and not because of Affirmative Action makes her the "perfect" Black Woman to take a run at the Presidency...

She is a shining example of why they are not needed if you can stand on your own accomplishments!

I believe that Abraham Lincoln would be proud if the first Black, not to mention Woman President came from the Party that he belonged to...

Regards,
GaarThe irony he was referring to had more to do with choosing her based primarily on the fact that she is black - something opponents of Affirmative Action decry as a racist activity. Of course, then they ship Alan Keyes to Illinois. I think it's a valid point.

Its dangerous to think of the viability of someone for anything and include their race or gender in it. Once you do that, I think, you teeter on the edge of a kind of racism or sexism.