Posted on 03/28/2008 3:56:52 PM PDT by nuconvert
Then I suggest you read the articles from reputable sources that come up with the Web search.
Blacks in the US in the 30's were not starved to death by the millions, like in Ukraine. In the 40's, they were not gassed by the millions, like the Jews in Europe. They were not sent by the millions to die in Siberia. They were not exterminated by the millions like the Cambodians. They were not hacked to death in the hundreds of thousands like in Rwanda. My cousin starved to death in her infancy due to lack of food in the post-WW2 Italian countryside
Condi, Obama, Rev Wright, and the rest should get down on their knees and kiss the soil they stand on
To be fair, Condoleeza Rice's best friend was murdered when the Klan bombed a church in 1963.
And that, of course, gives her the right to bemoan the civilization that gave her all the success she enjoys.
My point is that she experienced racial violence first-hand -- her best friend and three other children were murdered by the Klan. I'd say she's entitled to have a strong opinion on these matters.
Add in the fact that the perpetrators of this terrible crime were only brought to justice in 2004. This is not someone arguing for slave reparations but who experienced in the worst way something everyone apparently wants to pretend never happened.
Do whites who have friends or realtives murdered by blacks get a free pass to engage in racial demagoguery as well? If so, there will be an awful lot of white demagogues running around because the black-on-white murder rate surpasses the white-on-black murder rate by a wide margin.
No one disputes Secretary Rice’s memories of a real life atrocity. But she really should devote herself on the job to representing America, not tearing it down. This incessant dwelling on every past fault of our nation is not only unbecoming, but dangerous when dealing with groups like Hamas.
They always have their hand out because their forbearers MAY have been slaves of white people always forgetting that many blacks also owned slaves. "DIXIE'S CENSORED SUBJECT BLACK SLAVE OWNERS"
They vote into the presidency and Congress people that actually work to keep them down, applauding them.
They follow black leaders that make their living, a very well paid living, on the backs of keeping blacks down while blaming the not black person for all their problems.
I am tired of hearing of and reading about it.
I lost half of my family during the Holocaust.
Exactly !!!
I lost half of my family during the Holocaust.
The Bush cabinet is place for stepping off from public life and not stepping up in public life. She has done a mediocre job, nothing of distinction.
Thanks for your comments. No one has a corner on suffering.
There are many many Black families who have suffered from past history of abuse and even current abuse that still move forward and want their children to move forward.
Exactly and there are many many other families that are not black who have also suffered and moved on.
American Indians, Irish, Jews and many Asian nationalities to name a few.
What happened to Dr. Rice's friend wasn't random violence -- it was a murder that was committed with the collusion and sanction of the state government for the sole purpose of maintaining segregation. The State of Alabama didn't even prosecute the crime until several years ago.
This used to be a conservative forum -- the idea of the government undermining the rights of the people used to be considered a crime. Now, there are some people who don't merit protection from unconstitutional treatment.
I guess if you're black and you dare mention the fact that you couldn't even vote until 1965, you'd best just shut up about it. Unlike, say, the Duke LAX players, who were almost railroaded by the state. THAT's okay to bitch about.
I wonder why? No I don't. Secretary Rice simnply forgot her place.
Yep. That pretty much negates anything she might have to say about life, liberty, freedom or compassion. Pro-Choice is in essence a Pro-Slavery position. Human beings as chattel.
My point is that just because the Sharptons and Jacksons et al make wildly extravegant claims about 'opression' today shouldn't blind people to the fact that some people have legitimate grievance. And it doesn't always mean people are tearing down our country by acknowledging that. In other words, we're becoming more perfect union, but not a perfect one.
Thanks for clarifying. I won’t belabor the issue any further! :-)
The article at the first link contained quotes from Rice that pretty much settle the question. The second link (On the Issues) seems to be in agreement with those quotes, which apparently come from an interview with a Washington Times reporter.
So what’s your point?
My point(s) would include but not be limited to:
1. If Rice is on the record saying she never heard of al Qaeda before 9/11 then why would On The Issues quote Clarke and not the horses mouth? Of course, she said no such thing.
2. On The Issues entirely ignores most of her record on the “issue” of national security and her role in it. Rice was the national security adviser in the post 9/11 period and helped re-write the overarching national security strategy of the nation, a comprehensive document from which there have been far-reaching changes of substantial proportions. Just one was the formation of U.S. Northern Command, an entire military command that provides support to domestic homeland security such as FBI, local cops, emergency response, etc. And that’s just one item of hundreds encompassed in the strategy.
3. Rice’s position on foreign policy and security as reflected in her time as security adviser and SecState is basically ignored by On The Issues. There’s no reference to her role along with John Bolton, Jack Straw and others in the formation of the Proliferation Security Initiative, a 50+ nation alliance that created the groundwork for the take-down of the AQ Khan nuclear weapons black market and the de-nuclearization of Libya. It’s like it never happened and reflects no “position” on an “issue.” Yet the PSI represents to many a landmark end-run around the United Nations and a model for how the democracies can take meaningful action in spite of UN fecklessness.
I could talk about her role in a hundred other events but what’s the point? People who draw their opinions based on what On The Issues says (or leaves out) come away convinced that Barney Frank has a bigger national security profile than Condi Rice—and how could I possibly argue with that?
You happily ignore the fact the the Rice quotes come from a Washington Times reporter. They were not made up by “On the Issues”.
Rice said them.
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.