Condoleeza Rice to replace Powell

[Kaylore]

http://abcnews.go.com/US/story?id=254647

Nov. 15, 2004 — National Security Adviser Condoleezza Rice, one of President Bush's closest counselors, will be nominated to replace Colin Powell as secretary of state, ABC News has learned.

Senior administration sources confirmed that Rice would be Bush's choice. The news comes just hours after the White House announced Powell had submitted his resignation.

Top Stories

* Condoleezza Rice to Be Named Secretary of State
* Democrats Vie for Party Chair
* New CIA Director's Style Causing Shake-Up

ABC News has also learned that Deputy National Security Adviser Stephen Hadley will likely replace Rice as national security adviser.

Powell submitted his resignation on Friday, though his departure was not announced until today.

The retired four-star general was known for his moderate views and for clashing with members of the administration on the issue of Iraq. Even so, it was Powell who went before the United Nations in February of 2003 to make a case for the U.S.- led invasion of Iraq.

Rice, if confirmed by the Senate, will take over the job of international diplomat during a war that has divided the nation and the world.

A Stellar Academic Career

The new post comes as a sort of birthday present for Rice, who turned 50 on Sunday.

Rice was the first female U.S. national security adviser. She would be only the second woman and second African-American to be appointed secretary of state.

Born and raised in segregated Birmingham, Ala., Rice was the child of two educators. After her father took a job in Denver, Rice decided to take college courses while still in high school. She was just 19 years old when she graduated from the University of Denver.

Although she was initially interested in music, Rice began studying the Soviet Union and Eastern Europe. She earned her master's degree from the University of Notre Dame in 1975; and received her doctorate from the Graduate School of International Studies at the University of Denver in 1981. In 1981 she began teaching at Stanford University, where she would later serve six years as provost.

In 1989, the first President Bush's national security adviser, Brent Scowcroft, helped convince her to leave Stanford and work for him in Washington. She quickly became one of George H.W. Bush's most trusted advisers. From 1989 through March 1991, the period of German reunification and the final days of the Soviet Union, she served in the first Bush administration as director and then senior director of Soviet and East European Affairs in the National Security Council, and a special assistant to the president for national security affairs.

This is of little surprise. Condi and Bush have seen eye to eye on a lot of issues, so this promotion was to be expected. Too bad to see Powell go. I thought Rumsfeld or Powell would leave, but not both.

[Billy Clyde Puckett]

Great News. She knows her Sh*t.

[enjolras]

Great.. replaced the only moderate with a war hawk.

[patteeu]

Bush seems to be getting more of "his guys" in place this time around. We'll see if the trend continues.

[L.A. BRONCOS FAN]

Great.. replaced the only moderate with a war hawk.

"Chickenhawk" would be more accurate.

The SS Kinda-sleaza "we never imagined aircraft as missles" Rice?

Apparently Gigglekill has to retain the perjurer in order to continue to create a phony impression of racial/ethnic diversity in the ranks.

http://www.bartcop.com/condi-remote.jpg

[L.A. BRONCOS FAN]

Great News. She knows her Sh*t.

Riiiiight, Bubba.

"Knows her sh*t" so well that, following 9/11, she claimed "we never imagined anyone would use aircraft as missles" when security at the G8 Summit (attended by GeeDubya) that same summer was ordered to prepare for just such an eventuality.

Now get back to things you know, i.e. watching NASCAR and WWF.

[L.A. BRONCOS FAN]

Now We Have a Confirmed and Chronic Liar, Condi Rice, Who Did Nothing to Prevent the 9/11 Hijackings Even Though She and Bush Were Warned of Al-Qaeda Domestic Hijackings Before 9/11, Replacing a Confirmed Liar About Reasons for the Iraq War, Colin Powell

http://story.news.yahoo.com/news?tmpl=story&e=1&u=/ap/20041116/ap_on_go_pr_wh/bush_cabinet

[W*GS]

I won't stoop to LABF's level regarding his take on Rice - no insinuations of racism or chauvinism against LABF from me.

[Rohirrim]

Soon, Bush will have completed construction on his "perfect" world: There will be nobody left with even the semblance of a dissenting opinion. Nothing but sycophants. And meanwhile, the press will be held to "one question, and no follow-ups." What a world, what a world.

Of course, only us out-of-touch lefties see any problem with that. I wonder what it is that we are out-of-touch with, mein grubenfuhrer? rofl

[patteeu]

Soon, Bush will have completed construction on his "perfect" world: There will be nobody left with even the semblance of a dissenting opinion. Nothing but sycophants. And meanwhile, the press will be held to "one question, and no follow-ups." What a world, what a world.

Of course, only us out-of-touch lefties see any problem with that. I wonder what it is that we are out-of-touch with, mein grubenfuhrer? rofl

It feels so lonely on the outside doesn't it? Go warm your hands on the barrel-fire for now, maybe we'll invite you in for a home-cooked meal on Thanksgiving if you don't make too much of a nuisance of yourself in the meantime. Beggers can't expect to be choosers.

[RaiderH8r]

It feels so lonely on the outside doesn't it? Go warm your hands on the barrel-fire for now, maybe we'll invite you in for a home-cooked meal on Thanksgiving if you don't make too much of a nuisance of yourself in the meantime. Beggers can't expect to be choosers.
Once you get them to eating table scraps they won't touch their kibble.

[mosca]

Apparently Gigglekill has to retain the perjurer in order to continue to create a phony impression of racial/ethnic diversity in the ranks.

remarks like this must be the party line for LABF and the like whenever bush's admin. appoints a minority to a prominent cabinet position. stinks of racism to me.

[Rohirrim]

It feels so lonely on the outside doesn't it? Go warm your hands on the barrel-fire for now, maybe we'll invite you in for a home-cooked meal on Thanksgiving if you don't make too much of a nuisance of yourself in the meantime. Beggers can't expect to be choosers.

Oh boy. Smugness, and arrogance! Why not go for the trifecta and throw in a little moral superiority. Oops. Already done that. Yeah, me and 49% of the American voting public will just quietly sit and watch while your heroes run the world.

Creating an administration devoid of dissension or discussion is what I would call hubris, also known as "pride goeth before a fall." I'm sure you're familiar with the meaning of the term "hamartia." Well, if you're not, look it up. Bush's hamartia is his inability to accept dissenting viewpoints; from his staff, from congress, from reporters or (judging by his "vetted" campaign crowds) from the American people. No. He doesn't read papers, and from what Woodward says, he doesn't even read briefing papers. He just goes by his gut instincts and the surety that he is always right.

His followers suffer from this same "hamartia." They are filled with certainty that they, and only they, are on the right track; economically, in foreign policy, against terrorism, on morality, etc. If you step back and look at the big picture for a moment, you can discern the outline of an almost perfectly constructed morality play, like Greek theater.

The demagogue gains ultimate power and surrounds himself with true believers. Dissenters are weeded out from every branch. Finally, he stands alone, free to enforce his crystalline, pure agenda. But suddenly, disaster strikes. The demagogue now discovers that he needs a new plan, a way to adapt to the unstoppable, unforeseen changes. All around him he sees only the nodding heads of his loyal ideologues, filling his ears with their empty praises. And where are the dissenting points of view which he now, so desperately needs? Silenced. Watching from the wings.

I would enjoy watching the eventual collapse of this arrogant demagogue and his cabal of sycophants if I didn't also realize that when his mythology comes crashing down, the lives of many innocents will be lost or destroyed in the collapsing debris. And don't expect any deux ex machina at the end of this particular play. No. The grand finale for this one will be scripted more along the lines of chaos theory.

[W*GS]

remarks like this must be the party line for LABF and the like whenever bush's admin. appoints a minority to a prominent cabinet position. stinks of racism to me.

In LABF-Land, only non-LABF's can be racist. Since you made this sort of comment, you're racist in LABF-speak, mosca.

Welcome to the club.

[RaiderH8r]

Oh boy. Smugness, and arrogance! Why not go for the trifecta and throw in a little moral superiority. Oops. Already done that. Yeah, me and 49% of the American voting public will just quietly sit and watch while your heroes run the world.

Creating an administration devoid of dissension or discussion is what I would call hubris, also known as "pride goeth before a fall." I'm sure you're familiar with the meaning of the term "hamartia." Well, if you're not, look it up. Bush's hamartia is his inability to accept dissenting viewpoints; from his staff, from congress, from reporters or (judging by his "vetted" campaign crowds) from the American people. No. He doesn't read papers, and from what Woodward says, he doesn't even read briefing papers. He just goes by his gut instincts and the surety that he is always right.

His followers suffer from this same "hamartia." They are filled with certainty that they, and only they, are on the right track; economically, in foreign policy, against terrorism, on morality, etc. If you step back and look at the big picture for a moment, you can discern the outline of an almost perfectly constructed morality play, like Greek theater.

The demagogue gains ultimate power and surrounds himself with true believers. Dissenters are weeded out from every branch. Finally, he stands alone, free to enforce his crystalline, pure agenda. But suddenly, disaster strikes. The demagogue now discovers that he needs a new plan, a way to adapt to the unstoppable, unforeseen changes. All around him he sees only the nodding heads of his loyal ideologues, filling his ears with their empty praises. And where are the dissenting points of view which he now, so desperately needs? Silenced. Watching from the wings.

I would enjoy watching the eventual collapse of this arrogant demagogue and his cabal of sycophants if I didn't also realize that when his mythology comes crashing down, the lives of many innocents will be lost or destroyed in the collapsing debris. And don't expect any deux ex machina at the end of this particular play. No. The grand finale for this one will be scripted more along the lines of chaos theory.
Mua ha ha haaaa

[patteeu]

...

Creating an administration devoid of dissension or discussion is what I would call hubris, also known as "pride goeth before a fall." I'm sure you're familiar with the meaning of the term "hamartia." Well, if you're not, look it up. Bush's hamartia is his inability to accept dissenting viewpoints; from his staff, from congress, from reporters or (judging by his "vetted" campaign crowds) from the American people. No. He doesn't read papers, and from what Woodward says, he doesn't even read briefing papers. He just goes by his gut instincts and the surety that he is always right.

I'm flattered by your confidence in my vocabulary, but it isn't warranted. I'm a simple person with a small vocabulary. IOW, I had to look it up. Couldn't you have just said "tragic flaw" for the benefit of us poor red staters? Thank goodness for the interent and dictionary.com though.

His followers suffer from this same "hamartia." They are filled with certainty that they, and only they, are on the right track; economically, in foreign policy, against terrorism, on morality, etc. If you step back and look at the big picture for a moment, you can discern the outline of an almost perfectly constructed morality play, like Greek theater.

The demagogue gains ultimate power and surrounds himself with true believers. Dissenters are weeded out from every branch. Finally, he stands alone, free to enforce his crystalline, pure agenda. But suddenly, disaster strikes. The demagogue now discovers that he needs a new plan, a way to adapt to the unstoppable, unforeseen changes. All around him he sees only the nodding heads of his loyal ideologues, filling his ears with their empty praises. And where are the dissenting points of view which he now, so desperately needs? Silenced. Watching from the wings.

I would enjoy watching the eventual collapse of this arrogant demagogue and his cabal of sycophants if I didn't also realize that when his mythology comes crashing down, the lives of many innocents will be lost or destroyed in the collapsing debris. And don't expect any deux ex machina at the end of this particular play. No. The grand finale for this one will be scripted more along the lines of chaos theory.

I'm not really into Greek tragedies, could you draw an analogy to an Action/Adventure Blockbuster or an episode of Malcolm In The Middle for me instead?

OK, I'm joking with you (just to make it clear). Seriously though, don't you think the dissenting voices from the democrats in Congress, the mainstream media, and the powerful liberal interest groups are enough to keep the executive branch on their toes? Bush himself might not watch the nightly news, but plenty of his aides and advisors do. Even though Bush is no longer eligible for re-election, that doesn't mean he isn't subject to political pressures. The Republicans in Congress and his cabinet members who have future political ambitions are still dependent on the goodwill of the electorate. They can't run roughshod over the Constitution the way you seem to fear they will.

During Bush's first term, he had plenty of dissenting voices around him. The disagreements between Powell's State Dept. and Rumsfeld's Defense Dept. are well known. CIA was also at odds with Defense. He had a democrat as Transportation Secretary. What was he supposed to do, invite Tom Daschle to be Chief of Staff? Or Nadine Strossen to be Attorney General? Did Bill Clinton have any conservatives in his cabinet (note that Bill Cohen wasn't a conservative although he was a republican)? Bush is entitled to have a loyal team to work with.

[L.A. BRONCOS FAN]

remarks like this must be the party line for LABF and the like whenever bush's admin. appoints a minority to a prominent cabinet position. stinks of racism to me.

The only "stink" is your own ignorance (and W*GS'.)

Pointing out GeeDubya and the GOP's tokenism isn't racism.

http://www.bartcop.com/by-condivoodoo2.jpg

[L.A. BRONCOS FAN]

Soon, Bush will have completed construction on his "perfect" world: There will be nobody left with even the semblance of a dissenting opinion. Nothing but sycophants.

Correct on all counts.

Kinda-sleaza has risen through the BushCorp ranks because she unconditionally smooches GeeDubya's ass. She certainly is not the most qualified candidate for the position. In fact, hers is a background defined by failure and incompetence. Perhaps this is why AWOL Boy identifies with her so strongly.

Further, unlike Powell, who was the only member of Smirk's cabinet who even remotely resembled a moderate, Con-di will serve as an acquiescent little rubber stamp for BushCo/Halliburton foreign policy. She won't argue with the frat boy or question his edicts. Just the sort of "team player" the Toxic Texan wants.

[mosca]

Pointing out GeeDubya and the GOP's tokenism isn't racism.


there you go again. somehow demeaning these people of minority descent as mere 'tokens'... LABF, you are showing your true colors - you and the many libs whoclaim to be pro-diversity and equality for all races When a minority person rises to prominence who doesn't totally agree with you, we can see your reaction and you are reduced to just more talk.

[L.A. BRONCOS FAN]

there you go again. somehow demeaning these people of minority descent as mere 'tokens'... LABF, you are showing your true colors - you and the many libs whoclaim to be pro-diversity and equality for all races When a minority person rises to prominence who doesn't totally agree with you, we can see your reaction and you are reduced to just more talk.

Your trouble with reading comprehension is rearing its ugly head again.

Pointing out that BushCorp uses minorities as tokens, i.e., to create a false impression of inclusiveness and/or diversity within the administration/party isn't racism.

Your inability to make this distinction only exposes your ignorance.

Should Condoleezza Rice be worried about the memoir that ex- CIA director George Tenet is peddling? Uh, Yeah.

http://www.nydailynews.com/front/story/252949p-216383c.html

http://www.smiliegenerator.de/s26/smilies-7092.png

[L.A. BRONCOS FAN]

For the Bush Dynasty, Loyalty Always Trumps Competence

http://www.washingtonpost.com/ac2/wp-dyn/A53915-2004Nov16?language=printer

http://www.smiliegenerator.de/s26/smilies-7092.png

[mosca]

your posts are easy enough to read (except when they are long boring cut n pastes which can put you to sleep). either way, keep spitting the racial rhetoric such as referring to people (usually successful ones) as 'tokens' based on the color of their skin.

[enjolras]

Seriously though, don't you think the dissenting voices from the democrats in Congress, the mainstream media, and the powerful liberal interest groups are enough to keep the executive branch on their toes?

Certainly not in a second term presidency.. I would hope that his closest advisers bring a wide range of opinion and experience to the table. After all, in the past he's showed a remarkable ability to shut out outside opinion instead relying only on his closest (like-thinking) advisers.. Cheney, Rice, and Wolfowitz. At least with Powell there was the POSSIBILITY of a more moderate viewpoint.

[L.A. BRONCOS FAN]

...either way, keep spitting the racial rhetoric such as referring to people (usually successful ones) as 'tokens' based on the color of their skin.

Keep on denying the GOP's use of tokenism to create a false impression of diversity within the party. Meanwhile, everyone with eyes and a brain is laughing at you.

http://www.bartcop.com/face2theworld.gif

[mosca]

Keep on denying the GOP's use of tokenism to create a false impression of diversity within the party. Meanwhile, everyone with eyes and a brain is laughing at you.


'everyone with eyes and a brain'... coming from you, the self-appointed spokesman for that group of people. hahaha, keep it up.

the only one trying to create a false impression of anything would be you. bush's cabinet appointees each have a record that speaks for itself without any mention of their skin color. you continue to debase them as tokens and i'm sure you would do the same no matter how many blacks, hispanics, and other non-whites were involved in the bush admin.

[L.A. BRONCOS FAN]

http://www.bartcop.com/mmail444.jpg

you continue to debase them as tokens and i'm sure you would do the same no matter how many blacks, hispanics, and other non-whites were involved in the bush admin.

You continue to deny that the GOP uses a small number of token minorities to create a false impression of inclusion and/or diversity within the party (Allan Keyes, anyone?) when anyone with two brain cells to rub together knows that today's GOP was created by southern racism.

[L.A. BRONCOS FAN]

Not only are the Bush officials who failed to protect the country and misled us into war not losing their jobs. They're getting promoted.

http://www.nytimes.com/2004/11/18/opinion/18dowd.html

[TailgateNut]

When Bushs' fantasy is complete, all of his appointees will be able to look in the mirror in the morning and see an 'Image of the Chimp'!
If we're allowed to use the internet, I will be back in four years to say: "I told you so"!!!
I doubt God will continue to bless this country with this dictator at the helm of our dinghy!

[Roffe]

Powell instructing the Taiwanese that their goal in life should be "reunification" with a murderous, police state was sickening.
Powell has been the weak link in Bush's foreign policy. Of all the administration's top officials, he was the last to come on board in support of military intervention in Iraq.
Powell perfectly reflects the State Department mindset. In almost any situation he favors appeasement over confrontation, sacrificing U.S. allies (Israel, Taiwan) to win brownie points with thugs (Arab regimes, the People's Republic of China).
Powell would encourage a pyromaniac to play with matches and gasoline.
In an interview with Hong Kong's Phoenix TV, Powell said both China and Taiwan should "move forward towards the day when we will see a peaceful unification." (Emphasis added.)
Just to be sure he wasn't misunderstood, in a CNN interview the following day, Powell opined that both sides should exercise restraint and do nothing to prejudice "a reunification that all parties are seeking." (Emphasis added.)
Aiming a few well-placed kicks at the groin of a former ally, Powell informed the Hong Kong station: "Taiwan is not independent" and "does not enjoy sovereignty as a nation, and that remains our policy, our firm policy." Taiwan's president, Chen Shui-bian hotly replied: "Taiwan is absolutely a sovereign and independent country. It does not belong to the People's Republic of China."
If not a nation in its own right, what does Powell think Taiwan is: a mythical place (like Never-Never Land), an uncharted and largely uninhabited island, or a rebel province (Beijing's characterization of democratic Taiwan)?
Washington may say Taiwan isn't independent, but know it is. Between 1980 and 2002, the U.S. delivered over $20 billion in arms to Taiwan. (Are we arming a province in revolt?) America doesn't sell military hardware to the Canadian province of Quebec. See the difference?
Our relations with the Republic of China on Taiwan are governed by the 1979 Taiwan Relations Act, which obligates us to provide the island with the weapons to maintain its independence.
Powell, why are we pledged to Taiwan defense?
America is under no obligation to protect Liverpool or Haifa, apart from the countries in which they are situated.
For the past 25 years, we have had de facto diplomatic relations with Taipei. Our embassy (in all but name) in Taiwan is called the American Institute in Taiwan. AIT is has a staff of more than 300, and is directed by diplomats on leave from the State Department. It issues visas to the United States, provides consular services and in every other regard represents U.S. interests on the island.
In America, the "nonexistent" government of Taiwan is represented by Taipei Economic and Cultural Offices in Washington, D.C., New York, Chicago, Boston, Los Angeles, and other major cities. They perform the same functions as AIT, including promoting trade. (Taiwan is the world's 14th largest exporter and 16th major importer.)
Every year, tens of thousands of Taiwanese enter this country as tourists or students with Taiwanese passports. If Taiwan isn't independent, why are its passports recognized by governments the world over?
Under international law, Taiwan has all of the attributes of sovereignty. The Montevido Convention on Rights and Duties of States, signed by the United States in 1931, says an independent state has the following characteristics: 1) a permanent population; 2) a defined territory; 3) a government that controls said territory; and 4) the capacity to enter into relations with other sovereign states.
Taiwan has a defined territory (nearly 36,000 sq. miles). Its population of 23 million makes it larger than 60 percent of UN member states. Not only does Taiwan have a government in control of its territory (since 1949), but one freely chosen by the Taiwanese people.
Taiwan is peaceful, prosperous, stable and democratic - and it clearly has the capacity to enter into state-to-state relations.
The Montevideo Convention provides that "the political existence of a state is independent of recognition by other states" and "the recognition of a state may be express or tacit." Only about two dozen countries officially recognize Taiwan's statehood, but almost every nation tacitly acknowledges the fact that Taiwan is a separate country.
Powell's nuttiest notion was his assertion that both sides seek "unification," or "reunification."
The Taiwanese have less interest in being ruled by Beijing that the Irish have in being reunited with the United Kingdom. In the 20th century, the Irish were ruled from London for 21 years. In the same period, the Taiwanese were controlled by Beijing for all of four years.
Citizens of Taiwan elect their leaders and shape government policy. Their rights - including freedom of speech, press, property and religion - are scrupulously protected by an independent judiciary.
In a 2004 report, Freedom House describes the status of (non-existent) human rights in the People's Republic of China succinctly: "Ordinary Chinese enjoy few basic rights, opposition parties are illegal, Chinese jails hold thousands of political prisoners, torture is widespread in prisons and detention centers, and the judiciary is used as a tool of political control."
Somehow, I don't think that even Colin Powell really believes the free people of Taiwan are just dying to be part of this oppressive system. The Taiwanese remember Tiananmen Square, even if our State Department has forgotten.
Powell latter attempted to clarify his remarks, without actually retracting them. A State Department spokesman said America's position continues to be governed by the One-China policy, in combination with the Taiwan Relations Act. But the damage was done.
For decades, Democratic and Republican administrations hewed to a carefully nuanced policy: There is one China (whatever that means). Taiwan is part of this undefined entity. We insist on a peaceful resolution of tensions between Beijing and Taipei (whatever the outcome may be). And we will defend Taiwan against the use of force.
Then in blunders Collin Powell and tells the Communists that the eventual resolution must be Taiwan's incorporation in a slave state - exactly what they want to hear. China is determined to achieve that end. It needs to be restrained, not encouraged.
The party line, repeated endlessly in a string of speeches and communiqués, is as follows: 1) China will crush any move toward Taiwanese independence; 2) Reunification is a "sacred task" of the nation; 3) Taiwan's President Chen is a separatist pushing the Taiwanese toward "a dangerous abyss"; and 4) If the Taiwanese won't agree to be ruled by Beijing, the regime is fully prepared to use force to achieve that end.
Rhetoric aside, China continues to build a war machine (military spending increased 11.6 percent this year alone) geared toward one goal: the conquest of Taiwan.
In July, it conducted war games simulating an invasion of Taiwan; 18,000 troops, fighter jets and tank brigades took part in the exercise. People's Liberation Army fighter aircraft violate Taiwan's air space on an almost daily basis. Sometimes, Taipei is forced to scramble its own fighters in response. China's arsenal of short-ranged missiles targeting Taiwan (now about 600) grows by around 75 to 100 a year.
Chen has repeatedly called for a lessening of tensions and offered to negotiate with the Mainland (as he did during Taiwan's National Day celebration on October 10th) but as an equal - not as a supplicant seeking terms of surrender, as Powell is urging.
The mistake the West made in the 1930s was not signaling Hitler that his territorial ambitions would be opposed. Our ambassador to Baghdad made the same error prior to Saddam's invasion of Kuwait in 1990. Clinton's weak response to a string of terrorist attacks in the '90s convinced bin Laden that we lacked the will to fight fire with fire.
Will history repeat itself in East Asia? China needs to be told - clearly and emphatically - that it's not going to get Taiwan, and that the Taiwanese aren't its property. Instead, we have had Colin Powell fueling the delusions of Marxist megalomaniacs.
Powell will be missed - by the Chinese Politburo.