Printable View
I am not too sure about her...
I would be interested in how our US members feel about their new Secretary of State.
Personally, I felt that Colin Powell at least had the bigger picture in view even if he wasn't able to influence policy too much.
I look at Dr Rice and my concern is that there seems to be nothing behind the eyes....not a lack of intelligence, clearly...more a lack of empathy and a driven loyalty to Bush.
What do people think?
She does have an Oil Tanker named after her... :whistling
She is an intelligent woman with a good political grasp but she does not have the sound or the bearing of a "people person". She is too prickly. If you are going to be the key interface with the rest of the world I would have said that such attributes are essential.
Powell was well liked and respected - he will be a hard act to follow.
My fear is that her abrasiveness will only make the President more islolated from the rest of the world.
I liked Colin Powell. I thought he was always interested in America's interests. I don't think Condoleeza Rice is as much. Only time will tell I guess :)
I had high hopes for Colin Powell..he turned out to be a sell-out to some degree. Condi is a horror. Let us not forget her warnings of mushroom clouds, and such. She is just one of the administration's minions.
Sell out or pushed out?Quote:
Originally Posted by ruthie
I think there is a good man there - just did not have an administration in which to flourish (in particular, Rumsfeld ... he of the cloven hoof :dry:
Quote:
Originally Posted by Sara
Sara, I have been observing Ms. Rice. I can't say at this point how I feel about her yet.
Driven loyalty to Bush? Yes. Will that loyalty continue? Time will tell.
I see what you describe as a possible lack of empathy behind her eyes. Sometimes that much of a guarded stance hides great empathy. Could we be so fortunate? Probably not.
A small part of me roots for her because she is a woman. :D But I continue to watch and listen with eyes and ears open. ;)
You will all be quite surprised, and pleasantly so, I think.Quote:
Originally Posted by Biggles
This "abrasiveness" or "prickliness" you perceive is, I am sure, a result of the interplay between Dr. Rice and such as Senator Boxer during her confirmation hearings and the various goings-on during the 9/11 Commission's investigative frothings.
I would not regard an in-kind reaction of the sort witnessed in the course of those proceedings as indicative of anything other than a carefully considered sense-of-self, as well as a righteous offense at bullying tactics on the part of certain inquisitors.
I am amused (but not surprised) by efforts to portray her as an Aunt Jemima who is merely a "minion" of George Bush.
Those who attempt to summon that particular image would never confess to the racist attitudes suggested thereby, but there you have it. ;)
Has someone portrayed her as an Aunt Jemimah i this thread? I most go back and reread this. I don't like Condi and I didn't think there was anything wrong with the 911 commissions questions. Boxer's questions, comments, etc., as well as other confirmation hearing participant's questions were appropriate at the least...she had a lot to answer for.
Where'd you pull that from? :blink:Quote:
Originally Posted by j2k4
I don't even think there has been a reference to her race..........until now.
It seems Aunt Jemima was brought up by you, how do you say it...methinks.
Quite right about the Aunt Jemima comment; though I have heard this used by uncharitable types who make similar remarks about the like of Clarence Thomas or Colin Powell or Rod Page.
I don't think I made any claim to have seen it recounted in this thread, and merely meant to point out how so-called "pundits" can get away with such things constantly and never be called on them.
The "minion" comment is here, though, and carries it's own offense.
I am glad that the members of this board don't make off-hand racial references as a habit, but wonder at times that they habitually overlook those who do.
It's often a case of not overlooking but instead not taking the bait of the idiots that make them.Quote:
Originally Posted by j2k4
besides if one does hobbes accuses them of being "carebears" :shifty:
Hobbes is insensitive that way. :PQuote:
Originally Posted by vidcc
As to the other, it occurs to me that those who reject the untoward commentaries of the unreconstructed punditry might do well do reject
all of the rest of their mutterings, too.
I see a certain degree of selectivity evidenced by those who favor the "cut-and-paste" method.
such as the rantings of a mr. sohbram? :whistling :lol:Quote:
Originally Posted by j2k4
Not quite.Quote:
Originally Posted by vidcc
I quote Mr. Sobran's opinions with full attribution, and only as opinions I find interesting and well-presented.
I do not reproduce his columns as anything else; certainly not as "evidence", as others do.
I assume you see the difference?
Colin Powel was OK, he was doing what he was told but everyone could see he didnt like it.
I felt sorry for him when he gave that speech to the UN.. you could tell even he didnt believe what he was trying to convince everyone about.
Its the other lot we object to, and always have... unfortunatly Ms Rice is one of those others that are in the same grouping as the ones we object to.
Race has absolutely nothing to do with anything, neither has her sex.
If she was not a warmonger and power industry mongul i'd welcome the step forward on both those fronts, it's long overdue.
Nicely put RF...
You boys....get back on topic now please...... :lol:
The views posted here are varied but are pretty much the spread I expected. I suppose it will just have to be another one of those 'wait and see' occasions. I don hope she does the 'right' thing as best she can. If not, I will only remember my original disquiet.
Here's to be proven wrong on the empathy....all else will come from there.
The State Department should not be looked upon as the signal repository of U.S. "empathy", Sara.Quote:
Originally Posted by Sara
Empathy is perhaps the wrong term; material aid, and the comfort provided thereby, certainly, but foreign policy shouldn't be informed first by a stance of "empathy"-rather, any "empathy" forthcoming should be a by-product of underlying policy.
Empathy is a word that has been robbed of much of it's meaning by the long-standing but regrettful bent towards doing anything, anything at all, to create the impression of compassionate beneficience as it applies to American foreign policy, but with (it must be admitted) less concern for results than for appearances.
Foreign policy extant has been structured for maximum impact in the arena of international opinion, rather than effect on the ground; it is time this changed, and this need is clarified and amplified by the situation in the U.N., whose personnel dispatched to Indonesia were concerned first and foremost with securing comfy accomodations before availing themselves to the task at hand.