Condoleezza Rice, thuggin' for democracy (more liberal racist imagery)

LA Weakly ^ | 1-20-05 | Conal

[tallhappy]

Image Control
State Hood
by Robbie Conal

Condoleezza Rice was handpicked in 1989 by Brent Scowcroft to serve on King George I's National Security Council. In 2000 she accused President Bill Clinton of "an extraordinary neglect of the fiduciary responsibilities of the commander in chief." She couldn't have meant the national debt, because there was none. Her boss has since made it trillions. So she must have been deriding Bubba for not expanding the "democratic zone of peace" (her phrase). Clinton neglected to replace potentially hostile governments with pre-emptive force.

By 2001 Condi was King George II's national-security adviser. She's just been dubbed our new secretary of state, replacing Colin Powell. Condi thinks Colin was too soft. Now she's out of the White House, soiling the rest of the world. Thuggin' for democracy.

[tallhappy]

The above is the newest racist cariacture of Rice and attack on her by the enlightened progressive class of our major urban areas.

[John Thornton]

I think that the media liberals so love hurling racist slander at Rice because they usually have to kowtow to every minority under the sun in order to hold together their coalition.

They never get the chance to spew their deeply held racist beliefs (as to the inferiority of minorities) unless they have a Republican minority to attack.

[stylin19a]

She couldn't have meant the national debt, because there was none

what do you expect when an article is written by the unenlightened ?

[carlr]

She couldn't have meant the national debt, because there was none.

Shows how these lib pundits have almost no idea of what they talk about.
We did`nt have a federal deficit for the year.The national debt is the accrued debt from years of deficit spending.
I could`nt guess the last time we did`nt have a national debt.

Minor point I know,but usually leftist propaganda is filled with these inaccuracies.
Listen to anything that spews from Ted Kennedys mouth.

[westmichman]

This article shows us just how sick the left is.

[SandRat]

Went to the LA Weakly site of course it's spelled LA Weekly but I like your spelling better and looked at some of the other stories there.

I know of two parrots that would love the print edition for the bottoms of their cages; that's a more valued position than the paper's worth.

[clyde260]

This is beautiful!

Somewhere on another thread I saw:

When the enemy is defeating itself - stand back.

[coconutt2000]

She couldn't have meant the national debt, because there was none.

Oops... he probably meant "deficit". He should've said, "surplus".

The debt grew by a greater number than the so-called surpluses. On the balance books, factoring in the increase in debt, there was no surplus.

[sgtbono2002]

Yes: I noticed the strange lack of truth in this story too.

[sgtbono2002]

Even in this caricature , she still looks better than skin tightened Nancy Pelosi.

[sgtbono2002]

Sorry to post three times but with that sign Statahood above the caricature , now I know where it came from. Thats a picture of Eleonor Holmes Norton. It was mistakenly posted here as Dr. Rice.

[sam_paine]

I can't believe this was actually published. No, really. I can't!

[Hildy]

It looks like Robbie Conal is the artist. Did he write this crap too?

[livius]

I'm aghast, too. Even for the libs, this is low.

[tallhappy]

It's amazing, isn't it?

The illustrations on the cover and in the rag this week were also quite silly. They showed mass protests and people throwing molotov cocktails.

It's their weird fanstasy of inaugural day.

[nobdysfool]

I could`nt guess the last time we did`nt have a national debt.

If I recall correctly, the last time was during Andrew Jackson's Presidency.

[unlearner]

These people show how stupid they are when they start to cite their own propaganda and get confused by it.

The national debt was approximately $5.7 trillion when the current president was first elected.

It was a little over $4 trillion when "Bubba" was first elected.

Check out this link to verify:

http://www.publicdebt.treas.gov/opd/opdhisto4.htm

It is mysterious how liberals figure that $5.7 trillion is nothing. Even more mysterious is how the national debt increasing by $1.7 trillion (an appoximate increase of 43%) represents a DECREASE.

Yes, we have a big national debt. But it was Clinton who almost shipwrecked our economy with the fiascoes that were essentially inherited from his watch. A national recession, dotcom stock market gambling, corporate pyramid schemes, and the 911 attacks all took their toll.

The policies of this president have caused the economy to rebound in spite of the constant attempts by the left and leftists media outlets to undermine consumer and investor confidence.

Are there still problems? Yes. But at least we can be part of the solution and not the cause.

[MJRitter]

What makes me laugh, is that if she were a democratic nominee, and the right was saying these things they would be crucified by the msm.

[unlearner]

The link was broken.

http://www.publicdebt.treas.gov/opd/opdhisto4.htm

This one should work.

[traviskicks]

Ping

How can freedom, liberty, and justice be so controversial? I like how Rush put it yesterday:

I know that there's a lot of criticism of the president's speech. It began last night. It has carried on into this morning and today, and I know that some of the criticism is even coming from Republicans. I'm not going to address the criticisms of each individual specifically, but, rather, I want to try to take the apparent broad themes of the criticism -- especially from the left. The complaints from the left include that Bush did not mention any specifics about his plans to promote freedom in the world, and that we had some complaints -- even one from the right -- that he mentioned God too much in the speech. "There was just too much God," and, you know, I think about other aspects. This is a philosophically ambitious speech. I find it fascinating. I really do here, folks, and in the plain old common-sense realm. I find it fascinating that standing for and desiring and promoting freedom can become so controversial. It literally stuns me. If you go back -- you know, one of the first things I would ask the left, who are raucously criticizing this speech, could we go back into histoire and could we ask ourselves, what was the purpose in the founding of the United Nations?

Wasn't the purpose in the founding of the United Nations peace? World peace? Wasn't it supposed to be a body that was to promote the best of mankind? It was supposed to. Isn't that what it was all about? Now, the people who react to Bush's speech, who say, "Well, that's just silly. Why, that's sophistry. Why, that's too ambitious. Freedom? For everybody in the world? Ha, ha! What a joke. Ha, ha. You idiot, Bush. Freedom around the world? How are we going to do this? Are we going to invade every country that doesn't like us? Ha, ha, ha, ha." Well, then I might say, "Why the hell have a United Nations?" What the hell is the purpose of the United Nations? The UN has become a home for renegade thugs, third-world pimps, tyrants and dictators and the last thing it's interested in is world peace. It is a corrupt body and nobody has a problem with it! Nobody but us. Around the world, the United Nations is looked at as the repository for all that's whatever in the world. Certainly isn't good. So here we have a president who talks about something as simple as fundamental to human existence as freedom and desiring it for as many people in the world as possible, and we get snickers, and we get hrumphs and we get, "Oh, yeah, right! Really! Ha, ha, ha!" a bunch of deriding laughter, and yet those same people look to the UN and see something godlike -- and therein, ladies and gentlemen, lies one of the problems with the critics.

http://www.rushlimbaugh.com/home/daily/site_012105/content/brilliant_think_piece_1.guest.html