Condi: America will be fine under President Obama
posted at 3:18 pm on August 7, 2008 by Allahpundit
Send to a Friend |
Share on Facebook | printer-friendly
Indeed it will, unless you believe the power of The One is such that he can lay low even the mightiest of nations. Then again, “fine” is a subjective term. If, as Condi surely does, you think the west’s six-year tap dance over Iran’s nuclear program is a “fine” way of addressing the problem, replete as it is with ineffectual UN sanctions and time aplenty for Tehran to work out the kinks on mastering enrichment, then yeah — by that standard, President O will be just fine.
“I don’t need another job in government with anybody,” she said. “Look, I’m a Republican, all right? Sen. McCain is a fine patriot, and … he would be a great president. But there’s something to be said for fresh blood. And I know that there are a lot of very good people who could be his vice president.”
During the interview in a regal room at the State Department appointed with chandeliers, rich carpets and cases of porcelain, Rice was asked: “Would you feel safe with a President Obama?”
“Oh, the United States will be fine,” she responded. “I think that we are having an important debate about how we keep the country safe. I think we are having an important debate about our responsibilities, our obligations, our interests in the Middle East in the wake of the now increasing evidence of success in Iraq. Those are important judgments for the American people to make.”
You must be logged in to post a comment.
Blowback
Note from Hot Air management: This section is for comments from Hot Air's community of registered readers. Please don't assume that Hot Air management agrees with or otherwise endorses any particular comment just because we let it stand. A reminder: Anyone who fails to comply with our terms of use may lose their posting privilege.
Trackbacks/Pings
Trackback URL
Comments
Comment pages: « 1 2 3 [4]
This appears to be true throughout the whole federal government. It’s a big downside to Civil Service. I remember a course in the history of China: one empire after another (over millenia) ended up moribund and incompetent to withstand barbarian invasions because of the growth of the privileged bureaucracy. Is that happening to our Republic?
Civil Service was instituted to protect government employees from losing their jobs to patronage hacks. But maybe it’s time to give an incoming Executive more authority to clean house. And it’s certainly time to cut WAY back on the size and scope of the bureaucracy, which proliferates like fungus in a dark, wet basement.
PS I don’t see an apologetic update from Allahpundit yet, for the serious distortion of what Secretary Rice said.
MrLynn on August 7, 2008 at 11:21 PM
the first is the definition of reporter, the second is the definition of news from m-w.com. it doesnt specify that news has to be factual, hence dowd is a reporter.
chasdal on August 7, 2008 at 11:21 PM
Take some deep breaths, practice using the font keys, preview your comments, and either have a drink or stop drinking, whichever applies.
Jaibones on August 7, 2008 at 11:22 PM
Just make her ex Sec. of State and put her back at Stanford where she belongs and where she can do little harm. She went native real fast at the State Department but that Bush family loyalty trumps all. “Condi you did a heckuva job” /not
Hilts on August 7, 2008 at 11:23 PM
Maureen Dowd is not reporter. She’s a columnist. She doesn’t deal in facts, she deals in opinion. I’m sure she would never define herself as a reporter or journalist.
terryannonline on August 7, 2008 at 11:26 PM
Heh. Never.
She wouldn’t make the list of top 50 journalists either.
Spirit of 1776 on August 7, 2008 at 11:30 PM
Compare what Condi Clueless Rice has done (or not done) and imagine someone like John Bolton at the State Department. I would take my chances with Bolton any day. Also Colin Powell was singularly unimpressive at State and his actions or lack of action to be precise, during the Plame/Armitage affair showed him to have been an opportunist who had zero loyalty towards the man who was responsible for his getting the top foreign policy job. I voted for both Bush father and son 4 times but I now feel that they never were true conservatives but more often than not Republicans in the Rockefeller/Nixon/Ford (even McCain “reach across the aisle”) mold. The only thing that I can say is that they were better then the alternatives that the Democrats put up.
Hilts on August 7, 2008 at 11:32 PM
Notice that Maureen Dowd was a reporter. They now describe her as a “columnist.” She used to do reporting but now she doesn’t.
Her wiki describes her by stating “January 14, 1952) is a Washington D.C.-based columnist for The New York Times.”
She’s a reporter turned columnist.
terryannonline on August 7, 2008 at 11:35 PM
Not sure how you answer it differently. I agree with her - McCain’s VP choice should infuse new blood into the race, in the form of someone from well outside this administration.
As for her response to the Obama-as-President question, we would be fine. Unhappy, but fine. And we would respond to his idiotic socialism with a 1994-style GOP/conservative backlash, and give the conservatives yet another chance to prove that they are more than just idle talk, followed by whorehouse spending and butt-boy behavior.
(And for those of you with poor memories, let us now recall that Saint Maverick of Tucson has been a stalwart against said whorehouse spending for years, but has been drowned out by the RINOs in control of the pretend-conservative GOP.)
Jaibones on August 7, 2008 at 11:38 PM
You are correct!
I’d guess that it is prevalent in all the federal departments and what needs to happen is legislation that declassifies the top level of management from protected civil service to work at will and therefore appointed by the executive to manage the daily operation in line with the mission of the adminsitration. There is a protective wall. It’s at State, Pentagon, FBI, CIA, etc.
It’s not Condi’s fault that she didn’t clean house as some seem to fault her for. And believe me, as someone who made it my mission when I worked in government to clean the dead weight and not just find a way to pass it off to another division, it takes a strong willed person who knows the system and can play it better than the hangerons. That’s why, imo, it will never happen because we change leadership every 4 years. Those that need to go will out last any 4 or 8 year appointment because they know how to play it better than any new comer.
Texas Gal on August 7, 2008 at 11:41 PM
She started writing NYT column in ‘95. She won The Damon Runyon Award for outstanding contributions to journalism in 2000. For journalism. And now MD has had more words written about her then she really deserves.
Spirit of 1776 on August 7, 2008 at 11:42 PM
Who is claiming that Condi’s errors are from not cleaning up State? It’s not the issue of omission, but commission that I think most people care about. State has been the way it’s been for a looong time.
Spirit of 1776 on August 7, 2008 at 11:44 PM
I’m whole-witted, hon. I’ve said right here in this thread that I didn’t think that she was a poor choice for SOS and I managed to do it without saying that she was sleeping with another woman’s husband. Which is more than you’re capable of, apparently.
baldilocks on August 7, 2008 at 11:47 PM
I
didn’tthink that she was a poor choice for SOS=baldilocks on August 7, 2008 at 11:47 PM
Some have and I do believe I’ve even read it here on this very thread. I know I’ve read it on other threads. It wasn’t a personal comment directed at you.
Texas Gal on August 7, 2008 at 11:48 PM
Texas Gal on August 7, 2008 at 11:48 PM
Oh I wasn’t taking it personally.
Spirit of 1776 on August 7, 2008 at 11:49 PM
Yes, when they give out these awards I’m sure they label editorial writing under journalism. However, that still doesn’t make her a reporter. There is a very good reason why The New York Times have a big heading “Opinion” where her columns go. It’s because she’s not a reporter, she’s not reporting facts.
terryannonline on August 7, 2008 at 11:54 PM
Great. I’ll meet you half way. You get reporter, I get journalist.
Spirit of 1776 on August 7, 2008 at 11:57 PM
I’ve followed her interviews before and I don’t think she’s endorsing an Obama presidency. To the contrary. But she’s saying America is too great to be ruined by any one administration.
She’s trying to remain as apolitical as possible.
Amy Proctor on August 7, 2008 at 11:59 PM
I tend to agree. After all, her first job in Government was with the Carter Administration, and she saw first hand the dangers of ineffective leadership. However, the country survived. In fact, it became much stronger because of that administration, it led to the Reagan Revolution which saved the nation, and arguably the world.
Snake307 on August 8, 2008 at 12:31 AM
That’s good … ;)
State is the way it has been and will be because of the system that provides protection against firing of the management and operational employees. As someone eluded to earlier, that is the nature of the beast.
As to Condi and her tenure, I agree with an earlier comment that she has done the job that was tasked to her very well. And personally, I think history will record her as an exceptional SoS.
NK has nukes and has proliferated that technology, this we know. NK has been brought to a heel unlike the agreement fostered by Clinton and Albright. Iran has been made a problem not just of us but for Europe and the ME Arabs. I think that is an important shift. Russia knows that they can not stop our Missile Defense program.
The Palestinians have now got to deal with a divide and conquer strategy. Personally, I think that Israel is it’s own worst enemy. I can’t even imagine that the US would agree to release prisoners at GITOM in exchange for bodies of dead soldiers as Israel did. So blaming Condi for the debacle of Israel/Palestine only give Israel a pass on their own policy.
And that’s just my general comments about this situation and not directed personally at you Spirit.
Texas Gal on August 8, 2008 at 12:36 AM
I won’t argue with you, but we’ve created some problems. I think the SoS leaned on Israel during the Lebanon war in ‘06 in a way that affected their strategy culminating in UN 1701.
Spirit of 1776 on August 8, 2008 at 12:48 AM
Did I forget to say screw you?
baldilocks on August 8, 2008 at 12:53 AM
Imbecile. It’s understandable why she stayed on; she’s totally simpatico in this administracion. Let’s concoct another plan to destroy Israel; there’s only a few months left, duhuhuhuh. Can we pressure them to give up Gaza again? Duhuhuhuh.
Feedie on August 8, 2008 at 12:57 AM
I confess I don’t really know Spirit but I tend to believe that this administration has been trying to implement the Israeli version of the solution to this problem rather than the other way around. In effect our policy in this matter has been dictated by Israel because in my mind it goes against our nature.
In my mind Israel made their first mistake years ago by not incorporating the land mass they gained into a greater Israel. But you know what, I have a lot of Jewish friends and everyone of them… honestly .. have this victim mentality ingrained in their DNA. IMO, they do not make good warriors.
Texas Gal on August 8, 2008 at 1:04 AM
We’ve affected their policy for quite away. Kissinger, for example, convinced Meir not to strike preemptively (which they have historically done to great effect) in the Yom Kippur War. This is NOT to knowck the US at all, we have been great with our aid.
I can’t agree.
Spirit of 1776 on August 8, 2008 at 1:12 AM
Maybe because I only know Americanized Jews. They all seem to be pacifist to me which is totally against my logic!
Why don’t more American Jews support the Republican effort to bring strength to Israel? I truly don’t understand this!
Texas Gal on August 8, 2008 at 1:21 AM
I don’t know.
Spirit of 1776 on August 8, 2008 at 1:27 AM
It makes me think .. sadly … that American Christians care more about the future is Israel than American Jews.
How is that possible?
Texas Gal on August 8, 2008 at 1:34 AM
I think shes making the best out of both bad situations.
On one hand, we have McCain.
On the other is Obama.
I think I see her point.
Kini on August 8, 2008 at 1:35 AM
I’m not trying to avoid the question, but I am not qualified to answer. I have some theories, but I don’t think I fully understand the motivations of everyone involved. And I think they are different kinds of motivation - one is religious and another political and a lot of overlap between. Anyway, have a good night.
Spirit of 1776 on August 8, 2008 at 1:47 AM
I doubt Obama or any other Socialist Democrat would return the compliments she gave him.
LewWaters on August 8, 2008 at 1:50 AM
American Jews are safe unless a dictator rises to power here, Tejas.
That’s why they’ll never vote Republican.
alphie on August 8, 2008 at 1:57 AM
How dare she suggest the United States is strong enough to withstand a Democrat as President!!!!!!!!!!!! RACIST!!!!!!!!
Nonfactor on August 8, 2008 at 5:10 AM
Hilts:
There is no chance that John Bolton could change the State Department. He did not change the UN did he?
In fact when he was there Israel got into it with Lebanon and he was the one who worked on the much hated and derided peace deal that was worked through the UN.
Condi Rice is being gracious in this comment. If people are not able to see that, then there is no point in trying to explain it to them.
Terrye on August 8, 2008 at 6:47 AM
Oh for Christ’s sake this site is for comments and sarcasm and if you cannot tell that I was being sarcastic then forget it hon! HOw many sarcastic psots over the past 8 years have been made about Helen Thomas?
Hilts on August 8, 2008 at 7:16 AM
Actually the one responsible for the diplomatic fiasco in Lebanon was the vacuous Foreign Minister (and Israeli version of Condi Rice) and possibly next Prime Minister Tzipi Livni. I mentioned Bolton as Sec. of State not that one man alone can clean up State or the CIA but he would not likely have gone “native” nor would he have
went against the “Bush doctrine” which was announced in Oct. 2001. Rice has totally shredded that alleged doctrine in the Middle East. She has been singularly unimpressive as Sec. of State and yes I was only be sarcastic when I suggested that the only reason why such a failure remains at Foggy Bottom was that she was fooling around with Bush.
Hilts on August 8, 2008 at 7:23 AM
They will never (however check with the Orthodox) vote Republican because they are socialists at heart.
Hilts on August 8, 2008 at 7:25 AM
This thread is now at the top of the Top Picks section, still with AP’s egregious and irresponsible headlines.
Maybe Ed could provide a correction?
MrLynn on August 8, 2008 at 7:29 AM
Are you Clueless Condi’s dad?
MB4 on August 8, 2008 at 7:38 AM
Do you mean like where the Muslims get 76 Virgins, all of whom look like Helen Thomas, when they behave like Mohammad?
MB4 on August 8, 2008 at 7:42 AM
Good news: You get 76 Virgins.
Bad news: They all look like Helen Thomas.
MB4 on August 8, 2008 at 7:43 AM
No. Instead of 72 virgins they get one 72 year old virgin.
Hilts on August 8, 2008 at 7:49 AM
McCain is 72, but he probably is not a virgin.
MB4 on August 8, 2008 at 7:51 AM
Since erstwhile conservatives Alan Keyes and Condi Rice have decided to make one’s color the overriding consideration for qualifying their presidential candidate, what does it say about the sincerity of their politics? If one can casually jump from conservative to people who hold Che Guevara and Jimmy Carter in high esteem, what’s the point of any of this?
pc on August 8, 2008 at 8:27 AM
As Mr. Lynn points out and other have said, Allah Pundit misled a lot of us commenters to provoke discussion without providing the context lead-in to Dr. Rice’s response. That device is not honest; it is the technique that most of us object to when reporters cherry pick details in their stories.
On the other hand, Dr. Rice’s response is somewhat ambiguous. This is probably part of the territory necessitated by her position requiring that she be apolitical. I have heard enough of her interviews in audio to know that she is quite savvy in handling minefields. Diplomacy requires that capability.
However, the ambiguous response (without context) opens itself to the preferred interpretation of the listener. Therein lies the problem that leads to blog frenzies on either side of the issue.
While it would be inappropriate for her to comment on Obama’s fitness to be president, I am bothered by her implication that America will be “fine”. We thought that we were fine on September 10, 2001, too.
onlineanalyst on August 8, 2008 at 9:22 AM
Condi, you’re a smart, well educated woman.
Too bad you’re also dumb as a post. I guess we all have our, hmmm, less-than-stellar moments. This is one of yours. His economic, tax and spending ideas will shove our economy straight into a real recession.
If we’re lucky, we’ll avoid a depression. I’m not so hopeful.
I R A Darth Aggie on August 8, 2008 at 10:50 AM
This is interesting. If the nut jobs of the far left consider anything to do with the Bush administration evil, and its appointees as masters of propaganda / destruction . . . will this send them running for cover?
After all, its Condoleeza Rice we’re talking about here. A supposed member of the neo-conservative Zionist cabal. Her endorsement can’t be good, can it? Unless . . .
(Uh-oh. They’ve got to Obama and are brainwashing him as we speak, that he may become their sock puppet.)
Wah ha ha. ;)
Ryan Gandy on August 8, 2008 at 11:08 AM
In addition to the headline, and the printed story, you could watch the video (second link from the top) and get a better context of this question and answer. Hear with your own ears and see with your own eyes.
Such as, the ‘new blood’ comment came first, in reference to a new presidency, such as McCain not needing her in his administration as VP. Followed by ‘will you feel safe with a president obama’ and her response, ‘oh the united states will be fine.’ Not “better” or something like that. Becoming the president, and getting the daily briefings,(that we never see) being surrounded with career employees in the government and military tends to help mature a political candidate for the job of president.
Not that this would work with everyone, such as Dennis Kucinich, or some other nutball like Mike Gravel.
wise_man on August 8, 2008 at 11:36 AM
Bad line of reasoning here. Blacks tend to vote Democrat by 80 to 90%. Why is it now racist for them to vote Democrat by a slightly larger block?
That isn’t to say that blacks can’t be racist, but that’s the worst line of reasoning you can use. Maybe it would have worked during the primaries, but it’s stupid to try and use it now.
I’m not black, but that’s how I’ve felt for the last year, about Obama and about Hillary.
I would love to have a black president and/or a woman president. Firsts are always exciting.
However, if we just rush to elect a specific gender or ethnicity and elect someone who isn’t qualified, what will that show? If anything it could set us all back a hundred years the way Gov. Blanco set back feminism (in my opinion) in her response to Katrina. She was indecisive and crying, displaying every negative stereotype against women.
Esthier on August 8, 2008 at 12:30 PM
I don’t believe that America will be “fine” under the O. I don’t believe that America will be “fine” under the Maverick. And I believe that the world will fare even worse.
As near as I can tell, the world economic conditions are headed for a global economic collapse that will make the 1930’s look like a Sunday school picnic. When it finally happens, diplomacy will be moot. Governments around the world will be overwhelmed with their own internal, domestic problems. As the problems grow worse, border skirmishes will break out. Ultimately, the squabbles over food and and other resources will spread, and the entire world will be engulfed in war. Starvation will become pervasive and nearly ubiquitous. There’s a good chances that genocide will once again rear it’s ugly head, but this time, in more than one place around the globe.
I agree with Baldilocks. It’s ALL about the culture. We have arrived at the precipice of disaster (or the cliffs of insanity, if you like) because of our lack of self-discipline, our inability to curb our own appetites, and our ignorance and callous disregard for both the material and spiritual needs of our neighbors. We are selfish - and we are going to pay a price for that.
As Baldilocks pointed out, slavery and Jim Crow were oppressive and caused untold misery. But what we face in the future may be far worse. It may be closer to the genocide that was carried out against the native Americans - only this time, the misery and death won’t be confined to a single ethnic group.
Just thought I’d brighten up everyone’s day.
My collie says:
I must remain true to my world view.
CyberCipher on August 8, 2008 at 1:27 PM
I love condi but please, stick to your conservitive principles. It seems everyone is tossing them out the door.
foxone on August 8, 2008 at 6:02 PM
“you have no business reading the news either in print or on the interwebs if you dont have the ability to differentiate between quoting someone and paraphrasing. stop spamming the thread w/ your garbage.
chasdal on August 7, 2008 at 10:43 PM”
Dear Liar-Lover: You have no business, if you can’t recognize a lie when Allahpundit writes one.
And,as of the pulishing of this post, Allahpundit is offically a LIAR.
A lie, is a lie, is a lie, is a lie - no matter how much you hate Bush, Condi — or love liars like Allahpundit.
I’m not excited - just stating the facts.
grtflmark on August 8, 2008 at 11:35 PM
I agree with AP and rue the day that i ever defended Condi, another liberal RINO.
Christine on August 9, 2008 at 1:30 AM
Fresh Blood?
…how about the careerist hacks at State?
It’s “the vision thing”.
elvis on August 9, 2008 at 8:16 AM
Sure you are Condi. And five will get you ten you’ll be voting for Obamessiah.
And that “but” cancelled your previous statement.
abcurtis on August 9, 2008 at 11:43 AM
Here’s a reason to fear for our country: the comprehension level of many here, not to mention that the reactionaries seem to be among the number who don’t get it. (”It” being what was actually said.)
News flash: effective reading is a conservative “principle” also.
baldilocks on August 9, 2008 at 5:46 PM
Condi speaks for herself.
Condi positions herself.
Condi, if you haven’t anything worthwhile to contribute to the GOP, stfu while you pack your bags preparing for your one-way ticket to Berkeley.
I’m a-leavin’ on a jet plane.
I don’t know when I’ll be back again.
…Oh, babe. I hate to go.
maverick muse on August 10, 2008 at 2:14 PM
On the contrary, I rather think we’ll be taxed.
Dr. Charles G. Waugh on August 10, 2008 at 5:21 PM
Wow, you can say that again. Unbelievable.
macblanegirl on August 10, 2008 at 8:00 PM
Comment pages: « 1 2 3 [4]