Subscribe By Email

Worthy Causes


Categories

July 2014

Sun Mon Tue Wed Thu Fri Sat
    1 2 3 4 5
6 7 8 9 10 11 12
13 14 15 16 17 18 19
20 21 22 23 24 25 26
27 28 29 30 31    

« The intolerant, dare I say fundamentalist, Religious Left strike again | Main | The Dalai Lama thinks George Bush was a good leader... »

Saturday, May 02, 2009

TrackBack

TrackBack URL for this entry:
http://www.typepad.com/services/trackback/6a00d834516bb169e201156f725c98970c

Listed below are links to weblogs that reference Condi Rice schools a Stanford liberal:

Comments

Feed You can follow this conversation by subscribing to the comment feed for this post.

Instinct

I think she said "It's in the report", but I can't be positive.

I would vote for her if she ran. Classy, smart, and not afraid to answer questions that are tough - exactly everything that is missing from the current holder of the office

renee

Correct, excellent and classy. She leaned in and gave him the answer of who stayed the military tribunals..."it was the Supreme Court." She gave him an education but I'm not sure much of it got into his indoctrinated head. Sad.

Instinct

Ah, thank you Renee :)

Toejam

She said: The Supreme Court.

But she was kind enough to leave out: You ignorant, college educated, Liberal MORON!

harrycat

I believe she said something to the effect of "if the president does it, it is legal". Where have I heard this before - Nixon perhaps. This may work for a Republican, but it is hardly consevative.

Jvette

First off she did not say that if the president does it, it is legal. What she said was that they were told that it did not violate the US obligations under the convention on torture as determined by the justice department.

She clearly said that Pres. Bush would not authorize anything that did violate those obligations. He was concerned with doing what he could legally to protect American citizens and the justice department gave the green light to waterboarding. It was not as if the president said, well, I want to do this so it will be legal.

I found it fascinating that everyone in the room stopped to listen to her, you could almost hear a pin drop. Considering the venue, I thought they showed great respect in allowing her to finish what she was saying though I imagine that most in the room disagreed with what she was saying.

Rob De Witt

What she said was "The Supreme Court," admirably fulfilling her role as a teacher.

Morgan K Freeberg

Condi, like Cheney, is another one of these new-age stalwarts. The kind that have proven they can make tons and tons more money in the private sector, and have made the decision to fill a relatively meager occupation in government because they believe in what they're doing.

Given that, just imagine the patience it takes to show such cordiality to the young-enuff-ta-know-everything types. I loved this comment JohnJ put at my place about this thing -- feast your eyes on this: "It’s a shame that so many Americans reject the idea that knowledge is necessary for making decisions." BINGO. That says it all right there.

Stanford. That means these are tomorrow's bosses. They require a massive paradigm shift (assuming it worked) to be reminded that knowledge is a needed component for decision-making. The process to which they've become accustomed, is one in which they all get together and use their togetherness to decide what's true, what's not, what's moral, what isn't. Basic rules of human behavior, cause-and-effect, et cetera, end up way in the back of the bus...just like with the people in charge right now.

Ah, well. It's a timeless battle. Things look dark now, but they have before. Dr. Rice is a very young for a former cabinet-level official, and she's just one of many who are cast in the same mold. There's still hope.

Mommynator

Even though some of her policy declarations and actions I disagreed with, she is a real class act and actually has a brain and uses it.

She did herself proud on that video.

Shawn

Flat out...she spanked an ignorant child who has the luxury of sitting as a "post attack armchair quarterback" looking back to say what someone did was right or wrong in their mind.

She told it like it was, and if you continue to watch, she carries on as confident as ever and he looks like he peed himself out of embarrassment for showing how little he really knew.

I can respect that he has some intelligence about the things he chooses to know, but the fact is, she made him look like a fool.

Jamie

its almost comical listening to these brainwashed kids repeat almost verbatim the crap you here from the democrats and main stream media.

Their little one liners like war for oil and the toture issues all sound great until someone is there to respond and debate them, then they just end up looking like morons.

Vendor Xeno

What a ridiculous pack of garbage. Her explanation revolves around the Iraq war, which had absolutely nothing to do with 9/11. so she's using 9/11 to explain why we invaded a nation that had no association with that event, an act that in no way improved the safety of the USA. How can people be stupid enough to suppose this is intelligent behavior?

Not only do we know now that the behaviors of the Bush administration were entirely unreasonable, we knew at the outset, as well. Plenty of people were canned or slandered for explaining to Bush that there was no threat coming from Iraq, and no reason to invade it. We have clear documentation showing that the administration was looking for reasons to invade Iraq prior to 9/11. The idea that she was in a difficult position of authority is absurd. She was a liar and an idiot making excuses for a murderous, pointless war against a nation entirely removed from the event she claimed to be responding to.

Further, cheering for someone for am immature put down like scornfully telling someone to "read" more for pointing out her errors is itself part of the gleeful and childish need for pointless conflict that the current right wing seems to be addicted to. That's not a useful or politic behavior, its just cheap drama and slander. If you can't do better than that, you shouldn't be voting.

Mommynator

Oh, wise and wonderful dembot, tell us exactly why she was wrong, and how insulting she was to calmly school that illiterate child in history.

Come to think of it, maybe you need some schooling in history.

Vendor Xeno

Typical meaningless rhetoric and insults in response to clear and coherent facts. 9/11 and the invasion of Iraq were unrelated. There's no history that will change that. Insulting me because you can't handle challenges to your baseless world view doesn't make you right or worthwhile, especially since your use of the term "dembot" shows that you already have a conflict oriented, dualist mentality that can't handle the idea of someone correcting you who doesn't fit into your simplistic model of "enemy". You're wrong, and people who are right aren't inherently democrats.

Educo_Est_Lux

Vendor Xeno, as you probably know, the world is a complex place, and the various leaders (state, rebel, terrorist) who inhabit the world view actions done by other leaders in very different ways.

Although it appears that 911 and the Iraq War weren't even remotely related, if one views the actions of AQ & the Bush Administration strategically, it will probably make more sense to you. Stratfor neatly summed up the move against Iraq in this article (https://meaning.com/wiki/No_WMDs%3B_Big_Crisis_%28Stratfor%2C_2003%29) :

"To make sense of this impending chaos, it is important to start at the beginning -- with al Qaeda. After the Sept. 11 attacks, al Qaeda was regarded as an extraordinarily competent global organization. Sheer logic argued that the network would want to top the Sept. 11 strikes with something even more impressive. ... As Stratfor has always argued, the invasion of Iraq served a psychological and strategic purpose: Psychologically, it was designed to demonstrate to the Islamic world the enormous power and ferocity of the United States; strategically, it was designed to position the United States to coerce countries such as Saudi Arabia, Syria and Iran into changing their policies toward suppressing al Qaeda operations in their countries. ... After the war, the United States would become the dominant power in the region, and it would use this power to force regional governments to strike at al Qaeda."

As you can see, 911 and the Iraq Invasion were strategically tied together.

Mommynator

To dissociate 9/11 and Iraq takes the best talent of the best Russian ballet dancers plus the best skills of the best contortionists in the world.

You are deliberately ignoring the evidence unearthed in Iraq itself, the documentation found and every other piece of evidence that the lying, treasonous MSM has attempted to bury and would have succeeded were it not for itinerant bloggers and eye witnesses like Michael Yon and the other embedded reporters.

Go back to your cave and wash your turban.

Morgan K Freeberg

I've got a feeling the "Iraq and 9/11 were unrelated" isn't really up for discussion as far as our interested visitor is concerned. He's stated it twice in succession; and, he's used it as the end of a discussion rather than the beginning of one.

Whenever one of these Olbermann-wannabes does that with a particular point, you know it's germinating in their cranium like a pearl in an oyster's shell, hard, dead, static. That means it is impenetrable. It resides in that thing that passes for a brain, less as a thought than as a mantra.

George Soros has really gotten his money's worth on these. Iraq and 9/11 were unrelated, 9/11 was an inside job, Iraq was better off under Saddam...key change, shake that moneymaker, movin' it to the groovin'.

What do Iraq and 9/11 have to do with each other? When 9/11 happened we figured out that Kumbaya Diplomacy doesn't work, we needed a new policy, and fortunately we had a leader with some balls who was willing and able to implement one.

But it must not be true because Soros spent all that money to make people think things. And those war protests are such great places to meet chubby goth chicks willing to spread their flabby thighs for mommas' boys who haven't had to learn any manners. So George Bush must be a war criminal. It's such an iron-clad and insurmountable argument. Makes perfect sense.

tim aka The Godless Heathen

Yes, how interesting how the Iraq War “had absolutely nothing to do with 9/11”.

While as a simple, very general statement our visitor is correct but it’s rather a “baseless world view” to believe such.

It rather interesting that the same people who hold that view also at the same time also manage to try and lecture us that waterboarding is “torture” because they say so, that torture “enflames the Muslim street” and Pres. Bush “created more terrorists”, “ruined how we’re viewed in the world” or that our “foreign policy is the reason Bin Laden hates us” or, or, or…Strange how those things are connected but others not so much.

Yes, nothing is conveniently connected until…it is conveniently connected…for them.


Just like the Iraq War “in no way improved the safety of the USA” but who cares about the hundreds of thousands of Iraqis who were killed or would have been killed by Saddam if he wasn’t taken out of power. But yet conveniently those innocent Iraqi’s only count when used to indict Pres. Bush for “war crimes”.


Talk about a “dualist mentality”, heh.

Rather like throwing around words or phrases like “ridiculous pack of garbage”, “stupid”, “liar and an idiot”, “mature”, “childish” and then accusing someone for “typical meaningless rhetoric and insults”.

The best duality of all is stating that an argument is backed up by “clear and coherent facts” but not submitting any link(s), references, names or committee…ANYTHING to substantiate nothing but pure supposition.

You got to do better than that if you want to hang here.

MIKEB

I would actually buy a ticket to watch her debate Obama Allah Fubar.

Vendor Xeno

Educo_Est_Lux, the argument you present doesn't stand for the following reasons. First of all, as a rule, one does not target a broad branch of people like the "world of Islam," for the actions of a tiny sect of it. That's not strategy. Secondly, we had already invaded Afghanistan, making the selection of another random nation moot. Third, regarding a "show of force" to other nations, the invasion seemed to have the opposite effect in the case of, notably, Iran.

But all of this is entirely irrelevant. How do we know the two events were unrelated? All we need to do is actually know our "history," and look at the reasons the Bush administration actually presented. The administration never declared an invasion as a response to 9/11. The reasons given for promoting the invasion, namely that Saddam was supposedly an immediate threat in possession of WMD's and that they had, in the eyes of the administration, violated their agreement with the U.N., were unrelated to 9/11 altogether.

And this isn't anything I need to show "links" to. All of this is very open, very well known. It would be like demanding that I hold your hand through a basic explanation of seasons or the need to breath. The only people who ever claimed that 9/11 and the Iraqi invasion were related were pundits and apologists for the administration, excepting of course after the fact when people like Rice attempted to hide behind the absurd association.

That is what makes the argument "ridiculous," and why comparing that to a phrase like, "Go back to your cave and wash your turban," is equally ridiculous.

Educo_Est_Lux

Vendor,

Let me respond to each refutation as you stated it:

1. "First of all, as a rule, one does not target a broad branch of people like the "world of Islam," for the actions of a tiny sect of it. That's not strategy." This sounds more like your opinion than anything else. Please explain why you think that this isn't strategy (and I'm not saying whether it's -sound- strategy or not. I'm just asking why you think this isn't strategy.) What is your definition of strategic moves? Why do you think that this doesn't fit in the realm of a strategic move? I know that one of the cultural qualities of much of the Islamic world is the understanding and respect of force. In this case, it seems to me that the US was planning to use force to make those in the Islamic world understand that the US was not to be trifled with. This is explained in more detail in the article.

2. "Secondly, we had already invaded Afghanistan, making the selection of another random nation moot." I disagree. Have you ever played chess? When one wants to put pressure on his/her opponent, one sets his pieces up to convey several serious threats, forcing the opponent to make a mistake by choosing wrong. In the realm of global politics, a nation that is good at putting pressure on several points will force its opponent(s) to choose, and possibly make a mistake. If you say that our invasion of Afghanistan invalidated attacking Al Qaeda elsewhere, IMO you don't sufficiently understand the significant threat the Bush administration felt it faced. The article clearly states that the US feared another more ambitious attack after the complete and utter success of 911. It also feared that AQ would attempt to do this with WMD. Which leads to your argument that follows #3.

Educo_Est_Lux

3. "Third, regarding a "show of force" to other nations, the invasion seemed to have the opposite effect in the case of, notably, Iran." How so? We spooked Iran for sure, invading and occupying two countries on her borders. It would seem to me that the natural course of reaction for Iran would be to do her best to disrupt our occupation of Iraq. From Iran's perspective, we were surrounding her. I believe that our 'show of force' doctrine caused many countries to pause. I give Libya and Syria as examples. Libya backed away rapidly from researching about nuclear options several years ago when Bush's administration noticed this and barked. Syria left Lebanon after France strongarmed them, with backroom US help (and US threats on the Syrian border.) So I ask you, where did this show of force embolden any country or group? AQ got crushed in Iraq over the last few years. Iran will fight by proxy with us, but is very careful not to do too much (doesn't want to incur the wrath of the US.) IMO, your refutation doesn't hold water at all according to the facts.

Educo_Est_Lux


Finally, your "totally irrelevant" refutation. Again, Stratfor does a better job of explaining this than I ever could,

"To have allowed the WMD issue to supplant U.S. strategic interests as the justification for war has created a crisis in U.S. strategy. ... The failure to enunciate the strategic reasons for the invasion of Iraq--of cloaking it in an extraneous justification--has now come home to roost. Having used WMD as the justification, the inability to locate WMD in Iraq has undermined the credibility of the United States and is tearing the government apart in an orgy of finger-pointing. ... This was the point on which Washington miscalculated. The public justification for the war did not compel France, Germany or Russia to endorse military action. They continued to resist because they fully understood the outcome -- intended or not -- would be U.S. domination of the Middle East, and they did not want to see that come about. ... Like the Americans, they thought weapons of mass destruction -- particularly if they were primarily chemical -- was a side issue; the core issue was U.S. power in the Middle East."

Educo_Est_Lux

From reading your arguments, I would suggest that you read more international relations journals to better understand the strategic moves that we had available, and what we thought that AQ was capable of and what moves we thought they had available. We didn't just invade Iraq as a whim. We invaded because over 3,000 people died in ONE devastating attack in Downtown New York. That attack was enough to ruin the economy of NYC and the eastern seaboard for over a year. Can you imagine if AQ had followed it up with multiple-coordinated attacks across the country? Did you watch the sickening videos of people attempting to climb 80 stories down the outside to escape? Did you see them fall to their deaths? This was what Bush & Co. saw and they were going to do everything in their power to prevent this from happening again. BTW, during Bush's administration, we didn't experience another AQ attack on US soil... they were too busy fighting and dying in Iraq. I strongly suggest you read the full article to properly understand why we used the argument of WMDs as justification. https://meaning.com/wiki/No_WMDs%3B_Big_Crisis_%28Stratfor%2C_2003%29

tim aka The Godless Heathen

VX,

You obviously came here with an agenda to attack Ms. Rice and for some strange reason injected Iraq into the debate, but your not fooling anyone.

The premise of your whole debate , “Her explanation revolves around the Iraq war,” is incorrect and is based upon your inability to comprehend what was said on the video, which you obviously need to watch again.

Ms. Rice was asked about torture which she defended. KSM and the other two Jihadi scum who were waterboarded, which has now been labeled as torture by some, were involved with 9/11, not Iraq as you incorrectly and incoherently argue.

You spout out such drivel as “so she's using 9/11 to explain why we invaded a nation that had no association with that event” yet no where in the video does she even mention Iraq. Only you do.

So I will throw your own argument back at you “How can people be stupid enough to suppose this is intelligent behavior?”

You make accusations such as -

“Plenty of people were canned or slandered for explaining to Bush that there was no threat coming from Iraq” and no reason to invade it.”

“We have clear documentation showing that the administration was looking for reasons to invade Iraq prior to 9/11.”

“The idea that she was in a difficult position of authority is absurd. She was a liar and an idiot making excuses for a murderous, pointless war against a nation entirely removed from the event she claimed to be responding to.”

While hiding behind “this isn't anything I need to show "links" to. All of this is very open, very well known”.

And “It would be like demanding that I hold your hand through a basic explanation of seasons or the need to breath.”

While “explanation of seasons or the need to breath” are based on facts, your opinions are not.

That is what makes this whole argument "ridiculous".

Further, incorrectly basing an argument on things that were not even said, refusing to demonstrate any basis or facts for you argument and demonstrating an inability to take some verbal jabs all the while you freely dish them out “is itself part of the gleeful and childish need for pointless conflict that the current (Left) wing seems to be addicted to. That's not a useful or politic behavior, its just cheap drama and slander. If you can't do better than that, you” should shut the hell up.


BTW, I think you need to look up ‘slander’.

Ray Crider

From what I've seen of this video, the student didn't ask questons to learn anything. He asked questions to accuse. This isn't the right way to learn. She was there as a teacher, to distribute the knowledge of the course taken and give the benefit of her experience in government. This student was clearly angy. You could tell by the way he was blinking his eyes. That isn't the right mindset to learn anything. If students taking the course think that they know more than what the course has to offer and think that they are wiser and better than the teacher, then why take the course in first place?
Why don't they just automatically become professors themselves so they can impart the knowledge and experience in the field that they think they have? Otherwise shut up and learn the course.

Verify your Comment

Previewing your Comment

This is only a preview. Your comment has not yet been posted.

Working...
Your comment could not be posted. Error type:
Your comment has been posted. Post another comment

The letters and numbers you entered did not match the image. Please try again.

As a final step before posting your comment, enter the letters and numbers you see in the image below. This prevents automated programs from posting comments.

Having trouble reading this image? View an alternate.

Working...

Post a comment

BlogAds


Tip Jar


Plainly Offsetting Costs


Search Brutally Honest


  • Google

    WWW
    www.brutallyhonest.org

BlogStuff

Visitors


Creative Commons License

Plainly Quotable