southsider2k5 Posted January 19, 2005 Share Posted January 19, 2005 http://www.pbs.org/newshour/updates/rice_01-19-05.html Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Rex Kickass Posted January 19, 2005 Share Posted January 19, 2005 I'm glad they did. Rice has proven herself to be a less than adequate NSA and a terrible diplomat. Although her talents served her well during the Bush administration of 1989-1993, and she wrote a most excellent text regarding the dismantling of East Germany, she couldn't handle a sit-in at Stanford as the provost. Now she's supposed to handle our most sensitive negotiations with problem states? I'm scared frankly. I have to admit that in 2001, I was rather pleased with the picks of Colin Powell and Condi Rice for state and NSA, sadly I've found their performances to be disappointing. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Gene Honda Civic Posted January 20, 2005 Share Posted January 20, 2005 That's John Kerry believing he still has some sort of political future. I think he believes that he didn't win the presidency becasue he wasn't seen as a "strong" figure with concreate convictions. This notion is misguided. He lost the election because he doesn't have a hangout down on the farm in the south, and is seen as elitest. He's trying to build a solid record of desent against the Bush objective for the next 4 years, hoping that will give him a stronger platform to launch a campaign from. The sorry thing is, this is an easy vote. it's clear that Condi has more than a little culpability in the Iraq/misinformation debacle. That only 2 people stood up to block the advancement of someone who's done nothing to deserve a promotion is sad. That those 2 did so, probably, largely thinking of their own political futures just illustrates how f***ed up the entire system is. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Rex Kickass Posted January 20, 2005 Share Posted January 20, 2005 I might be inclined to give you John Kerry for that. But I won't give you Barbara Boxer. I've seen something in her lately, maybe its the ghost of Wellstone. She didn't attack Rice on Iraq. She didn't vote for Rice based on not telling the truth. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
KipWellsFan Posted January 20, 2005 Share Posted January 20, 2005 QUOTE(Gene Honda Civic @ Jan 19, 2005 -> 06:09 PM) That's John Kerry believing he still has some sort of political future. I think he believes that he didn't win the presidency becasue he wasn't seen as a "strong" figure with concreate convictions. This notion is misguided. He lost the election because he doesn't have a hangout down on the farm in the south, and is seen as elitest. He's trying to build a solid record of desent against the Bush objective for the next 4 years, hoping that will give him a stronger platform to launch a campaign from. The sorry thing is, this is an easy vote. it's clear that Condi has more than a little culpability in the Iraq/misinformation debacle. That only 2 people stood up to block the advancement of someone who's done nothing to deserve a promotion is sad. That those 2 did so, probably, largely thinking of their own political futures just illustrates how f***ed up the entire system is. John Kerry and Barrack O'Bama in 2008 My pipedream Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Gene Honda Civic Posted January 20, 2005 Share Posted January 20, 2005 got this email Dear Cheat, Earlier today, I voted in the Senate Foreign Relations Committee against the nomination of Dr. Condoleezza Rice for Secretary of State. This vote is an expression of my determination that we hold the Bush administration accountable. Dr. Rice is a principal architect, implementer, and defender of a series of Administration policies that have not made our country as secure as we should be and have alienated much-needed allies in our common cause of winning the war against terrorism. Regrettably, I did not see in Dr. Rice's testimony before our committee any acknowledgment of the need to change course or of a new vision for America's role in the world. On Iraq, on North Korea, on Iran, to name just a few of the most critical challenges, it seems to be more of the same. I hope I am proven wrong. I hope the course will change. And I hope that the Administration will recognize the strength of a foreign policy that has bipartisan support. I am prepared to work with Dr. Rice and others in the Administration to try to reach agreement on policies that will truly strengthen our security and restore America's credibility on the world stage. And I am confident colleagues on both sides of the aisle are prepared to do so as well. But, we've got to remain firm in our insistence that those who create policies that don't work have the courage to admit their mistakes and the wisdom to change course. Our johnkerry.com community has been expressing that determination in huge numbers. Over 700,000 people have called on President Bush to fire Donald Rumsfeld as Secretary of Defense. If you haven't signed the Rumsfeld petition, please do so immediately. http://www.johnkerry.com/ReplaceRumsfeld And, please forward the petition right now to friends and colleagues, urging them to join in this effort. I know you share my strong convictions on the importance of holding the President and his Cabinet accountable. I pledge to you that I will not yield in this effort. Let's keep working together. America's future is at stake. Sincerely, John Kerry Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
LowerCaseRepublican Posted January 20, 2005 Share Posted January 20, 2005 Uh...Kip -- Obama folded faster than Superman on laundry day to approve Condi Rice to her position. :puke Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
KipWellsFan Posted January 20, 2005 Share Posted January 20, 2005 QUOTE(LowerCaseRepublican @ Jan 20, 2005 -> 12:24 AM) Uh...Kip -- Obama folded faster than Superman on laundry day to approve Condi Rice to her position. :puke okay But If Kerry/O'Bama can't beat the Republicans I don't know who can. But Kerry won't get another chance anyway. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
mreye Posted January 20, 2005 Share Posted January 20, 2005 QUOTE(Gene Honda Civic @ Jan 20, 2005 -> 12:29 AM) got this email So John Kerry is advocating an internet petition? Yeah, those work all the time. :rolly Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
KipWellsFan Posted January 20, 2005 Share Posted January 20, 2005 (edited) Democrats delay vote on Rice and Gonzalez http://www.theaustralian.news.com.au/commo...55E2703,00.html Personally I really don't know what this means, and why were there only 18 people in on that vote for Rice? What position do they hold? Edited January 20, 2005 by KipWellsFan Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Rex Kickass Posted January 20, 2005 Share Posted January 20, 2005 What it means is that the Democrats wanna play "Opposition Political Theater" (Patent Pending). Most Democrats will vote for Condi Rice to approve her, because by and large, unless Condi did something egregiously illegal or shaming, the Senate will confirm her. The President gets who he wants. However, what the Dems are doing is addressing the core problems that they think that the Bush administration is not. Its effective, because if all they are doing is delaying the vote a day or two to get their voice heard, its not obstructionist because they just want a period of debate, which is allowed under the rules, it takes 60 votes to reach cloture. But it will get media coverage. Fortunately, there are a lot of good speakers in the Dem Senate so its gonna be a good thing for them. They will most likely do the same thing with Alberto Gonzalez as well, and the new DHS pick, although rather than having the likely 85-10 passage, you'll see 20-25 dems vote against Gonzalez minimum because they'll argue (and they have a good case) that Gonzalez did do something egregious as Chief White House counsel - be that the torture memo, or failing to properly vet Kerik (when a Google search would have turned up most of the allegations). Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
NUKE_CLEVELAND Posted January 20, 2005 Share Posted January 20, 2005 QUOTE(KipWellsFan @ Jan 20, 2005 -> 10:33 AM) Democrats delay vote on Rice and Gonzalez http://www.theaustralian.news.com.au/commo...55E2703,00.html Personally I really don't know what this means, and why were there only 18 people in on that vote for Rice? What position do they hold? She was before the Senate Foregin Relations committee when she gave her testimony. The chamber, obviously, is chaired and controlled by Republicans. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Rex Kickass Posted January 20, 2005 Share Posted January 20, 2005 Barbara Boxer via her "NO" vote on Rice. Many of my colleagues have different rules when it comes to voting on Cabinet members. I set a bar that's very high because I think these positions are very powerful, and others set them lower because they think the most important thing is that the president gets who he wants. I take "advice and consent" very seriously, perhaps more seriously than others. That's their choice. Source Salon.com Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Texsox Posted January 20, 2005 Share Posted January 20, 2005 While I am not perfectly aligned philosophically with Bush's picks, for the most part I believe he has done a very fine job of selecting people. Kerik was a misstep, he corrected quickly, and moved on. I have always been of the opinion that the hearings should be based on character, citizenship, and integrity, not philosophy and politics. Once the President is selected, the default should be he gets his person and has to live with that selection. I prefer a diplomatic Sect'y of State over a war hawk, but I'm a moderate. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
FlaSoxxJim Posted January 20, 2005 Share Posted January 20, 2005 QUOTE(Texsox @ Jan 20, 2005 -> 12:12 PM) While I am not perfectly aligned philosophically with Bush's picks, for the most part I believe he has done a very fine job of selecting people. I still want to hear what you think of Gonzales as a a choice for AG. Do you think he is capable of upholding the freedoms of American citizens when the big feather in his cap so far is finding the legal loophole allowing US Administration-sponsored inhumane treatment of foreign war prisoners? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Rex Kickass Posted January 20, 2005 Share Posted January 20, 2005 I think that Alberto Gonzales is a terrible choice. His record as White House Counsel was poor at best. He advocated scrapping the Geneva Conventions, failed to vet nominee picks adequately, and have you ever seen what he did as Bush's go-to guy on clemency reviews for executions in Texas? Might has well have called him a rubber stamp. Although I think he'll be socially more moderate than Ashcroft and Justice might actually get uncovered at DOJ now, I don't feel that he has adequately respected the individual rights of citizens to earn him the post of top law enforcer in the country. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
LowerCaseRepublican Posted January 20, 2005 Share Posted January 20, 2005 QUOTE(winodj @ Jan 20, 2005 -> 11:55 AM) I think that Alberto Gonzales is a terrible choice. His record as White House Counsel was poor at best. He advocated scrapping the Geneva Conventions, failed to vet nominee picks adequately, and have you ever seen what he did as Bush's go-to guy on clemency reviews for executions in Texas? Might has well have called him a rubber stamp. Although I think he'll be socially more moderate than Ashcroft and Justice might actually get uncovered at DOJ now, I don't feel that he has adequately respected the individual rights of citizens to earn him the post of top law enforcer in the country. Justice might get uncovered but maybe also that sexy sexy sexy statue breast in the Hall of Justice. Ow ow! Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Rex Kickass Posted January 20, 2005 Share Posted January 20, 2005 Thats what I meant. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
LowerCaseRepublican Posted January 20, 2005 Share Posted January 20, 2005 QUOTE(winodj @ Jan 20, 2005 -> 04:24 PM) Thats what I meant. Ohhh....Snaaaaaaaaaaaap! (@ the administration ) Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Join the conversation
You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.