Welcome to PatsFans.com

Condi Rice, a truly exceptional neo-con

Discussion in 'Political Discussion' started by All_Around_Brown, Jan 3, 2006.

  1. All_Around_Brown

    All_Around_Brown Rookie

    Joined:
    Jan 3, 2005
    Messages:
    3,098
    Likes Received:
    1
    Ratings:
    +1 / 0 / -0

    http://transcripts.cnn.com/TRANSCRIPTS/0512/26/sitroom.03.html
    (BEGIN VIDEOTAPE)

    WOLF BLITZER, CNN ANCHOR: Madam Secretary, thanks very much for joining us.

    CONDOLEEZZA RICE, U.S. SECRETARY OF STATE: A pleasure to be with you, Wolf.

    BLITZER: You were the national security advisor right after 9/11 when the president authorized this extraordinary decision to go ahead with surveillance eavesdropping on Americans and others, making international phone calls or faxes or e-mails, without getting court orders. How did that decision come about?
    Neo-Con Rule 1: downplay
    RICE: The president has -- first of all, let's talk about what he authorized. He authorized the National Security Agency to collect information on a limited number of people with ties to Al Qaeda in order to be able to close the gap, the seam, between the domestic territory of the United States and foreign territory.

    One of the clear findings of the 9/11 Commission was that our intelligence agencies were looking outward. Our law enforcement agencies were looking inward. And a gap had developed. We didn't know the connection between what people with terrorist ties inside the United States were doing, to what people who were terrorists or might be planning terrorist operations outside the country were doing.

    So the president made that decision. He did it on the basis of his constitutional authority under Article II and other statutory authorities. I think the attorney general spoke to those legal issues earlier. And he did it to protect the country. Because these days, after September 11th, we recognized and he recognized, as the one with real responsibility for protecting the country, that if you let people commit the crime, then thousands of people die. So you have to detect it before it happens.


    Neo-Con Rule 2: detract
    BLITZER: But there was a mechanism, still is a mechanism that's been in place since 1978 -- the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act, the FISA Court to go ahead and get this authority with the court warrant. Why not use that?

    RICE: First of all, the FISA Act, 1978, very different circumstances imagined at the time. FISA has been principally for a longer-term monitoring and it has been capable of helping us when we're principally concerned with the activities of people acting on behalf of a foreign government. You can imagine those are often longer-term matters.

    But the kind of agility that is needed to detect rather than to monitor, as the president talked about today, it -- the president needed to draw on these other authorities, and he has.

    BLITZER: But even within the FISA Act, there are extraordinary circumstances that would allow the wiretap, the surveillance to begin. Then within 72 hours you can still go and get the warrant.

    RICE: Let's just say these people, these networks, these shadowy networks, which are not associated with countries -- they're stateless -- are not stable targets, are pretty agile themselves. And so, in order to give our intelligence agencies the agility they need -- in order to detect, Wolf -- and I want to say once again, the president has a constitutional responsibility to protect the country.

    That means physically. It also means to protect the civil liberties of Americans under the Constitution. And he of course has both responsibilities and takes both very seriously.

    That's why this was done with thorough levels of review. It has to be reauthorized every 45 days. It was briefed to Congress numerous times, or to relevant congressional officials numerous times. And so the president and his advisers thought this the best way to give him the ability as -- under his responsibilities as commander in chief to defend the country.



    Neo-Con Rule 3: dissemble
    BLITZER: Because you know the history. You're a student of history. You know the history of the abuses of this kind of domestic spying going back to the '60s and '70s. And when the Supreme Court made a decision, it was 9-0, 1972, United States versus U.S. District Court, Louis Powell, the justice wrote this:

    Security surveillances are especially sensitive because of the inherent vagueness of the domestic security concept, the necessarily broad and continuing nature of intelligence gathering, and the temptation to utilize such surveillances to oversee political dissent."

    You remember the spying of Dr. Martin Luther King.

    RICE: I do.

    BLITZER: And other Americans opposed to the war in Vietnam. And national security considerations were then justified for that kind of surveillance. And then Powell went on to say that, the Fourth Amendment protects Americans -- let me read specifically what he wrote, 9-0 decision, "from unreasonable search and seizures and free then he said "that freedom cannot be properly guaranteed if domestic security surveillances are conducted solely at the discretion of the executive branch."

    RICE: Well, first of all, the president is more than aware of the civil liberties concerns. And that is why this has been structured in such a very limited and controlled way. With multiple layers of oversight, with lawyers of Justice and of the National Security Agency overseeing it, briefings to Congress.

    It's also why, as the attorney general spoke to earlier, the president is drawing on existing authorities under the Constitution, under statute. We also have to note, Wolf, that it is limited in scope. Limited to people who are associated with ties to Al Qaeda.

    BLITZER: How do you know these people are associated with Al Qaeda?

    RICE: Well, I'm not going to get into the program. But let's just remember that in 2001, we experienced what it meant to not know what conversations were going on inside the country that were connecting to terrorists plotting outside the country. We learned what that produced.

    And it produced the kind of devastation that we had on September the 11th. And so the president has an obligation to try and close that seam. And that is what he's done with this program.

    BLITZER: When you were the national security advisor, did you ever say, "Well, maybe we should go seek new legislation, get some new authority, go to the courts and make sure this is done so that there would be no question whatsoever that this was done properly"?

    RICE: Wolf, this was a carefully and very deliberately considered issue for the president of how best to fulfill his responsibilities to protect the country and how best to do it legally, within his constitutional and legal authorities.



    BLITZER: This is an extremely sensitive national security issue.

    RICE: Of course.

    BLITZER: Doesn't get much more sensitive than this. As a result I'm confused why the president decided to publicly acknowledge it.

    RICE: I think the president felt that after this very damaging leak -- and, frankly, there -- it's a very sad day when the United States reveals to the people that we are trying to follow, trying to track, trying to disrupt, how we're doing it. And anything about how we're doing it.

    You know, Wolf, as the president cited earlier, we had a bead on Osama bin Laden's phone at one point, too. And when an article appeared saying that, he stopped using it from all that we can tell. So it is a danger to the country when there are leaks of this sort.

    But the president felt that given this, he needed to explain it to the American people without exposing the details of the program. And there have to be limitations in order not to expose the details of the program. But that he need to explain that he was using his constitutional authority to protect the country, in order to detect these plots, but, also, to protect their civil liberties.

    BLITZER: Madam Secretary, thanks very much.

    RICE: Thank you.



    ------


    Rice is now blaming the media for Osama not being caught. She refused to answer the key questions about why they couldn't just go to FISA court or how did they know these were specifically A-Q. She answered his questions with obfuscation and Wolf "I'm a patsy of the right" Blitzer didn't even notice.

    She is a great neo-con though. Just look at the way she downplays-distracts-dissembles.
  2. Harry Boy

    Harry Boy Look Up, It's Amazing PatsFans.com Supporter

    Joined:
    Nov 10, 2005
    Messages:
    37,509
    Likes Received:
    24
    Ratings:
    +29 / 0 / -5

    Rice,
    She's educated, she's well spoken (never said mother fu cker) and she happens not to be a Batty Looney New Democrat.

    So, now we have a Black Women that is all the things that Martin L King said he would like to see blacks become, she climbed the mountain, she overcame.

    But wait a minute, somethings wrong here, she isn't a "Bleating, Whiney, Trouble Making, Big Mouth, Hateful New Democrat" oh Jesus, what will we do, why isn't she like Whoopi or Wonderful Oprah.

    The Old Racist hate mongering Banana Man, Harry Belafonte called her a "HOUSE NI GGER" simply because she wasn't "one of them"

    Lousy Racist Democrat Bast ards.
  3. PatsFanInMaine

    PatsFanInMaine Rookie

    Joined:
    Sep 20, 2004
    Messages:
    648
    Likes Received:
    3
    Ratings:
    +3 / 0 / -0

    Condi is one of the most intelligent people that I have had the good fortune of meeting. As far as ducking the issue, there is no ducking here. The position is as plain as day to those who want to see it. The administration believes it has the constitutional authority to wire tap in this case. If Congress tries to challenge this position it will end in disaster for them both publicly and legally.
  4. Harry Boy

    Harry Boy Look Up, It's Amazing PatsFans.com Supporter

    Joined:
    Nov 10, 2005
    Messages:
    37,509
    Likes Received:
    24
    Ratings:
    +29 / 0 / -5

    They did it with the Mafia, they did it with the drug dealers all through he nineties, the "Neo Dem Libs" said nothing.

    If they (Neo Dems) push it they will lose, big time, it will do nothing but put them deeper into the sh it pit that they are already in.

    Condi Rice,
    Liberal Democrats love Black People, they slobber and pander and gush all over them they faint and have orgasms when Oprah enters a room, they even love the "gang bangers" in So Central LA, they love the Home Boys on death row, they twitter and squeal when that "Skank" Whoopi is around, oh we're Democrats we love Black People, ha.

    Watch all that phony crap go up in smoke though when a person like Rice comes along, why, She Isn't One Of Them. (The Dip Shi t's Can't Understand That)
  5. All_Around_Brown

    All_Around_Brown Rookie

    Joined:
    Jan 3, 2005
    Messages:
    3,098
    Likes Received:
    1
    Ratings:
    +1 / 0 / -0

    So, we can put you down in the "suspend the fourth amendment" category of republicans? We already know where others stand. Are you more to the libertarian side of the GOP or closer to the Cheney-Rumsfeld-Wolfowitz side??

    I'm just curious. There's no question she's intelligent. But I cannot get that one thing outta my head.

    Remember when she was busy telling the 911 commission that the August 6th PDB was a "historical" document, only to be forced to concede that the title of the PDB was "Bin Laden Determined To Attack Inside US"?

    Sorry, but smart, shrewd, and clever doesn't excuse one from draconian attacks on the US constitution.
  6. Harry Boy

    Harry Boy Look Up, It's Amazing PatsFans.com Supporter

    Joined:
    Nov 10, 2005
    Messages:
    37,509
    Likes Received:
    24
    Ratings:
    +29 / 0 / -5

    Wait, something is going to happen, the liberal "Neo Dems" won't like it.
  7. All_Around_Brown

    All_Around_Brown Rookie

    Joined:
    Jan 3, 2005
    Messages:
    3,098
    Likes Received:
    1
    Ratings:
    +1 / 0 / -0

    Harry Boy, sooner or later you will realize that when people actually respond to you, they are doing it for comic relief more than for actual reasoned debate.

    I'm doing it here to point out that if you can't quite get the consistent message out, you are hurting your cause. "Neo-dems"? "Neo-Libs"? WTF are you talking about??
  8. Pujo

    Pujo Rookie

    Joined:
    Dec 15, 2005
    Messages:
    6,572
    Likes Received:
    4
    Ratings:
    +4 / 0 / -0

    He's right you know, Harry Boy. You think you're so cynical, you've gone off the deep end.
    Last edited: Jan 3, 2006
  9. PatsFanInEaglesLand

    PatsFanInEaglesLand Rookie

    Joined:
    Oct 12, 2004
    Messages:
    3,716
    Likes Received:
    4
    Ratings:
    +4 / 0 / -0

    Dear God please have Condi Rice run for president, if not for anything but to give NEM a stroke at the thought of her being president.
  10. Pujo

    Pujo Rookie

    Joined:
    Dec 15, 2005
    Messages:
    6,572
    Likes Received:
    4
    Ratings:
    +4 / 0 / -0

    I'd say bring her on because she's unelectable. Too many of Bush's staunchest supporters would balk at the idea of a hispanic woman as President, even a conservative one.
  11. Pujo

    Pujo Rookie

    Joined:
    Dec 15, 2005
    Messages:
    6,572
    Likes Received:
    4
    Ratings:
    +4 / 0 / -0

    I would say that's an effective way of taking what I said and making it much cruder :)

    But yes, that's true. Now, most people that voted for Bush are not radical, religious, black-hating, Jew-beating, hispanic-slurring, gay-bashing maniacs. But, since pretty much all of the radical, religious, black-hating, Jew-beating, hispanic-slurring, gay-bashing maniacs that are out there voted for Bush, and there are a lot of radical, religious, black-hating, Jew-beating, hispanic-slurring, gay-bashing maniacs out there, I would say they make a considerable enough segment of his base.

    Besides, a lot of Bush's ultra-religious supporters are starting to doubt he has their best interests in mind (he's not as pro-church as he is as pro-business) and I can't imagine Rice would do better in their eyes. If the GOP runs Rice, the only way the Dems could screw it up would be to run Hillary Clinton.
    Last edited: Jan 3, 2006
  12. PatsFanInEaglesLand

    PatsFanInEaglesLand Rookie

    Joined:
    Oct 12, 2004
    Messages:
    3,716
    Likes Received:
    4
    Ratings:
    +4 / 0 / -0

    So I guess you would like to be characterized as a Baby-killing, c0ck-sucking, anti-family, paycheck-stealing, SSI receiving, welfare fraudulent, eic as early christmas, anti-capitalism socialist left winger? Now I am not saying you are but , the majority of them support the same candidates you do.
  13. mikey

    mikey Rookie

    Joined:
    Sep 13, 2004
    Messages:
    2,422
    Likes Received:
    3
    Ratings:
    +3 / 0 / -0

    [​IMG]

    [​IMG]


    Condoleeza Rice is one ugly lookin' mama.

    While her own race was drowning in New Orleans and in her home state Alabama, the snake was watching a broadway show and shopping for shoes in New York City.

    She is a shameless hypocrite and a disgrace to her race.

    .
    Last edited: Jan 3, 2006
  14. PatsFanInEaglesLand

    PatsFanInEaglesLand Rookie

    Joined:
    Oct 12, 2004
    Messages:
    3,716
    Likes Received:
    4
    Ratings:
    +4 / 0 / -0

    Good to know that she slums it with you in the NYC.
  15. All_Around_Brown

    All_Around_Brown Rookie

    Joined:
    Jan 3, 2005
    Messages:
    3,098
    Likes Received:
    1
    Ratings:
    +1 / 0 / -0

    :yeahthat: Thats bout right. I don't kow if its racial so much at this point, although I agree she would suffer in the south, big time. Condi would have to answer quite a few things about her role, or lack thereof, of post-invasion planning in Iraq. After all, the State Department largely dropped the ball on reconstruction. Wasn't she responsible for some of those failures? You know, the reconstruction that was an utter failure in restoring power and oil flow but made alot of Heritage Foundation, Bremer stooges, and defense cronies rich?


    You know...the reconstruction that we finally ceded to the insecurity in Iraq.
    http://news.independent.co.uk/world/americas/article336300.ece


    By the way, "wrighties", has this republican congress decided to investigate that 8.8 billion dollars of missing cash from the Iraq Coalition Provisional Authority, or what?? I'll bet alot of that money will be turning up around other lawmakers. Dukestir Cunningham, you are not alone. http://www.taxpayer.net/TCS/wastebasket/nationalsecurity/2005-12-05-05dukepleads.htm
  16. All_Around_Brown

    All_Around_Brown Rookie

    Joined:
    Jan 3, 2005
    Messages:
    3,098
    Likes Received:
    1
    Ratings:
    +1 / 0 / -0

    Hey, PFEIL, remember when I told you you were in BLUE country...this confirms it! Enjoy!!

    http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/10698535/
  17. Pujo

    Pujo Rookie

    Joined:
    Dec 15, 2005
    Messages:
    6,572
    Likes Received:
    4
    Ratings:
    +4 / 0 / -0

    I don't do double standards - you are absolutely right (or you would be if I was a Democrat, which you were incorrectly assuming). But, you could say that some boogiemen vote for the same libertarian candidates that I vote for, and you're right right - that doesn't make me a boogieman.

    By the way, women who support Bush don't suck-c0ck? Sucks for you, bro.
  18. PatsFanInEaglesLand

    PatsFanInEaglesLand Rookie

    Joined:
    Oct 12, 2004
    Messages:
    3,716
    Likes Received:
    4
    Ratings:
    +4 / 0 / -0

  19. All_Around_Brown

    All_Around_Brown Rookie

    Joined:
    Jan 3, 2005
    Messages:
    3,098
    Likes Received:
    1
    Ratings:
    +1 / 0 / -0

    Wow! Theres more Bush voters in Dover than I thought. I guess they were voting against their own interest. Or do they have electronic voting machines there? Good find.
  20. DarrylS

    DarrylS PatsFans.com Supporter PatsFans.com Supporter

    Joined:
    Sep 13, 2004
    Messages:
    40,315
    Likes Received:
    19
    Ratings:
    +19 / 0 / -0

    Rice is an extremely intelligent person and may have been a good politician, however she has fallen into the role of defending policies that are clearly unconstitutional. I thought at one time she might be electable, however her blind defense of this adm will cost her votes in the long run as we watch the power base of GWB errode or go to jail.

Share This Page