It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.

Thank you.

 

Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.

 

Condoleezza Rice a s new Secretary of state?

page: 1
0

log in

join
share:

posted on Nov, 16 2004 @ 11:53 AM
link   
Ive just heard about it in the radio..We all know, Colin Powell announced his resignation yesterday. Now Bush appointed Condoleezza Rice a s new Secretary of State!..

Disadvantage: Isnt it "shortsighted" to appoint the office to Rice?..Well I see this a s a
evidence, that he (Bush) dont think about a new way to do his politics, because shes known a s the "Hawkish Eye" that implies that she is more aggressiv than Powell? (maybe)

Advantage: I think its a good thing, that the new Secretary of state is a woman!


Whats your opinion about that political "evolution"?

cheers!




posted on Nov, 16 2004 @ 01:03 PM
link   
You are correct. Rice is taking Powell's place.

WASHINGTON (CNN) -- President Bush on Tuesday nominated Condoleezza Rice, his confidante and national security adviser, as secretary of state.

She will succeed Colin Powell, who announced his resignation Monday.

"During the last four years I have relied on her counsel, benefited from her great experience and appreciated her sound and steady judgment," Bush said in a ceremony in the White House Roosevelt Room.

Bush said that he was honored that she agreed to take the post.

"The secretary of state is America's face to the world, and in Dr. Rice the world will see the strength, the grace and the decency of our country," he said.


www.cnn.com...

IMO Rice is not a good thing. She lied under oath in front of the 9/11 commission about planes being used as weapons and flying them into the World Trade Centers. She lied so people could support and believe her.



posted on Nov, 16 2004 @ 01:13 PM
link   
What can I say, shes back in business


Quote: "She lied so people could support and believe her."

Do you mension the oil barons ?



posted on Nov, 16 2004 @ 01:15 PM
link   

Originally posted by dacruz
Do you mension the oil barons ?


Yep. That too.



posted on Nov, 16 2004 @ 01:20 PM
link   
Bad move, since she is our envoy to the rest of the world. And many of the world's leaders do not consider a female to be their equal.




posted on Nov, 16 2004 @ 01:59 PM
link   
Well, guess this blows the Kuwait theory of Powell's resignation, huh?

While a sad state of world affairs, the comment on her being a woman is an important one. At a time where we must deal with Arab nations, and seek cooperation, I can't see how a female Secretary of State is going to help matters here...as women are second class citizens in most Arab nations. Not to mention of course, that nobody actually trusts her....

If credibility was such an issue, not exactly a good change here... It's a bit like swapping Emmanuel Lewis (Webster) for Gary Coleman on your basketball team...the net effect is zero...



posted on Nov, 16 2004 @ 03:18 PM
link   
Perhaps Colin Powell has morals and was no longer able to take immoral orders from the Bush neo-cons..

Condolezza Rice appears submissively faithful in taking orders and not ask questions, unlike some patriotic ex-general would.

pfffft,

World leaders will talk about Ms Rice and her credibility, if her resume is smeared with lying under oath mishaps, what kind of diplomatic trust does that reflect?

none!



posted on Nov, 16 2004 @ 03:51 PM
link   

Originally posted by dacruz
Advantage: I think its a good thing, that the new Secretary of state is a woman!


Whats your opinion about that political "evolution"?

cheers!


Umm, wasn't the previous occupant of the White House's Secretary of State a woman? Madeline Albright........?



posted on Nov, 16 2004 @ 04:02 PM
link   
Nice to see Bush appointing someone almost as corrupt as he is. :shk:
Powell was far too nice for the Bush Administration - Rice is downright scary.



posted on Nov, 16 2004 @ 04:26 PM
link   
To: Condoleeza, Special Advisor to The Bush Campaign, Austin, Texas

From: Doris, Special Correspondent to The Bush Watch, Des Moines, Iowa

Let's face it, girlfriend. Some smart chicks like to date dumb guys--the puppyish, butt-slappin', high-fivin' boys who think "eloquence" means getting married without checking with Dad first. Others of us get week at the knees in the presence of a man who can quote Alexis de Tocqueville from memory and whose idea of a public display of subtle, suggestive lasciviousness is to loosen his tie and take off his glasses. You've got Bush, I've got Nader. If it were only a question of which one we'd rather marry, we could carry on this conversation in private. But you're working really hard to see to it that your dumb jock gets to be President of the United States, and you're giving him ideas about what constitutes a sane foreign and defense policy. My guy certainly does listen to people at the grassroots--female ones, no less--but you know he doesn't have to rent smart chicks like us to do his thinking and talking for him. So we're going to have to have this discussion out in the open, since if your guy wins, you'll be President. And Condi, honey, if this is your idea of a sane defense policy, I'm not voting for you, no matter how much I'd like to see a woman of color in the White House.

Condi, you're famous for being able to 'splain things to Dubya in a way he can grasp. You've been discussing video games with him again, haven't you? You told him that if he agrees to decommission more of the old nuclear arsenal--the "Pong" of high-tech weaponry--he could upgrade to Nintendo 64, didn't you? Here's what the Game Boy said on the campaign trail the other day:

"It's not enough to make incremental improvements on existing (weapons) systems. . . . Our mission is to design and develop quantum-leap weapons, weapons that will dominate the battlefields of the future, weapons that will allow America to redefine how war is fought and won, and therefore allow this great nation to redefine how the peace is kept. . . . The best way to keep the peace is not to match every conceivable threat weapon for weapon or division for division, but to redefine war on our terms. That means giving United States troops the technological superiority that they need to prevail."

Condi, did you write that for him? Did you really tell him that with a flick of the joystick, he can wipe out the old scores and start a new game, this time with even cooler weapons? Did you tell him that if the Pentagon only had smarter bombs, it wouldn't matter if the Commander-in-Chief were dumber than a box of rocks?

Condi, surely you know that for all the billions that have been blown on the Strategic Defense Initiative, not even one preliminary test has turned out to be an unqualified success without faking the data. Surely you know that even the Department of Defense had to admit after Shrub's Daddy's little war that it had grossly deceived us about the effectiveness of those Patriot missiles, and that once again we need to stop confusing cool TV graphics, CNN style, with reality. Surely you know that our military helicopters have had this bad habit lately of getting more expensive, more technologically sophisticated, and more likely to crash and burn and kill all the passengers than they used to. Surely you know that promising the Pentagon $20 billion over five years for "new weapons research" is, given its history of accountability, cost control, and arms-length relationships with defense contractors, tantamount to stealing $20 billion from the taxpayers and handing it over to GE and Boeing and the rest of the military-industrial complex.

So what are you up to? After the disgusting spectacle last year of the Republican-controlled Congress killing the last great arms control treaty because they just hate Clinton, have you decided that the only way to get any reasonable reduction in the nuclear arsenal is to bribe these boys with more terrifyingly dangerous, environmentally lethal Pentagon pork? Your boy said that his Nintendo weapons policy would "improve the morale" of the U.S. military. Do you really think it is a fair and reasonable thing that responsible arms control has to be held hostage to the entertainment needs of Bush and his technophile army buddies? Do you really think that the foot soldiers on food stamps are going to be jumping up and down when they see the defense contractors get richer by $20 billion?

It's weird, Condi. When Bush talks about education, he zeroes in on the issue of accountability, and refuses to part with any tax dollars to the schools until they've passed the tests without cheating. When he talks about the environment, he warns us that there are still three scientists left who aren't sure that global warming has really been proven scientifically to be a problem. When he talks about Social Security, he says the government can't be trusted with our money, because the bureaucracy has a habit of frittering it away. Now that we're talking about defense policy, though, there is no accountability, there is no scientific evidence, and there is no hesitation in funneling billions into the biggest corporate welfare agency of all time, the DOD.

Condi, if you want to date a good-looking glad-handing doofus, I say more power to you. I am a thoroughgoing libertarian when it comes to what consenting adults do with their own personal lives (another problem I have with your guy). But if you're going to try to turn him into something vaguely presidential, you are going to have to deal with the inevitable problem of making a rich draft-dodging slacker sound like something other than an incoherent boob when he advocates nuclear reduction on one hand and missile defense proliferation on the other. I really think you ought to try to find a surrogate for your political ambitions who doesn't have to have it all explained in video game language. I know about a million moms--not to mention the rest of the world outside America the Dominator--who have a little bit of a problem with the idea that the solution is always cooler weapons.





posted on Nov, 16 2004 @ 04:43 PM
link   
i was wondering,would it be within the realms of possibility,that say dick chaney died,could bush put dr rice up for vice pres?.and if bush was then assasinated,would dr rice be sworn in as pres?.



posted on Nov, 16 2004 @ 05:00 PM
link   
This guy might.....www.buddhistpeacegroup.org..." target="_blank" class="postlink">www.buddhistpeacegroup.org...

Or HImmmm..


buddhistpeacegroup.org...

I can't tell you who's best for us though....they're both HAWKsssss



posted on Nov, 17 2004 @ 12:52 PM
link   

Originally posted by OXmanK

Umm, wasn't the previous occupant of the White House's Secretary of State a woman? Madeline Albright........?


first: thanks for the response!

yes, thats true!...I always confound she with the "iron lady" magaret thatcher..this just btw..

"Rumsfeld is one of the Gang of Four"
source: Horus_Res link

Gang of four..it already sounds like a gangster party..lol

hmm, the fact that Ms. Rice is the new Secretary of state isnt such worrying to me..But the fact that Mr Cheney are still at the party..Wow, hes the man behind Bush, whos whispering his bad, hazy perceptions of his world view in Bushs ear..(dont want to exernate the real man in charge...do we really know?)

so far..



new topics

top topics



 
0

log in

join