Why The Crass Remarks About Rice?

[NATO AIR]

a liberal expresses his disgust and contempt for those in the senate who tried to make dr. rice look incompetent and idiotic....

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/articles/A27818-2005Jan21.html

Why the Crass Remarks About Rice?

By Colbert I. King
Saturday, January 22, 2005; Page A17

California Democratic Sen. Barbara Boxer pursued a curious line of attack during Condoleezza Rice's confirmation hearing this week. Rice, one of the principal architects of the administration's Iraq policy, was clearly vulnerable to charges of helping produce a misguided, if not misleading, rationale for the Iraqi invasion, as well as poor postwar planning. Saddam Hussein clearly was not the threat Rice had proclaimed. Her paper trail of misstatements virtually invited a congressional attack on her record. But Boxer, rather than sticking to Rice's performance as national security adviser and her qualifications to direct U.S. foreign policy, chose instead to gratuitously characterize her as a Bush loyalist who was blindly parroting pro-Iraqi war lines without regard for whether they were true.

Boxer said to Rice: "I personally believe -- this is my personal view -- that your loyalty to the mission you were given, to sell the war, overwhelmed your respect for the truth." Loyalty to the mission you were given, to sell the war. Ponder the weight of that statement. It comes close, at least in spirit, to the picture of Rice sketched by political cartoonist Pat Oliphant a few weeks ago. In case you missed it, Oliphant drew a big-lipped, bucktooth Rice perched like a parrot on President Bush's arm. Bush was speaking to Rice in baby talk, with Rice replying: "Awwrk!! OK Chief. Anything you say, Chief. You Bet, Chief. You're my HERO, Chief."

It's hard to imagine a more demeaning and offensive caricature of a prospective secretary of state, let alone the most senior official on the national security staff. It's equally difficult to understand what prompted Boxer to imply that Rice is little more than a diligent echo of Bush's thoughts. There's nothing in Rice's background or in her performance to suggest that she is a mindless follower of presidential orders. In fact, Rice comes across as just the opposite.

As I was leaving a Post dining room after participating in my first off-the-record session with Rice and other Post editors and reporters a couple of years ago, it struck me that Rice could be where Bush gets it from. Subsequent meetings only have reinforced that supposition. Rice's notions of preemption, unilateralism and America's responsibilities as the dominant power in the world are not hand-me-downs from Bush. They strike me as very much her own.

Wonder why Rice stayed close to Bush's policies in her hearings? Consider the possibility that the administration's policies happen to be hers too. Consider too the likelihood that years of study and work in foreign affairs, both as an academic and as a senior foreign policy wonk, are what inform her views -- not George W. Bush.

My disagreement with the Bush administration on Iraq has been spelled out in past columns. I'm also a member of an editorial board that has been critical of administration policies -- and by extension, Rice -- on several foreign policy fronts. For example, when it comes to opposing oppressive regimes, this administration, despite its soaring rhetoric, has come up way short. But characterize Condoleezza Rica as a presidential stooge? Count me out.

As Sen. Dianne Feinstein said when she formally introduced her fellow Californian at the hearing, Rice has "the deep personal trust and confidence of the president. . . . She's been by his side for every crucial national security decision in the last four years." Bush, Feinstein noted, considers Rice to be brilliant. That may cause Boxer et al. to choke, but tough noogies. Bush listens to Condoleezza Rice because he believes that she knows what she is talking about. Which makes the attacks on Rice even more curious. What prompts Rice's critics to portray her -- a former Stanford University provost who managed a $1.5 billion budget, 1,400 faculty members and 14,000 students -- as a flunky who, when ordered, simply salutes and runs out to play huckster?

What's the motive behind this kind of assault? Is it a desire to demean or put her down? Is it a wish to marginalize Rice in the public eye, to suggest that by reason of her intelligence, ability or integrity, she is unqualified to hold her present post or to become secretary of state?

A senator who believes the Bush administration lied about the war, made a mess of postwar reconstruction and ruined relations with long-standing allies would be justified in holding Rice accountable, and in my view, in voting against her confirmation. Senate Foreign Relations Committee members Boxer and John Kerry did as much.

But slurring her as a hollow-headed marionette controlled by Bush? What's that all about? It calls to mind John Sylvester, a white radio talk show host in Madison, Wis., who recently went Boxer and Oliphant one better -- or worse. "Sly," as he calls himself, went on the air and caricatured Rice as a servile black, laboring slavishly for the Bush White House. He called her, of all things, an "Aunt Jemima."

The Boxer-Oliphant-Sylvester take on Condoleezza Rice stands in sharp contrast to the assessment offered by Dorothy Height, chair and president emerita of the National Council of Negro Women, who wrote in a letter to The Post this week: "Despite the challenges she will face, Ms. Rice's appointment is a time for women of color to smile."

Of course, Height's grouping didn't include folks such as the senator, the cartoonist and "Sly."

[email protected]

 

[krisy]

a liberal expresses his disgust and contempt for those in the senate who tried to make dr. rice look incompetent and idiotic....

Some of this crap just infuriates me. I'm glad to see the writer is sticking up for her,but some of the things people say about her are just completely useless. Hey,maybe we should all accuse Boxer of being anti black. Isn't what Libs would do to a Republican that behaved like her? As far as any radio personality,who cares what the idiot has to say,it means nothing.

To portray such a talented and intelligent woman as nothing but a Bush panderer is assinine and they know it. THEY JUST CAN"T STAND that she is in a position of power and put there by a Republican. They can't use the race card when Bush is putting blacks in positions of power,so they have to try their best to demean them. Whoever voted for Barbara Boxer should be embarassed-she's managed to make a complete horse's ass of herself in front of the whole country.

At least the writer was smart enough to see she is capable of having her own smarts!

 

[Annie]

There is a very good chance that Rice will run against Boxer in 2008. That may have something to do with it.

 

[sagegirl]

a liberal expresses his disgust and contempt for those in the senate who tried to make dr. rice look incompetent and idiotic....

There are several reasons why I dislike dr.rice. I am unforgiving of the people in positions of power when they shirk responsibility for deeds or acts committed on "their watch". I thought that rice's unwillingness to come forward to answer questions of the 9/11 hearings (after a failed attempt by the administration to prevent them) and when she did finally appear to be less than forthcoming with her answers to be an arrogant and contempuous
attitude. Oversight and careful consideration of the issues that lead to such disasters as terrorist attacks and war should not be treated as inconvenient or inappropriate. Full and willing disclosure should be required of all of our elected and appointed officials. Rice served as head of our National Security and expressed absolute disbelief that such a thing as the terrorist attack of 9/11 could have even been perceived. BS!!!!! It was her job and she failed us, so did her boss. They seem to think that by saying they didnt see it coming, that it was some sort of apparition, appearing from nowhere, and as such unpredictable and unexpected, when in fact neither is the case. I think a person in her position with any sense of duty ,and therefore failure to meet it, would have resigned and gone into relative obscurity. I am not against giving a person the chance to show their stuff but in the final analysis if their stuff proved inadequate I think they should be out. Her attitude at her recent confirmation hearings did not reflect any humility or sorrow for her ineptness, in fact she seemed to think her past performance was something to be proud of. She has had plenty of chances to get it right and has pretty much failed us every time....9/11, wmd, and for a woman who benefited from affirmative action (got her dr.degree due to it) , she came out saying she was against it. (I am not here saying I agree with affirmative action.} So I would like to think that there are many intelligent honest and willing individuals who would step forward to take rice's place...and would do a better job of it.

 

[Annie]

Well Sagegirl, wouldn't wait for the democrats to put one of their minorities in a place of power. Rice will probably be one of the best SOS ever, as she has been at each role she has taken on.

 

[onedomino]

Rice served as head of our National Security and expressed absolute disbelief that such a thing as the terrorist attack of 9/11 could have even been perceived. BS!!!!! It was her job and she failed us, so did her boss. They seem to think that by saying they didnt see it coming, that it was some sort of apparition, appearing from nowhere, and as such unpredictable and unexpected, when in fact neither is the case. I think a person in her position with any sense of duty ,and therefore failure to meet it, would have resigned and gone into relative obscurity.

By your absurd logic, FDR should have resigned after Pearl Harbor. Barbara Boxer is an embarrassment to California. It was beyond the most remote boundary of civility that she impugned the integrity of Dr. Rice. In the Cabinet Confirmation Hearing, Boxer's behavior was politically motivated and obnoxious. I cannot wait for my next opportunity to vote against her.
-

 

[Annie]

By your absurd logic, FDR should have resigned after Pearl Harbor. Barbara Boxer is an embarrassment to California. It was beyond the most remote boundary of civility that she impugned the integrity of Dr. Rice. In the Cabinet Confirmation Hearing, Boxer's behavior was politically motivated and obnoxious. I cannot wait for my next opportunity to vote against her.-

Hopefully that will be for Rice!

 

[drowe]

She has had plenty of chances to get it right and has pretty much failed us every time....9/11, wmd, and for a woman who benefited from affirmative action (got her dr.degree due to it) , she came out saying she was against it. (I am not here saying I agree with affirmative action.} So I would like to think that there are many intelligent honest and willing individuals who would step forward to take rice's place...and would do a better job of it.

Wow-
You certainly are very critical of Condoleezza.

In my opinion (worth about $0.02), it is foolish to place the blame on one person for the act(s) of many. It seems you may have bought into that lefty propaganda.

Prior to 9/11, government agencies (CIA, FBI, NSA, DIA etc) did not “cross-talk”, a practice that began before Condoleeza’s time in government service. The Patriot Act has helped cure that ailment in our intelligence gathering. The Patriot Act was proposed during Condoleeza’s time in government service. Looks to me like she got something fixed.

In addition, we all know that it wasn’t just the Bush administration that “knew” Saddam had WMD. Nearly every intelligence agency on the planet “knew” the same thing.

Furthermore, you’re saying that Dr. Rice got her degree solely by affirmative action.

Are you calling her a dumb minority?

 

[ScreamingEagle]

Hopefully that will be for Rice!

Don't exclude the possibility of VP or (dare I say) President?

 

[Annie]

Don't exclude the possibility of VP or (dare I say) President?

Oh I don't, but she really should hold at least one elected office first. Usually would say governor, but I doubt Arnold is going anywhere.

 

[sagegirl]

Wow-
You certainly are very critical of Condoleezza.

In my opinion (worth about $0.02), it is foolish to place the blame on one person for the act(s) of many. It seems you may have bought into that lefty propaganda.

Prior to 9/11, government agencies (CIA, FBI, NSA, DIA etc) did not “cross-talk”, a practice that began before Condoleeza’s time in government service. The Patriot Act has helped cure that ailment in our intelligence gathering. The Patriot Act was proposed during Condoleeza’s time in government service. Looks to me like she got something fixed.

In addition, we all know that it wasn’t just the Bush administration that “knew” Saddam had WMD. Nearly every intelligence agency on the planet “knew” the same thing.

Furthermore, you’re saying that Dr. Rice got her degree solely by affirmative action.

Are you calling her a dumb minority?

Well your 2 cents worth is probably twice what Id get for mine....I dont buy into the excuses.....blah blah blah that these agencies didnt cross talk.....if all the politicians and public servants hadnt figured out the need for that by now, we really need to clean house, its just too easy to come up with an excuse........but one as lame as this is really pathetic. but the fact remains that the value/quality of our intelligence and what is done with it is the RESPONSIBILITY of our elected and appointed leaders. Plain and simple they failed us and made us look stupid. I am not at all convinced that the patriot act is the" cure all" that some seem to claim it to be.
I know that dr rice took advantage of affirmative action to further her academic achievements....I am not saying that she would not have succeeded without it. I recognise that she is a very educated and savy lady and do not underestimate her qualities in the least.

 

[nakedemperor]

While I agree that Boxer's statements were pretty nuts, I'm not sure the author did much more than say, in so many words, that Rice helped sell a misguided, misleading case for the war, helped orchestrate a disastrous post-war strategy, etc. not because she was too loyal to a Bush policy, but that she was too egoistic to abandon what might have been, at least in part, HER policy. The two premises provided by the author were as such, and don't really amount to much of a defense, so to speak, of Dr. Rice.

Then again, with such an intellectually disinterested CIF, I doubt he's been the principal architect of much of anything outside of a house of cards on the coffee table in the oval office while Rice et al. were hard at work.

 

[rtwngAvngr]

While I agree that Boxer's statements were pretty nuts, I'm not sure the author did much more than say, in so many words, that Rice helped sell a misguided, misleading case for the war, helped orchestrate a disastrous post-war strategy, etc. not because she was too loyal to a Bush policy, but that she was too egoistic to abandon what might have been, at least in part, HER policy. The two premises provided by the author were as such, and don't really amount to much of a defense, so to speak, of Dr. Rice.

Then again, with such an intellectually disinterested CIF, I doubt he's been the principal architect of much of anything outside of a house of cards on the coffee table in the oval office while Rice et al. were hard at work.

LOL. Daddy's little left wing nut job! Ain't he cute?