After overcoming racism, Dr. Rice is finally confirmed

[ptex]

Dr. Rice gets more no votes than any nominee since 1825 says USA today. I guess its hard to let a Afrcian American women get the position. Personally I would be very happy if my little girl grew up with Dr. Rice as her role model I think is is the most qualified person in my life time and should run in 2008.

 

[Locrian]

That's nice that you are playing the race card for her. Of course, she didn't need it to get her last job...

 

[ptex]

It’s the only explanation unless she is not qualified if so what qualifications is she lacking or is it because she is a women. Would you consider her a great role model?

 

[Astronuc]

Rice is obviously quite capable, and the fact the she is a woman and African-American is irrelevant.

I simply disagree with her positions, and mainly on Iraq and National Security, but I have these same disagreements with Bush, Cheney, Rumsfeld, et al.

Rice once mentioned that nothing could have been done to prevent the attacks on Sept 11.

An absolutely wrong and stupid statement. There were clearly two areas in which something could have been done and weren't - 1.) Airport security and 2) the policy that 'Absolutely no one gets into the cockpit. There was such a policy since the 1970's when various commercial aircraft were hijacked. But the US got complacent - and got caught off-guard.

A third area 3) national security was also addressed after the fact. No one in upper echelons of the Bush Administration were paying necessary attention to Al Qaida. Instead they were fixated on getting Saddam and invading Iraq.

 

[plus]

Rice is obviously quite capable, and the fact the she is a woman and African-American is irrelevant.

I simply disagree with her positions, and mainly on Iraq and National Security, but I have these same disagreements with Bush, Cheney, Rumsfeld, et al.

Rice once mentioned that nothing could have been done to prevent the attacks on Sept 11.

An absolutely wrong and stupid statement. There were clearly two areas in which something could have been done and weren't - 1.) Airport security and 2) the policy that 'Absolutely no one gets into the cockpit. There was such a policy since the 1970's when various commercial aircraft were hijacked. But the US got complacent - and got caught off-guard.

A third area 3) national security was also addressed after the fact. No one in upper echelons of the Bush Administration were paying necessary attention to Al Qaida. Instead they were fixated on getting Saddam and invading Iraq.

Dr Rice is in fact better off being black and female and hispanic, as she appeals to each of these groups (they seem to prefer people who are the same as them). Also the europeans prefer her as they see her as being from some disadvantaged group of people.

 

[Locrian]

It’s the only explanation

Really? The only explanation is that she was voted against because of her race. Partisan politics, her role in her last job, the events of the world; none of these are candidates?

I'm not convinced, and neither should anyone else be.

 

[russ_watters]

That's nice that you are playing the race card for her. Of course, she didn't need it to get her last job...

I'm a big fan of Condi Rice, but I don't buy the race card being a factor here either.

 

[selfAdjoint]

Count me against the race explanation too. The committee pretended to grill her but really gave her an easy time. And if Rice had to face racism in her bid for Secretary of State, why didn't Powell, her predecessor, have to?

 

[Locrian]

On the other hand, there is a certain truth to the title of this thread, even if I disagree with the content of the opening post. Growing up in Alabama (where I live) I can assure you she overcame her fair share of racism before reaching her status now.

Still, the presumption that she's got voted against for racial reasons to me seems highly unlikely, as there are myriad other ones that also deserve attention.

 

[ray b]

sorry but the racists all became republicans
her no votes were based on her idiotoligy
ie doing the bidding of the idiot in the whitehouse

 

[franznietzsche]

It’s the only explanation unless she is not qualified if so what qualifications is she lacking or is it because she is a women. Would you consider her a great role model?

It had nothing to do with her being african american or a woman, it had a lot more to do with her being expressly accused of being a liar. And honestly, even I'm being brought around to believe that this administration has been lying. I certainly don't trust any of them anymore. The qualification that rice is lacking, in the eyes of liberals anyway, is honesty.

 

[kat]

Umm yeh ray, that was a table cloth byrd used to wear not a sheet.
Personally, I think any black nominee having to be questioned by an ex klansman can not be anything but describe as being subjected to racism...

 

[Ivan Seeking]

yawn...

Leaving a wave of controversy in its wake, one of the most visible reminders of the Bush administration's ties to big oil - the 129,000-ton Chevron tanker Condoleezza Rice - has quietly been renamed, Chevron officials acknowledged yesterday.

"We made the change to eliminate the unnecessary attention caused by the vessel's original name," said Chevron spokesman Fred Gorell.

The double-hulled, Bahamian-registered oil tanker carrying the moniker of Bush's national security adviser was renamed the Altair Voyager, after a star, Gorell said.

The unannounced decision to rechristen the tanker was made by Chevron officials in late April, after "we had been in discussions with (Rice's) office," said Gorell. Asked if Rice or the White House had specifically requested the name change, Gorell said, "that's not for me to discuss."

Rice's spokeswoman, Maryellen Countryman, did not return calls on the matter yesterday.

The Chronicle reported a month ago that the White House had faced questions over the appropriateness of the tanker's name -- particularly as California struggled with the effects of an energy crisis.

The giant vessel was part of the international fleet of the San Francisco- based multinational oil firm, christened several years ago in honor of Rice, a longtime Chevron board member. Rice, a former Stanford University provost, served on Chevron's board from 1991 until Jan. 15, when she resigned after Bush named her his top national security aide. [continued]

http://www.sfgate.com/cgi-bin/article.cgi?file=/c/a/2001/05/05/MN223743.DTL&type=printable

Condi? Simply the best that Chevron had to offer.

 

[spender]

She is Doctor of what ?

 

[Ivan Seeking]

Political Science
http://www.whitehouse.gov/nsc/ricebio.html

 

[Smurf]

So she's just as qualified as my school counsellor then.

 

[franznietzsche]

So she's just as qualified as my school counsellor then.

Got a beef with your counsellor too?

 

[vanesch]

So she's just as qualified as my school counsellor then.

:rofl:

I am probably wrong, because all I hear about C. Rice is about how brilliant she is. Hey, they even have a PhD. on board :tongue: But I have to say that I'm not impressed by her knowledge of how to handle international politics.
Now, did Dr. Rice foresee the course of events in Iraq, or not ?
Is the actual situation over there within an error bar or two from what she, brilliant mind, had worked out in her plans, or was she a bit off mark ?

My guess is that Colin Powell had much much more insight in the matter. That's why she's replacing him now, no ?

 

[russ_watters]

So she's just as qualified as my school counsellor then.

Your school counselor was a Stanford professor, Provost, CAO, and served on the board of directors of a dozen companies and other organizations? Impressive - what's he doing as a school counsellor?

 

[Smurf]

He's batman, he has to keep his identity secret so he poses as a lowly school counsellor, no one would ever suspect a thing.

 

[BobG]

It’s the only explanation unless she is not qualified if so what qualifications is she lacking or is it because she is a women. Would you consider her a great role model?

Probably the lamest post I've seen here.

Her ordeal during the confirmation hearing was a vehicle for the Democrats to air their opinion about the Bush administration in general and nothing to do with race, gender, or qualifications.

As a current member of the Bush team, and specifically a member that has helped shape our national security and foreign policy, she's an appropriate target for their concerns. And she's the only member of the defense and security team that's likely to come in front of them for some time. She would have been a fool to expect anything less.

 

[Gokul43201]

I am probably wrong, because all I hear about C. Rice is about how brilliant she is. Hey, they even have a PhD. on board :tongue: But I have to say that I'm not impressed by her knowledge of how to handle international politics.
Now, did Dr. Rice foresee the course of events in Iraq, or not ?
Is the actual situation over there within an error bar or two from what she, brilliant mind, had worked out in her plans, or was she a bit off mark ?

My guess is that Colin Powell had much much more insight in the matter. That's why she's replacing him now, no ?

I'm probably wrong here, but Condi was an expert on Soviet affairs when she was appointed to head the NSA (not implying she was ignorant of middle east affairs, or any such). The assistant NSA head in charge of Middle East affairs was (probably still is) this person who was a prominent PNAC member (can't recall name, but should be Googleable). It's possible his muscle helped shape NSA policy more than Condi herself.

I would really have liked Condi if only she hadn't turned herself into a mouthpiece for misinformation and deception. I suspect most people started out with a whole lot of respect for her, which declined over the build-up for the war.

Sen. (R-Texas) Kay Bailey Hutchison, had this to say in support of Rice's nomination :

I don't think that rehashing potential mistakes that people might think have been made in the war on terrorism, specifically in Iraq, are something that should be brought up as a reason to vote against Condoleeza Rice for Secretary of State.

Uh, come again ?

 

[kat]

I would really have liked Condi if only she hadn't turned herself into a mouthpiece for misinformation and deception. I suspect most people started out with a whole lot of respect for her, which declined over the build-up for the war.

This is something I find a bit confusing, people are more then willing to forgive Powell for turning into a "mouthpiece of misinformation and deception"...

 

[mattmns]

85-13, whew she just barely made it.

 

[franznietzsche]

This is something I find a bit confusing, people are more then willing to forgive Powell for turning into a "mouthpiece of misinformation and deception"...

not really, Powell was the least hard line of the administration, hence his exit. And the fact that he is not returning is at least somewhat redeeming. However, Rice is getting promoted. Qualified or not, after her record as NSA, i'd rather not see her as top diplomat, but its not my choice.

 

[BoulderHead]

What are the odds Condoleeza Rice becomes VP ?
Could make a clever political strategy for the GOP...

 

[wasteofo2]

What are the odds Condoleeza Rice becomes VP ?
Could make a clever political strategy for the GOP...

Or it could backfire completely. How many inbred gun-toting hicks from the deep south are going to vote for a neegro-spanish-lady for VP? Furthermore, how many black people are going to like Condoleezza Rice? I'm sure someone like Powell would get a majority of the black vote if he were on a Presidential tickett, but Black people really are not big fans of Republicans in general, and Rice doesn't seem like one who can really connect on a personal level with anyone and sway their opinions. Either you think she's an evil *****, or a brilliant role-model.

This is something I find a bit confusing, people are more then willing to forgive Powell for turning into a "mouthpiece of misinformation and deception"...

Powell became apologetic, humble, and genuinely concerned that he had lied to bring the nation to war. Rice, on the other hand, refuses to even consider that there might have been any mistakes. Furthermore, on a personal level, Powell seems like an honest, caring, humble and all around decent individual, wheras Rice seems like an evil, manipulative ***** who purposely ignores reality at the expense of soldier's lives. But of course, she has a PHD, so she must be qualified and a great role-model. And heaven forbid that people from the Democratic Party, the Party that wants to throw free money at Black People day and night, question this woman, or else they must be a racist!

 

[hitssquad]

So she's just as qualified as my school counsellor then.

Your school counselor was a Stanford professor, Provost, CAO, and served on the board of directors of a dozen companies and other organizations?

"One gets the distinct impression that Rice was not among PhD grads sending out dozens or hundreds of job application letters to institutions around the country...

"...Stanford ... offered her a three-year assistant professorship under an affirmative action program...

"...she was promoted to full professor in 1993. Rice has said that she was surprised when, a few months after her promotion, she was also named as the new provost...

"Soon she also had the assignment of firing quite a few people... ...evidently the administration made the typically cynical move of assigning unpopular and draconian tasks to someone who filled two minority slots...

"...her career has been most consistently and strongly marked by her willingness to do what she was told."
http://www.onlinejournal.com/Special_Reports/012105Burns-1/012105burns-1.html

 

[vanesch]

Powell became apologetic, humble, and genuinely concerned that he had lied to bring the nation to war. Rice, on the other hand, refuses to even consider that there might have been any mistakes.

I had the impression back when the discussion about going to war in Iraq was going on, that Powell was the one who was against it (in that he probably figured that this wouldn't be such an easy ride) while Rice and Rumsfeld were pushing for it. It was also obvious that when he was waving his aluminium tubes at the UN security council, that he was doing this because his boss told him so, but that he didn't believe a word of what he was saying (as anybody else, btw).

 

[Gokul43201]

I had the impression back when the discussion about going to war in Iraq was going on, that Powell was the one who was against it (in that he probably figured that this wouldn't be such an easy ride) while Rice and Rumsfeld were pushing for it. It was also obvious that when he was waving his aluminium tubes at the UN security council, that he was doing this because his boss told him so, but that he didn't believe a word of what he was saying (as anybody else, btw).

This is very true. Many of the conclusions reached by the State Dept. were almost diametrically opposite to those reached by Pentagon or the CIA (for instance, (i) to not trust Chalabi's information, (ii) to make the case for a global coalition, (iii) if war was inevitable, to use "overwhelming force"...way more troops than Rummy would allow).

 

[adrenaline]

I caught this on CSpan radio . Excellent comments from an outstanding Senator. Note that the guy can say similar things that Boxer was trying to say (despite the difference in voting, which he explains), yet say them so much more eloquently, diplomatically and effectively. (longer version of what BObG was saying)

BIDEN. Mr. President, I rise today to support Dr. Condoleezza Rice’s nomination as Secretary of State.

I believe that a President is entitled to his cabinet, unless the person he selects is far out of the mainstream, or incompetent, or of clearly questionable character, or dedicated to dismantle the agency to which he was nominated.

Dr. Rice is none of the above. I’ve known and worked with her these past four years. She is knowledgeable, smart, and honorable. She has the President’s trust. As Ranking Member on the Foreign Relations Committee, I have a special responsibility to work with the Secretary of State and her team.

So I will vote for Dr. Rice. But I will do so with some frustration and reservations. Let me explain why.

Last week, we gave Dr. Rice an opportunity to acknowledge the mistakes and misjudgments of the past four years. The point is not to play “gotcha.” It’s not about embarrassing the President. It’s about learning from our mistakes so we don’t repeat them. A second term is also a second chance.

Instead of seizing that opportunity, Dr. Rice stuck to this administration’s party line. Always right. Never wrong. It’s as if acknowledging mistakes or misjudgments is a sign of weakness. It’s not. It’s powerful evidence of strength and maturity.

During the hearing, Dr. Rice claimed that my colleague, Barbara Boxer, was impugning her integrity when she asked her about the changing rationale for the war in Iraq.

I wish instead that Dr. Rice had acknowledged the facts. This administration secured the support of the American people – and of Congress – for going to war based on what it insisted was an imminent threat posed by Iraq’s weapons of mass destruction.

Now, when it turns out there were no such weapons, Dr. Rice and the President claim the war was about removing a dictator.

I’m glad Saddam is gone. He deserves his own special place in hell. But removing him from power was not the justification this administration gave at the time to go to war. Why Dr. Rice refused to acknowledge that is beyond me.

Read the resolution that Congress passed giving the President the authority to use force if necessary. It was about “disarming” Saddam. And re-read the words of the President and the other senior officials. In speech after speech, television appearance after television appearance, they left the American people with the impression that Iraq was on the verge of reconstituting nuclear weapons – in fact, the Vice President said Saddam already had them. And the administration left the American people with the impression – even today – that Saddam had other weapons of mass destruction… and that he was complicit in the events of 9/11 and collaborating with Al Qaeda.

Back then, the Administration liked to claim that President Bush never said Iraq posed “an imminent threat.”

Here’s what he and other senior officials did say: “immediate threat.” “mortal threat.” “urgent threat.” “grave threat.” “serious and mounting threat.” “unique threat.”

It would be funny if it wasn’t so deadly serious.

Here’s my point: especially in matters of war and peace, we’ve got to level with the American people if we want not only to secure their support, but to sustain it. As my colleagues have heard me say too many times, no foreign policy, no matter how well conceived, can be sustained without the informed consent of the American people.

And we’ve got to be honest with the world, otherwise, we will do terrible damage to America’s most invaluable asset: our credibility.

After Iraq, it is going to be much harder to rally the world to our side if we have to face a truly imminent threat to our security from say Iran or North Korea.

The issue here is not whether the President, Dr. Rice or other senior officials lied about Iraq. I do not believe that they did. On many of the critical issues concerning Iraq’s WMD program, the intelligence community was split. But here’s what the administration did do: it cherry picked the facts that fit with their objective of building support for war, without acknowledging the dissent and differences within the intelligence community. They didn’t lie. They did mislead.

The same goes for the way Dr. Rice answered my question about the training of Iraq’s security forces. Time and again, this administration has tried to leave the American people with the impression that Iraq has well over a hundred thousand fully trained, fully competent police and military.

That simply is not true. We are months and probably years from reaching that target. Putting a uniform on a cop or a soldier doesn’t mean they can shoot straight or stand their ground. Dr. Rice could and should have acknowledged that, while at the same time pointing to the real progress in training that is now being made under the leadership of General Petraeus. She didn’t.

The bottom line is this: we should focus on real standards, not raw numbers. To my mind, the real standard is simple. An Iraqi soldier or policeman should be considered fully trained when he or she is capable of doing the job we’re now asking America’s young men and women to do – provide law and order, protect the government and infrastructure, guard the borders and, above all, defend against and defeat the insurgents. How many meet that standard today? Nowhere near 120,000. In my judgment, it is somewhere between 4,000 and 18,000. I will submit for the record what I believe are the facts regarding the readiness of Iraq’s security forces.

So last week’s hearing was a chance for Dr. Rice to wipe the slate clean with the American people and with our allies. I wish that she had seized it.

This isn’t about revisiting the past. It’s about how Dr. Rice and the administration will meet the challenges of the future.

As to the future, I didn’t hear much at last week’s confirmation hearing.

In my judgment, America faces two overriding national security challenges in this new century. We must win the struggle between freedom and radical Islamic fundamentalism. And we must keep the world’s most dangerous weapons away from its most dangerous people.

To prevail, we must be strong. But we also must be smart… wielding the force of our ideas and ideals together with the force of our arms.

Today, after a necessary war in Afghanistan and an optional war in Iraq, we are rightly confident in the example of our power. But we have forgotten the power of our example.

Foreign policy is not a popularity contest. We must confront hard issues. Sometimes they require us to make hard choices that other countries don’t like. But above all they require American leadership – the kind that persuades others to follow. We’ve been having a tough time doing just that these past few years. And so despite our great military might, we are, in my view, more alone in the world than we have been at any time in recent memory. As a result, we are less secure than we could or should be.

That’s because virtually all of the threats we face – from terrorism… to the spread of weapons of mass destruction… to rogue states that flout the rules – cannot be met solely by unilateral force.

So I had hoped to hear from Dr. Rice how she planned to help rebuild America’s power to persuade…and to restore to our nation the respect it once enjoyed.

I also had hoped to hear her ideas for contending with a series of problems the administration put on the backburner… but whose pots are boiling over. Like the nuclear programs in North Korea and Iran… the dangerous backsliding on democracy in Russia… and genocide in Sudan to name a few.

Over the past few years, North Korea has increased its nuclear weapons capacity by as much as 400 percent. It may now have as many as 8 nuclear weapons to test, hide or sell to the highest bidder. Dr. Rice told us it is “unacceptable” for North Korea to have nuclear weapons. But she didn’t tell us what that means or how the administration proposes to stop this growing threat.

Over the past few years, the reform movement in Iran has been crushed and the regime has accelerated its own nuclear program. There may be nothing we can do to persuade Iran not to develop weapons. But our European allies are trying, through a combination of carrots and sticks. They believe they cannot succeed unless the United States engages directly in this effort.

I asked Dr. Rice whether we should be a party to a deal in which the Iranians agreed – in a way we could verify – that they would stop their attempts to build nuclear weapons and long range missiles. And she said, ‘well, we have a lot of other problems with Iran.’ Of course we do. But our number one problem is the growing danger they will develop nuclear weapons. Our best chance at stopping that is to work with the Europeans in showing Iran what it can get if it does the right thing – and what it risks if it does not. But we’re sitting on the sidelines. And nothing Dr. Rice said gave me confidence we’re ready to get on the playing field. Over the past few years, President Putin has reversed the course of democratic development and the rule of law in Russia. The administration has been largely silent. How can we be so concerned about the advancement of democracy in the Middle East and so unconcerned about the regression in Russia?

The President gave a powerful, eloquent inaugural address about expanding freedom around the world. Every American shares that ideal – it goes to who we are as a people… to our experience… and to our interests. The question isn’t the goal. It’s how you achieve it. I wonder if the President plans on bringing a signed copy of his address to President Putin when he meets with him next month. I fear that in Russia and many other places, the gap between the administration’s rhetoric and the reality of its policies is only going to get wider.

At the same time, we’ve gotten little in return for turning a blind eye to Russia’s regression. One of the most important programs to protect America’ security – the effort to help Russia account for, secure and destroy weapons of mass destruction and related materials – has become mired in red tape that the two Presidents need to cut through.

Finally, in Darfur, Sudan we have watched a terrible tragedy unfold. Militia supported by the government have killed as many as 100,000 civilians and chased as many as 2 million from their homes. Four months ago, before the Foreign Relations Committee, Secretary Powell rightly called it genocide. Since then, the situation has gotten even worse. Yet we heard virtually nothing from Dr. Rice about what the administration and Congress can do, now, to stop this slaughter and to help African allies develop their own peacekeeping capacity.

Mr. President, let me end with something hopeful that Dr. Rice talked about: putting diplomacy back at the center of America’s foreign policy. That effort is long overdue. Be that as it may, I strongly agree with Dr. Rice that this is the time for a new diplomatic offensive with old allies… rising powers… and even hostile regimes.

But our diplomacy has to be sustained. It has to do as much listening as it does talking. And it has to use all the tools at our disposal.

Our military might is critical. It gives credibility to our diplomacy. And it gives us the most powerful tool in the world to act, if necessary, against dictators who are systematically abusing the rights of their people… or against regimes with no democratic checks that are harboring terrorists and amassing weapons of mass destruction.

But there are many other critical tools that have atrophied under this administration. Our intelligence… our public diplomacy… our alliances… international organizations… treaties and agreements… development assistance… trade and investment. We need to wield them with the same determination with which we use force – even if it can be frustrating and even if the pay-off takes years, even a generation.

That’s what we did after World War II. That’s why we prevailed in the Cold War. Now, faced with a new but no less dangerous set of challenges, we must recapture the totality of America’s strength.

Above all, we must understand that those who spread radical Islamic fundamentalism and weapons of mass destruction are beyond the reach of reason.

We must – and we will -- defeat them.

But hundreds of millions of hearts and minds around the world are open to American ideas and ideals.

We must reach them.

Mr. President, Samuel Johnson described second marriages as the triumph of hope over experience. My experience with this administration’s foreign policy these past four years has been disquieting. And my experience with Dr. Rice’s confirmation hearing left me disappointed.

But at the dawn of President’s Bush’s second term, and on the question of Dr. Rice’s confirmation, I choose hope over experience. I will vote for her. I yield the floor.

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

 

[rick1138]

Delaware is one of the states that actually has capable politicians.

 

[GENIERE]

Delaware is one of the states that actually has capable politicians.

Possibly, if Biden is excluded.