Which makes her a failure...if she were successful she would be able to persuade Bush that he is wrong, that's her job, not to be an yes man.Champs.....you're a child.
I give her a grade B, its unfair to say she is doing a bad job. You have to remember, Bush makes all calls on foreign policy, not her. Condi is just a cabinet member(or, advisor, if you will), and looking at some of the interviews, a very sophisticated cabinent member at that. Only problem is.......Bush don't listen to advice from his cabinet.
Which makes her a failure...if she were successful she would be able to persuade Bush that he is wrong, that's her job, not to be an yes man.
you are wasting your timeSo.....are you going to blame Condi, or Bush.
As I have said before, Condi doesn't get to make the rules, only apply them. And as of this moment, Bush is the one deciding everything on foreign policy.
you mean, typing skills?best thing to do is move on, anything else is wasted oxygen
Thanks for the kind words my friend. Republicans have done lots of things right, not Bush but Republicans for sure.you are wasting your time
Champs HATES all things to do with the Bush Admin
he is THE Democrat Partisan Hack and will never admit Bush or the Rep/Cons EVER did ANYTHING right
best thing to do is move on, anything else is wasted oxygen
She's a bright woman and loves football, but as a SOS she's terrible and her record proves that.
The best Secs. of State have the ear of their boss and are able to influence them, not always, but sometimes
That's not an excuse. Powell made his points very clear. Point is she wants the power, she wants to be at the top, so she's gladly given up doing anything beneficial and just simply be the bitch of the administration.Champs.....you're a child.
I give her a grade B, its unfair to say she is doing a bad job. You have to remember, Bush makes all calls on foreign policy, not her. Condi is just a cabinet member(or, advisor, if you will), and looking at some of the interviews, a very sophisticated cabinent member at that. Only problem is.......Bush don't listen to advice from his cabinet.
That's not the point, you asked for something, I gave you that something and it brought Iran into clearer focus for the world leaders that it is problematic. Doesn't matter that there's been little done since then. Which is why I gave her a D for being weak but far from incompetent.I actually wrote a reply earlier tonight but it was swallowed up by the problem with the site we've had the last 24 hours.
Thank you for naming one thing she's done...but I think it's very minor and the type of accomplishment that was automatic rather than through real diplomacy.
Let's talk about what she's done in North Korea, Palestine, Israel, Lebanon, Syria, Sudan, Darfur etc.?
Have you read "State of Denial"? Woodward has several quotes from co-workers clearly stating that as National Security Advisor she was considered a dismal failure, ineffective and actually BAD at doing the actual job.
Now, as SOS America's diplomatic efforts have digressed since she took over for Colin Powell and the world is less safe and there's less diplomacy today than anytime in recent or perhaps in long term history.
Consider your point? Has there been any actual sanctions or joint actions that have prevented Iran from making nukes? Has there been any dialog between Rice and Iran, Syria or North Korea?
Powell resigned because of his principles. The administration was far too ideological and Powell was a realist.She's a bright woman who has allowed her principles to be compromised as she serves Bush, same as what happened to Powell.
I doubt dismal failure, there have been worse SOS's.Her legacy as SOS will be recorded as a dismal failure IMHO.
Then she should do as Powell did, resign. Cause otherwise she's going to be the next Rummy - a scape goat.No, that makes it Bush's fault, because one cannot persuade another if another doesn't want to be persuaded.
I am not sure what your expectations of Condi Rice are. She was made Sec of State under a the Presidency of Mad Man. I think that she has tried to sooth ruptures with other countries that bush has caused and has done an adequate job. I gave her a C, and I am liberal.Here's my premise...Condi Rice is the Sec. of State and has fairly good approval ratings (compared to her boss at least). But think about it?
As America's #1 Diplomat how would you rate her? With whom has she had successful diplomatic results? Iraq? Palestine? Lebanon? Russia? North Korea? Syria? Iran? I for one cannot think of one diplomatic success since she became the SOS. Can you?
Consider Iraq. James Baker and the Iraq Study Group is formulating diplomatic suggestions, not Condi Rice. It is James Baker who is being touted as a Special Envoy to the Middle East to seek a diplomatic solution, not Condi Rice.
I think she's a total failure at her job. She doesn't come across as an independent voice like Powell did, she's simply Bush's bitch who parrots everything he says and at the end of the day, very unsuccessfully at that.
Here's my poll question:
Is Condi Rice a Failure as Secretary of State - Please Grade Her?
did you miss this?
this is what he clearly was refering to
your typical partisan hacksmanship
try again champs
or should i call you aquapub (i only use his name because of the utter contempt you have for him, for the 'same' reasons)
I gave her a B, for those dominatrix boots she wore once, too sexy for a SOS!:lol:
Actually, and sadly, according to STATE OF DENIAL Powell was fired by Bush in Nov. 2004. He wanted to stay on but Bush wanted him and Armitage gone.Then she should do as Powell did, resign. Cause otherwise she's going to be the next Rummy - a scape goat.
With all due respect you've written multiple posts in this thread that have been nothing more than attacks against me...while my posts have been completely centered on the topic. I've not yet read one post from you that is on topic?i will debate you when you pick a side, otherwise i will enjoy your comedic side show
but atleast it seems you have gotten past
bush sucks
Bush admin sucks
rep/cons suck
so good for you
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?