• This is a political forum that is non-biased/non-partisan and treats every persons position on topics equally. This debate forum is not aligned to any political party. In today's politics, many ideas are split between and even within all the political parties. Often we find ourselves agreeing on one platform but some topics break our mold. We are here to discuss them in a civil political debate. If this is your first visit to our political forums, be sure to check out the RULES. Registering for debate politics is necessary before posting. Register today to participate - it's free!
  • Welcome to our archives. No new posts are allowed here.

Poor Condoleezza Rice; she has no credibility

aps

Passionate
DP Veteran
Joined
Sep 25, 2005
Messages
15,675
Reaction score
2,979
Gender
Female
Political Leaning
Liberal
This is a typical Bush Administration tactic: If you keep saying the same thing over and over again, people will start to believe it (even though it's not true). So she thinks by saying that we do not "torture" will make Europeans believe that we don't torture. Who does she think she is fooling? For a woman who is book smart, she sure is world dumb.

Skepticism Seems to Erode Europeans' Faith in Rice

http://www.nytimes.com/2005/12/07/i...age&adxnnlx=1133957819-Wv1tSMuF7eeV5FeONK1+tA
 

oldreliable67

DP Veteran
Joined
Oct 3, 2005
Messages
4,641
Reaction score
1,102
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Undisclosed
And yet...

Poll finds broad approval of terrorist torture

WASHINGTON - Most Americans and a majority of people in Britain, France and South Korea say torturing terrorism suspects is justified at least in rare instances, according to AP-Ipsos polling.

Source.
 

aps

Passionate
DP Veteran
Joined
Sep 25, 2005
Messages
15,675
Reaction score
2,979
Gender
Female
Political Leaning
Liberal
oldreliable67 said:
Right, but don't say you don't torture when you do. It makes the United States look like liars.
 

oldreliable67

DP Veteran
Joined
Oct 3, 2005
Messages
4,641
Reaction score
1,102
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Undisclosed
Excerpts from a piece in today's WSJ...

"One of Europe's moral conceits is to fret constantly about the looming outbreak of fascism in America, even though it is on the Continent itself where the dictators seem to pop up every couple of decades. Then Europe dials 9-11, and Washington dutifully rides to the rescue. The last time was just a few years ago, as U.S. firepower stopped Slobodan Milosevic, who had bedeviled Europe for years.

In return, it would be nice if once in a while Europe decided to help America with its security problem, especially since Islamic terrorism is also Europe's security problem. But instead the U.S. Secretary of State has to put up with lectures about the phony issue of "secret" prisons housing terrorists who killed 3,000 Americans.

We put "secret" in quotes because the CIA could hardly carry on operations in Europe without the knowledge of the countries involved. Rather, as Ms. Rice dryly put it, the U.S. often engages "the enemy through the cooperation of our intelligence services with their foreign counterparts." So the so-called "rendition" programs at issue -- involving the transportation, detention and questioning of terror suspects -- are precisely the kind of anti-terror efforts that multilateral Europeans ought to love."


Much like in the US, the reaction in Europe is mostly opportunism and political cowardice. The European media have spun so many wildly false stories about US detention policy that anti-American demogogues see an opening and even friendly European politicians are afraid to push back.

The reality is that European intelligence and security services have been helping the US in fighting terror, both before and after 9/11. There have been arrests of terror-cell members and successful prosecutions. The failure has come at the level of political leadership, where elected officials refuse to acknowledge such cooperation or to defend it moral necessity.

Just my opinion - YMMV.

Source.
 

Billo_Really

DP Veteran
Joined
Jul 6, 2005
Messages
18,930
Reaction score
1,040
Location
HBCA
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Very Liberal
Making excuses for the most disgusting President we have ever had is not going to get her any.
 

oldreliable67

DP Veteran
Joined
Oct 3, 2005
Messages
4,641
Reaction score
1,102
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Undisclosed
Billo_Really said:
Making excuses for the most disgusting President we have ever had is not going to get her any.
Get her any what?
 
Joined
Nov 9, 2005
Messages
2,669
Reaction score
0
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Conservative
Billo_Really said:
Making excuses for the most disgusting President we have ever had is not going to get her any.
What sophisticated research helped you arrive at "most disgusting?" Oh yeah, your partisan hate.
 

Billo_Really

DP Veteran
Joined
Jul 6, 2005
Messages
18,930
Reaction score
1,040
Location
HBCA
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Very Liberal
Originally posted by KCConservative
What sophisticated research helped you arrive at "most disgusting?" Oh yeah, your partisan hate.
Partisan hate? I'm not a Democrat. My research is his first five years in office.
 

Billo_Really

DP Veteran
Joined
Jul 6, 2005
Messages
18,930
Reaction score
1,040
Location
HBCA
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Very Liberal
Originally Posted by oldreliable67
Get her any what?
Well, this is the Condi cred thread. I guess its that!
 
Joined
Nov 9, 2005
Messages
2,669
Reaction score
0
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Conservative
Billo_Really said:
Partisan hate? I'm not a Democrat. My research is his first five years in office.
lol....and so your opinion of things make it so? Okay, let's call it your non partisan hate. lol
 

Billo_Really

DP Veteran
Joined
Jul 6, 2005
Messages
18,930
Reaction score
1,040
Location
HBCA
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Very Liberal
Originally posted by KCConservative
lol....and so your opinion of things make it so? Okay, let's call it your non partisan hate. lol
It doesn't make it so. Or un-so. It's just my opinion of his work. I think he's disgusting and incompetant. As well as being a f_cking liar. If you want to call it non-partisan hate, that's fine with me. I don't hate him, just to hate him. I don't hate him, as a person, at all. I hate what he has done with my country and my tax dollars.
 
Joined
Nov 9, 2005
Messages
2,669
Reaction score
0
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Conservative
Billo_Really said:
It doesn't make it so. Or un-so. It's just my opinion of his work. I think he's disgusting and incompetant. As well as being a f_cking liar. If you want to call it non-partisan hate, that's fine with me. I don't hate him, just to hate him. I don't hate him, as a person, at all. I hate what he has done with my country and my tax dollars.
Thanks for admitting that this is only your opinion. To continue insinuating that it is fact is disingenuous. Certainly you are entitled to your opinion and I'm glad I could help you see that it is nothing more than opinion. Thanks also for admitting you hate.
 

oldreliable67

DP Veteran
Joined
Oct 3, 2005
Messages
4,641
Reaction score
1,102
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Undisclosed
Condi Rice authored an article in the WP today, here, that was quite good. Good in the sense that it demonstrated her depth of knowledge of American foreign policy and how it has evolved over many years. She is clearly a student of diplomatic history.

Starting with the proposition that "our statecraft today recognizes that centuries of international practice and precedent have been overturned in the past 15 years". She goes on to make the following points:

> For the first since the Peace of Westphalia in 1648, the prospect of violent conflict between great powers is becoming even more unthinkable. Major states are increasingingly competing in peace, not preparing for war.

> Since its creation more than 350 years ago, the modern state system has always rested on the concept of sovereignty. It was assumed that states were the primary international actors and that every state was able and willing to address the threats emerging from its territory.

> Today, however, we have seen that these assumptions no longer hold, and as a result the greatest threats to our security are defined more by the dynamics within weak and failing states than by the borders between strong and aggresive ones.

> Absent responsible state authority, threats that would and should be contained within a country's borders can now melt into the world and wreak untold havoc.

> Our experience of this new world leads us to conclude that the fundamental character of regimes matters more today that the international distribution of power.

> The goal of our statecraft is to help create a world of democratic, well-governed states that can meet the needs of their citizens and conduct themselves responsibly in the international system. Supporting the growth of democratic institutions in all nations is not some moralistic flight of fancy; it is the only realistic response to our present challenges.

She makes the point that even though Iraq and perhaps even Arab cultures are not 'accustomed' to the concept of democracy, that doesn't mean that democracy is doomed to failure in Arab lands.

Though the broader Middle East has no history of democracy, this is not an excuse for doing nothing. If every action required a precedent, there would be no firsts. We are confident that democracy will succeed in this region not simply because we have faith in our principles but because the basic human longing for liberty and democratic rights has transformed our world. Dogmatic cynics and cultural determinists were once certain that "Asian values," or Latin culture, or Slavic despotism, or African tribalism would each render democracy impossible. But they were wrong, and our statecraft must now be guided by the undeniable truth that democracy is the only assurance of lasting peace and security between states, because it is the only guarantee of freedom and justice within states
There are some other very worthwhile and considered viewpoints, but I'll leave the rest for interested readers.

One last thing: There are some that think a great presidential contest in 2008 iif the candidates were Hilary and Condi. My impression, as of this moment: I have heard Hilary a lot over the Clinton years, but this is the first in-depth commentary that I have heard from Rice. On balance, Rice comes off as a true intellectual as compared to Hilary's opportunistic politician.

Am very interested in how others see this....
 
Top Bottom