Posted on 03/25/2009 12:53:20 PM PDT by RobinMasters
Jay Leno asked Condoleezza Rice to give her opinion regarding the kerfuffle over Dick Cheney’s outspoken criticism of BaracK Obama and his policy team, especially on national security.
Instead of backing Cheney, the former National Security Adviser and Secretary of State instead told Leno that she knows how it feels to have critics “chirping” from the outside — and that any advice she gives will come privately or not at all (via Christopher Weber):
(Excerpt) Read more at hotair.com ...
The ONLY reason she was invited on Leno was to Bash Cheney! I guess she doesn’t like STRONG, RIGHT MEN!
I took the ‘chirping from the outside’ comment as a comment on herself saying something about what Cheney said.. ie, she wouldn’t criticize him, if she has something to say about it, she would say it personally...
I like Dick Cheney.
A LOT.
But, I remember all the BS Dubya took from both Slick Willie and AlGore, not to mention Algright and others, after that power duo was out of office.
Dubya’s administration is OVER.
Just like I anger at the word “inherited” and all of Obammy’s “Blame Bush” excuses, I think Cheney should write a book and speak about his part in Dubya’s administration, and leave Obammy to the pundits, press and public.
Hmm .. interesting and perhaps curiously so?
I like Condi Rice. No, I don't agree with her on everything (does anyone agree with anyone on everything?), but overall she's OK with me.
I’ve been thinking critically about Dr. Rice for a long time, but I’ve been too charitable.
You are absolutely right....THEY...are just skewing this to make headlines - DO NOT FALL FOR THIS CON JOB BY THE LEFT -AGAIN- CONSERVATIVES!!!!
This is predictable. It was perfectly clear during the campaign that she was in the Messiah’s corner.
Exactly right.
I saw the interview and it didn’t sound at all critical.
In fact she chided Leno for asking such a personal question.
She’s a lady; even if they had differences, she would NOT
be immature about it like EVERYONE in this new mental ward
...er, White House...has been!
I’m glad I’m not the only one who is seeing it this way. Far too many people are easily manipulated.. Just like the class warfare games with AIG bonuses.. they plant how they want us to think and instead of being critical of what we are told, people just knee jerk to the headline.
Even Thomas Jefferson said that former presidents should be forced to leave the country.
Cheney can write a book about the “War on Terror”, which he did a great job of orchestrating. He can even make speaches and speak about specific tactics and strategies that kept America safe.
But former presidents and their cabinets should STFU and the let the new president do his job.
It’s bad when Carter and Clinton do it.
Reagan never did it, Bush 41 never did it, and now Bush 42 (and company) should show the same class.
If you find her making even a slightly critical statement about Obama, feel free to email me.
Not that I expect you to be able to.
I thought she was taking a swipe at the ‘toon & Carter.
I agree with you. I saw the interview, I paid attention, there wasn’t a Cheney slight. Not that *I* noticed.
I thought she was all class.
Gotta fix this:
“the _pretend_ Messiah’s corner.”
There, that does it.
The libs are the ones that feeeeeel before they think!
We can’t get down on that level. I don’t think Condi did;
she was articulate and did correct him on impressions of
our President Bush! I was glad to hear that.
I never expected that EVERY person in the administration
thought exactly alike anyway. They were adults!
These new guys are NOT!
No criticism there...just a difference in style.
She is/was the adult in the room.
Would you like to see the members of the Bush adminstration
reacting to every sling and arrow like the children of the
Zero administration?
I sure don’t!
I didn’t like it when former Prez Clinton criticized my
president, and thought it was VERY uncalled for...very unpresidential! I think
Bush’s crew is trying to rise above those childish tactics.
Just my opinion, you understand......
I thought she had good responses, even though Leno tried
his best to get her to criticize her former boss.
She handled him well!
of course, they knew the answer. If she had supported Cheney I doubt they would have had her on the show.
That’s the way I took it too.
Condi did not take the bait! Good job, you go girl!
Leno enabled the public humiliation of handicapped children.
He should be thrown off the networks.
That is pure BS and the reason why the Reps will become and deserve to be the permanent minority party. There is something called the loyal opposition. Moreover, if you believe that Obama is making this country more vulnerable to terrorist attacks that could cost this country millions of lives, to stand by and say nothing is criminal and violates your oath to preserve, protect, and defend the Constitution.
Bush and Cheney possess the knowledge and intelligence information that shaped their policies in the WOT and the establishment of Gitmo. They understand how these policies deterred and stopped planned terrorist attacks. Obama is constantly criticizing Bush's policies at every opportunity, including last night at his press conference. Every problem is one he "inherited." To remain silent is giving tacit agreement to these charges. Cheney was right to speak out.
It’s bad when Carter and Clinton do it. Reagan never did it, Bush 41 never did it, and now Bush 42 (and company) should show the same class.
This really has nothing to do with class or political partisanship. It has to do with the security of this nation. Bush didn't defend his policies in office, so it is no surprise that he refuses to do so now. He was a disaster for the Rep party.
Some Rep congressmen agree with you that Cheney should shut up. They are pathetic and symptomatic of what is wrong with the party. Unless, the GOP is willing to go nose to nose with the Dems on policy issues, it will just become another wing of the Dem party.
A foolish consistency is the hobgoblin of little minds.
LLS
she was a bad choice but she is a very smart lady, unlike the clowns running the WH right now.
That is true... but she is no leader and displays no leadership skills. She is very bright and talented.
LLS
Very well said. I agree 100 percent
And right about now after the warm fuzzy video to Iran and the “overcharged” debacle...aren’t you really missing Condi? I am.
You know, if she left the door open to being consulted by this administration, it might be a good thing.
I definitely miss her! She is intelligent and a student of
foreign policy.
Hitlery?...not so much!
How quaint.
I prefer to live an EXPLICIT philosophy and try to live up to my ideals, rather than bend with the wind.
But, to each their own, I guess.
LOL. EXPLICIT philosophy? What the hell does that mean?
I prefer to live in reality and deal with existential threats to our security and a President who wants to lead us down the road to serfdom. Our so-called Rep leaders better grow a pair like Cheney and speak truth to power or the party is finished.
An “Explicit Philosophy” is not making shit up as you go along.
It’s making the CONSCIOUS decision to live a certain way and not modifying it to meet the situation.
I said eight years ago that Carter should STFU and let the current president do his job. I said he should respect two hundred years of tradition and keep his trap shut.
I guess standing by your principles has no place your idea of “reality”, but it works for me.
That is the first time I have ever seen those two words linked and I say that advisedly having minored in philosophy. Can you expand on where this "philosophy" originatied or are you just making it up?
I guess standing by your principles has no place your idea of “reality”, but it works for me.
Just the opposite. I could care less about tradition and class if I believe that by keeping silent, millions of lives will be endangered and the safety of this nation is compromised. My alliegence is to the Constitution and the rule of law, not men. I am not an ethical relativist.
Heard it used almost 26 years ago while taking a pre-requisite philosophy course. Can’t help what you with any shortcomings in your education. Get your money back.
I stand by my convictions.
It was wrong then, it’s wrong now.
There are plenty of other messengers and mediums with which to assail Obammy’s wacky foreign policy and national security machinations.
I can see why some people on FR would take it that way because they project--interpret comments the way they want it to be.
Condi Rice is more intelligent that 98% of people on FR, IMO...agree with her or not.
There are a lot of biased, myopic opinionated people on FR...I'm just one! LOL!
LOL. You are making it up. Can you provide the origins of "Explicit Philosophy" and the names of some notable proponents? LOL.
I stand by my convictions. It was wrong then, it’s wrong now.
You seem to think that there is some sort of code of honor. There isn't. Obama started attacking the Bush administration in his inaugural address and he, along with his cabinet members, have continued it almost daily since. Under your rules, that is wrong. But it is effective. Without any response from Bush, the public just assumes that Obama's allegations are true.
There are plenty of other messengers and mediums with which to assail Obammy’s wacky foreign policy and national security machinations.
Yeah, right, let someone else do it rather than the guy responsible for those policies. Again, this has very little to do with partisan politics. It does have a lot to do with someone speaking up if they believe that these policies will make the US more vulnerable to attack. It is the obligation of every citizen to do so, but certainly the author of those policies must be willing to defend them.
http://search.msn.com/results.aspx?q=explicit+philosophy&FORM=MSNH11
Took less than five seconds.
And much cheaper than a minor in philosophy.
We had a radio guy, Mark Scott, in Detroit who hosted insightful discussions on the differences between implicit and explicit philosophies. He would often question callers about their beliefs/values and ask them to thoughtfully consider wether their values very based on an implicit or explicit philosoophy.
Mark
She didn’t critcize him! She said, and I heard it, that
she WOULDN’T criticize him or anyone else!
People hear what they want to, but I watched the show and
the only thing she came close to criticizing was Leno’s
attempt to GET her to criticize President Bush!
So you and I aren’t wrong! LOL!
We were completely outraged when Clinton started criticizing President Bush after his election. Why would we want to authorize a gentleman like President Bush to criticize his replacement...at least this soon into the administration (wrong-headed and dangerous as it has become)?
WE, on the other hand, have plenty to criticize and we need to let our congresspets know exactly how we feel and why we want to see them standing up to this imbecile!
Less-than-honest sensationalist headline grabbing on the part of the “news” video and picked up as truth by Hot Air. Disappointing.
The question asked and answered was about her views. She agrees with the President (Bush), who was described. She did not reference the Vice President or criticize him.
Your comments are baseless. Unless you can give specific statements to back up your charge that Secretary Rice was not qualified for National Security Advisor or head of the State Department.
She is knowledgeable and diplomatic. She carried out - and is carrying out - the mission of her President, not her own agenda.
How does that square with the link provided? I already checked those out before I responded to you. You still have not answered my questions about the origin of this "so-called philosophy" or the proponnets of it. You are making this up out of whole cloth. You can't even enumerate the basic tenets of this alleged philosophy.
What do you mean "authorize" Bush? He needs no authorization, just a set of cajones to defend his own policies and to point out the fact that Obama is making this country less safe. Cheney did it. What's wrong with Bush? Doesn't he have an obligation to speak out against such dangerous policies?
It has less to do with being a gentleman and more to do with being a patriot.
It’s amazing that people who spout off their criticism of others can’t take 10 seconds to use a search engine. I did that as soon as I saw the question about the term, before following the rest of the conversation.
This conversation is the most explicit (if I may use the word) example I’ve ever seen of someone bragging about their wasted education background as they proved that background wasted — by not doing the search, if not by their lack of knowledge and pride.
It is my contention that there is no such formal philosophy as expressed by the poster. He is in fact making it up. And even when you analyze the meanings of the words "explicit" and "philosophy" and link them together they make no sense.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.