candycorn
Diamond Member
And if you guys were alive then with the Internet, you’d be criticizing him for not taking out Russia while we were there.They’ve told you. You’re simply choosing not to listen.
But please entertain us. Tell me a more accomplished first lady of the last half of the 20th century. Or a more accomplished Senator from her class. Do Secretaries of State accomplish anything on their own? Ever?
No, they don't tell me. I have asked. And if they had, I would choose to listen. And be careful. Zone 1 rules apply for this thread.
And yes, though the Secretary of State of course serves at the pleasure of the President with the consent of the Senate, the SofS has an extremely important job and tremendous responsibility. The three stand out SofS in the 20th Century were:
George C. Marshall served under President Truman from 1947-49) He helped negotiate the postwar policy of containment and promoted the Truman Doctrine that provided military aid for Greece and Turkey, developed the Marshall Plan for rebuilding postwar Europe, was instrumental in organizing the Organization of American States and the North Atlantic Treaty Organization.
Which gave us the stalemate in a useless war that has kept us there for now 60+ years.His successor, Dean Acheson,1949-53, helped create NATO, brought West Germany into the European defense system, and master minded the policy of armed intervention in Korea.
Highly influential…ahh...Henry Kissinger, 1973-77, under Presidents Nixon and Ford, was highly influential with the President and Congress in national security affairs, he was best known for negotiating relaxed tensions and promote trade with China and the Soviet Union and pioneered the art of “shuttle diplomacy,” or persuading people who normally would not talk to us to enter into negotiations.
As a good soldier, Colin Powell followed orders and lied his ass off to sell the war to the UN and the American people.In this century, Colin Powell was instrumental in negotiating new sanctions against Iraq and negotiating and signing of the Moscow Treaty on Strategic Offensive Reductions in May 2002. His successor, Condoleeza Rice was able to persuade a very reluctant President Bush to allow her to at least enter into negotiations with North Korea and Iran to find a solution to their nuclear programs--had her efforts continued in that effort, we might not be in as big a mess as we are in now after eight years of Obama administration bungling. She also wrote and obtained approval for the terms of a U.N. resolution to investigate war crimes in Sudan, something else GWB had resisted during his first term.
Conde Rice sexed up the Intel; "We don’t want the smoking gun to be a mushroom cloud” or something like that.
So what was it again that Hillary accomplished as SofS that will make it into the history books?
Didn’t commit us to Korea for 6 decades, didn’t lie to get us into a war that costs 5,000 US Soldiers lives and tens of thousands of Iraqis or miss the strategic advantage to wipe out the Commies in the USSR while we had the men and material to do it—that lead to the cold war that lead to Reagan plunging us in to a debt cycle that we have yet to emerge from.
Still, Marshall, Kissinger, Powell and Rice have something that some real estate developer from Manhattan don’t have and that is experience of a world stage, a diplomatic reservoir of experiences and customs that you just don’t innately have, relationships with heads of state, etc… IF you don’t think that is valuable, you’re simply not qualified to have this conversation. Sorry.
So Hilllary didn't do anything so that qualifies her? Okay.
Much like Cal Ripken didn't do anything as a SS for the Orioles or Charles Barkley didn't do anything as a forward for the Suns.
You simply place no value on the experience, relationships, diplomatic bandwidth. That's cool. But you sound pretty ignorant when you claim that she's accomplished nothing.
Again I will remind you that Zone 1 rules are in effect for this thread.
I made no such claim. I asked you what she had accomplished that qualifies her to be President. You mentioned some things she has not done, but nothing that she has accomplished. So so far, your argument is that Secretary of States don't accomplish anything by themselves and that she is qualified by what she hasn't done. I didn't say that. You did.
So I know what Ripkin and Barkley have done that qualifies them to be in the positions they hold or held. It isn't that they were part of a team that qualifies them, but what they accomplished with the team. It isn't what they didn't do that qualifies them but what they have accomplished. The real talent and skills they bring to their respective teams.
What has Hillary accomplished that qualifies her?
Lets just nail down what you think is important.
Do you place any value on meeting with heads of state as a representative of the United States?