Condi Rice dissed at Rutgers

[buckeye45_73]

This is the same university that had Snookie from the Jersey as a speaker Condi Rice is better served not being in the same company.

Taste is not the issue, it's the war criminality of the speaker that they have issues with.

Wow, war crimes, like what?

so its ok to invite the president of iran? He kills homos and has nothing in common with you except hating america...hmmmmmm

 

[BlindBoo]

doesn't mean there is nothing to see, nothing has happened, behind us.

Interesting take on it given the lefts reaction to Benghazi is the exact opposite where according to them there is nothing to see.

Benghazi is being investigated.

No sir. The Talking Points about the Attack in Benghazi is being investigated.

 

[bendog]

Interesting take on it given the lefts reaction to Benghazi is the exact opposite where according to them there is nothing to see.

Benghazi is being investigated.

No sir. The Talking Points about the Attack in Benghazi is being investigated.

That's the funny thing, but for the talking points there'd be nothing besides "crap, we needed more security so lets get more guards."

Obama did downplay the facts going to we knew it was an extended, well armed attack. Motivation was not known, though.

Spontaneous, not a ducks chance in hell.

 

[LogikAndReazon]

And to think, those expert geo-political kiddies could of had a coat tail riding, carpet bagging, scandal ridden , dyke like billary clinton "enlighten" them... Lol

 

[SmedlyButler]

Interesting take on it given the lefts reaction to Benghazi is the exact opposite where according to them there is nothing to see.

Benghazi is being investigated.

Like the JFK assassination? Like Iran Contra?

I'm sure the truth will come out and heads will roll. LOL.

Think again if you think I'm saying power will voluntarily expose and punish it's own institutional corruption. Read the first lines of my signature quote. Democrats and Republicans are inclined to look the other way or focus on non-significant issues to keep the real abuses of power unseen, unexamined. So Benghazi was a security failure, do you really think that's worth all the energy invested in it? There have been thousands of security failures in the last 20-30 years. It's utopian deaming to think there can be such a thing as a perfectly secure world. These hearings and fuss are petty distractions that keep our eyes off the manipulations of the oligarchy and give the illusion of "democracy at work." I call Bullshit.

 

[MikeK]

I'd toss in a buck or two to send Dubious on Air Malaysia. That said, Rice would have been a fine commencement speaker.[...]

So would Josef Goebbels.

 

[jillian]

This is the same university that had Snookie from the Jersey as a speaker Condi Rice is better served not being in the same company.

Taste is not the issue, it's the war criminality of the speaker that they have issues with.

Condi Rice became Sec of State in 2004, several years after 911. To call her a war criminal is beyond absurd.

you're right... she was national security advisor... even worse.

thanks.

 

[bendog]

I'd toss in a buck or two to send Dubious on Air Malaysia. That said, Rice would have been a fine commencement speaker.[...]

So would Josef Goebbels.

actually, he wouldn't but thanks for playing.

 

[SmedlyButler]

The students did not want to hear what she had to say, so they protested her coming. Then when she backed down from coming, they celebrated like you are doing.

This shows me that the left has no interest in dialogue or those offering different kinds of thinking, no matter how offensive it may be. I thought that a college campus was a place for higher learning and for sharing thoughts that may be controversial and dare I say, "OFFENSIVE".

Guess not.

Let's make this real simple. She facilitated war crimes. She enabled torturers. Why would anybody want to have a dialogue with such a person? "Share thoughts" as if, as I said before, these were simply "policy disputes."

 

[LogikAndReazon]

Their little brains would have greeted mussolini, castro, mao, che, ortega, chavez, stalin , chomsky and zinn with gleeful adoration...inquiring minds want to know.

 

[MikeK]

I detest the type of intloerance that the opponenets of Rice speaking at Rutgers represent to the extent they tried to prevent her from being heard.

[...]

Why?

The fact that Condoleeza Rice has not been prosecuted for her criminal conduct does not mean she didn't lie to protect a criminal and to facilitate a war crime that resulted in countless deaths and maiming? While her obvious and irrefutable culpability might escape the perception of the politically uninformed, the apathetic, the naïve, the racially biased and the hopelessly ignorant, it is an insult to the reasoning mind that a prestigious educational institution like Rutgers would invite such a disgraceful, reprehensible individual to address its student body and faculty.

While those who choose to ignore who and what Condoleeza Rice really is the students who protested the invitation are clearly aware of that reality. In spite of any academic achievements, this woman should be treated like the pariah she is rather than honored as a commencement speaker.

 

[LogikAndReazon]

Recently Condi Rice was asked to give a speech at a graduation ceremony at Rutgers. However, some students protested her coming by chanting, "Condi's lies cost us lives".

As a result, Condi decided not to show up so as not to detract from day for the students.

For liberals, do you think this is a victory? Is this a good thing?

For conservatives, do you think this is a defeat, should she have gone anyway?

This is a VERY good thing.

It's GREAT to know that YOUNG people, who were kids at the time of 9/11 know the truth and have chased that crazy RW war-monger from speaking at their school.

We must NEVER forgot what The Bush Regime did during their unfortunate (putting it mildly) reign.

Yes ! Yes ! The poor, peaceful, innocent, oppressed, iraqi women, children and elderly folk.... Lest we forget them !!! LOL

 

[MikeK]

Recently Condi Rice was asked to give a speech at a graduation ceremony at Rutgers. However, some students protested her coming by chanting, "Condi's lies cost us lives".

As a result, Condi decided not to show up so as not to detract from day for the students.

For liberals, do you think this is a victory? Is this a good thing?

For conservatives, do you think this is a defeat, should she have gone anyway?

This is a VERY good thing.

It's GREAT to know that YOUNG people, who were kids at the time of 9/11 know the truth and have chased that crazy RW war-monger from speaking at their school.

We must NEVER forgot what The Bush Regime did during their unfortunate (putting it mildly) reign.

Yes ! Yes ! The poor, peaceful, innocent, oppressed, iraqi women, children and elderly folk.... Lest we forget them !!! LOL

If that doesn't concern you, how do you feel about the thousands of American GIs who were killed or maimed because of Bush's criminal ambitions? And how about the trillions of dollars it ultimately will cost?

 

[LogikAndReazon]

This is a VERY good thing.

It's GREAT to know that YOUNG people, who were kids at the time of 9/11 know the truth and have chased that crazy RW war-monger from speaking at their school.

We must NEVER forgot what The Bush Regime did during their unfortunate (putting it mildly) reign.

Yes ! Yes ! The poor, peaceful, innocent, oppressed, iraqi women, children and elderly folk.... Lest we forget them !!! LOL

If that doesn't concern you, how do you feel about the thousands of American GIs who were killed or maimed because of Bush's criminal ambitions? And how about the trillions of dollars it ultimately will cost?

After determing that wmds werent a threat i would have withdrawn all american troops and annhilated bahgdad....our restraint was uncalled for...

But lets follow the womanly assertions of an empty headed occutard....

 

[U2Edge]

Except in 2001 Condi was taped saying just the opposite. Saddam was not a threat.

No one ever said that Saddam was NOT a threat or that the United States would not have invade and remove him in the future. She did mention the progress that had been made in the 1990s against Saddam through containment and weapons inspections and annual bombing of the country. But that progress had started to seriously erode by 1999 and Iraq's neighbors as well as members of the UN Security Council were openly violating sanctions and the weapons embargo against Iraq by 2001. Those were the key means of containment and without them containment was not possible which left the only option being regime change.

Just as the Clinton administration Bombed Iraq every year it was office, the Bush administration started off 2001 bombing Iraq and well into 2002. Too many people think there was some sort of peace between the 1991 Gulf War and sending ground troops into Iraq in 2003, but there was not. Every year from 1992 through 2002, Iraq was being bombed multiple times a year.

If Iraq and Saddam were not threats, you would not have both Republican and Democratic administrations conducting multiple bombing raids on Iraq EVERY SINGLE YEAR between the 1991 Gulf War and the 2003 ground invasion of Iraq.

In Cairo, on February 24 2001, Powell said: "He (Saddam Hussein) has not developed any significant capability with respect to weapons of mass destruction. He is unable to project conventional power against his neighbours."

This is the very opposite of what Bush and Blair said in public.

Powell even boasted that it was the US policy of "containment" that had effectively disarmed the Iraqi dictator - again the very opposite of what Blair said time and again. On May 15 2001, Powell went further and said that Saddam Hussein had not been able to "build his military back up or to develop weapons of mass destruction" for "the last 10 years". America, he said, had been successful in keeping him "in a box".

Two months later, Condoleezza Rice also described a weak, divided and militarily defenceless Iraq. "Saddam does not control the northern part of the country," she said. "We are able to keep his arms from him. His military forces have not been rebuilt."

Both Colin Powell, US Secretary of State, and Condoleezza Rice, President Bush's closest adviser, made clear before September 11 2001 that Saddam Hussein was no threat - to America, Europe or the Middle East.

You, see, now where do that say that SADDAM IS NO LONGER A THREAT! Understand? The United States in both 2000 and 2001 launched multiple air strikes against Iraq. Saddam had not been able to rebuild his military to its pre-Gulf War height. That does not mean that Saddam is not a threat though. Sanctions and the weapons embargo had been successful during the 1990s, but after 1998, they started to erode.

This erosion of the sanctions and the weapons embargo from 1998 to 2003 is what made invasion and Saddam's removal a necessity. Rice and Powell are correct in siting the early success's in the 1990s, but the reality on the ground in 2001 is much different, with Syria, Iran, Turkey, France, Russia, and China looking the other way when it came to sanctions against Iraq. Saddam still had one of the largest military forces in the world, and Kuwait's small size means it is always difficult to defend.

To this day, both Rice and Powell believe it was a necessity to remove Saddam because the containment regime eventually collapsed, Saddam had not complied with any of the UN Security Council Resolutions, and had failed to verifiably disarm. Leaving Saddam in power would only allow him to rebuild his military and unconventional weapons capabilities making any future war with Saddam or a future invasion of Iraq FAR MORE COSTLY than the invasion and war in 2003. It was far better to remove Saddam while his WMD capabilities were limited or not active than to wait longer and then go into a situation where thousands of soldiers and civilians could be killed or injured by new deadly weapons obtained by Saddam's military.

Today, the United States no longer bombs Iraq or has troops there. Nuri Al Maliki, Bush's man in Iraq since 2006 is still the leader of the country. Kuwait and Saudi Arabia and the vital flow of oil and natural gas from the Persian Gulf is much safer today than it was when Saddam was still in power. Nuri Al Maliki is not a threat to Kuwait or Saudi Arabia unlike Saddam. The region and world are safer with Saddam gone. I don't see anyone arguing that United States security or Persian Gulf security would be better off with a person that invaded an annexed another country in the region, in power today in Iraq. Saddam was the first leader since Adolf Hitler to invade and entirely annex a whole entire country! The world is definitely better off with Saddam's regime out of power in Iraq.

 

[Erand7899]

I detest the type of intloerance that the opponenets of Rice speaking at Rutgers represent to the extent they tried to prevent her from being heard.

[...]

Why?

The fact that Condoleeza Rice has not been prosecuted for her criminal conduct does not mean she didn't lie to protect a criminal and to facilitate a war crime that resulted in countless deaths and maiming? While her obvious and irrefutable culpability might escape the perception of the politically uninformed, the apathetic, the naïve, the racially biased and the hopelessly ignorant, it is an insult to the reasoning mind that a prestigious educational institution like Rutgers would invite such a disgraceful, reprehensible individual to address its student body and faculty.

While those who choose to ignore who and what Condoleeza Rice really is the students who protested the invitation are clearly aware of that reality. In spite of any academic achievements, this woman should be treated like the pariah she is rather than honored as a commencement speaker.

What a load of horsecrap! If you had a reasoning mind, you would dump the dumbass propaganda, and try thinking for yourself. If you have evidence that anyone in the Bush administration committed a war crime, I am sure that Obama and his chief executioner would love to have it. Otherwise, what you have is partisan nonsense and childish slander that you seem to consider conclusive.

The students that staged the demonstrations at Rutgers do not belong in a school of higher education. It is obvious from their actions that they are ignorant asses, and the people who support such actions, are not much better.

BTW, do you approve of targeting terrorists in a foreign soverign nation that we are not at war with, and do you consider the innocents killled along with these terrorists to be just collateral damage? Would that fall into the war crimes slot that you seem to favor? Lets see your "reasoning" mind take that one on.

 

[U2Edge]

Richard Clark was a highly competent National Security Advisor under George W. Bush. He was knowledgeable about Middle East affairs and was therefore opposed to Bush's early plans to invade Iraq. So Bush canned him and replaced him with a slavishly compliant incompetent who would say whatever necessary to promote the war crime he was planning along with Dick Cheney. That was Condoleeza Rice, the second token Negro in his administration. Condoleeza Rice had absolutely no qualifications for service in the capacity of National Security Advisor.

Bush then elevated Rice to Secretary of State as a reward for perjuring herself when questioned about his advance (PDB) awareness of the 9/11 attack preparation.

Richard Clark was NEVER National Security Advisor. Richard Clark was an advisor on terrorism, but not on all the other national security issues the country was dealing with. Condi Rice was the Presidents National Security Advisor from January 20, 2001 to Janaury 20, 2005. After that she became Secretary of State.

Condoleeza Rice was not qualified to advise the President on any aspect of National Security. She had no experience with or specific education in the areas of interest at the time of her appointment.

Regardless of his title(s), Clark's experience and knowledge more than qualified him to competently advise the President in all of the Middle East issues existing at the time. In spite of that Bush fired him and replaced him with Condoleeza Rice, who was totally incompetent in those critical areas.

(Excerpt)

Richard Alan Clarke[1] (born October 27, 1950) is the former National Coordinator for Security, Infrastructure Protection, and Counter-terrorism for the United States.

Clarke worked for the State Department during the presidency of Ronald Reagan.[2] In 1992, President George H.W. Bush appointed him to chair the Counter-terrorism Security Group and to a seat on the United States National Security Council. President Bill Clinton retained Clarke and in 1998 promoted him to be the National Coordinator for Security, Infrastructure Protection, and Counter-terrorism, the chief counter-terrorism adviser on the National Security Council. Under President George W. Bush, Clarke initially continued in the same position, but the position was no longer given cabinet-level access. He later became the Special Advisor to the President on cybersecurity. Clarke left the Bush administration in 2003.

Clarke came to widespread public attention for his role as counter-terrorism czar in the Clinton and Bush administrations in March 2004, when he appeared on the 60 Minutes television news magazine, released his memoir about his service in government, Against All Enemies, and testified before the 9/11 Commission. In all three instances, Clarke was sharply critical of the Bush administration's attitude toward counter-terrorism before the 9/11 terrorist attacks, and of the decision to go to war with Iraq. Following Clarke's strong criticisms of the Bush administration, Bush administration officials and other Republicans attempted to discredit him or rebut his criticisms, making Clarke a controversial figure.


Richard A. Clarke - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Clark's competence was clearly demonstrated by his courageous and outspoken resistance to Bush's plan to invade Iraq.

Clarke was NEVER National Security Advisor. Rice was the National Security Advisor from the beginning. Clarke was focused on, one thing, terrorism and did not care about other national security issues.

Clarke did not speak out publically until after the invasion of Iraq. Perhaps he was an opportunist in that respect. I don't know what logic Clarke would use to advocate keeping Saddam in power, but its a great thing he failed.

After Clarke came out with all his BS, Bush was soundly re-elected in November 2004!

 

[LogikAndReazon]

And to think, al the savior of mankind gore was almost selected.....

 

[Votto]

Condoleeza Rice belongs in prison along with every other member of the Bush administration.

https://www.google.com/search?q=gwu+iraq&ie=utf-8&oe=utf-8&aq=t&rls=org.mozilla:en-USfficial&client=firefox-a&channel=sb
https://www.google.com/search?q=gwu+torture&ie=utf-8&oe=utf-8&aq=t&rls=org.mozilla:en-USfficial&client=firefox-a&channel=sb

LOL. They can't even put Nixon away, and everyone knows he broke all the laws.

 

[Votto]

Here is what I don't understand. Everyone got behind Obama for taking out Gaddafi in Libya because we were all told that he would potentially kill lots of innocent people.

However, Saddam took out an entire city of Kurds with WMD's. Yes, that's right, WMDs! He killed far more people than Gaddafi ever could have.

But it is OK for Obama to do what he did but not "W"?

I believe that "W" may have lied about WMD's. (Shrug)

But that is what politicians do, they lie and to think that Obama as not done his fair share of lying is absurd.