Quote:
This type of "look what I can do" CV means effectively, nothing.


Did you even read the thing? Do you even know anything about her? Her foreign policy experience far exceeds anyone else appointed to the possition that I'm aware of. It certainly qualifies her for the job. You arrogant "well, some of those are honorary" come back is so weak. Go through and edit out the honorary stuff and just include her degrees and job positions related to foreign policy and the thing is still very long. Arrogant.

As much as I disagree with Madeline Albright's world view, politics and general way of approaching things, I at least respect her as a learned individual. You guys can't even bring yourselves to recognize all that this woman has done simply because you hate the man she works for. It is utterly disrespectful. Arrogant "flim-flam" if you will.

And yes, liberal. It's amazing how people who are liberals get so defensive about the word. You can call me "conservative" all day long or even toss the "neo" in there to make "neocon" so that the casual observor might associate it with "neo-nazi" (the "neocon" term ironically is most commonly used to imply "conservative Jew") and I won't mind. I'm a conservative and I'm proud of it. I don't get offended even when I'm so often prejudged or even when I'm attacked for it. If someone is misrepresenting what "conservative" means to me, I try to correct it rather than run away from the term. Maybe you're not too familiar with the term liberal in US politics, but it's an accurate usage. And considering that this is a topic about US politics, I don't see a need to "internationalize" it. If you'd prefer "progressive", then fine. It's amazing how you entire view of me as a person has been diminished because I am aware of a large movement based on "liberal" ideals, politics and culture hates Bush and anything associated with him. What's so wrong about saying, "Yes, I'm a liberal and I hate Bush?" if that's really the way you feel?

And you guys really need to get your story straight. I thought Bush was a total puppet that had no brain and was run by the likes of Cheney, Wolfowitz (damn neo-con Jew!) and Condeleeza (although let's make her sound like a child and call her "Condi") Rice. Now suddenly he's the one pulling the strings?

And to be honest, what's wrong with a President in charge of his cabinet? Is a cabinet supposed to offer input into decision making? Or course. But is a cabinet member supposed to be some renegade running around the government working at odds with the person who appointed her, the President of the USA? Was not Kennedy's or Carter's or Clinton's cabinet members' actions carried out in a way that was befitting of that particular president? I really don't get the Left's (or is that term too decisive too?) argument here. She is certainly more than qualified, has the credentials and can be trusted to enact the foreign policy of the President of the United States who was the first person elected to that post by a majority of the vote in quite some time.

If you simply don't like that foreign policy, fine. Talk about that. But don't drag Rice through this as part of the whole paranoid debate.

Honestly, I think the (insert word that won't offend) are really just frightened that she'll be on the Presidential ticket for 2008. It fits quite well with the recent efforts to get the Constitution ammended in order to allow Bill Clinton to run for a 3rd term, i.e. their ranks are pretty thin looking 4 years down the road. This just serves are good character assassination to try to nip her possible run at the bud.
_________________________
Brad B.