Condi Rice dissed at Rutgers

[deaddogseye]

I detest the type of intloerance that the opponenets of Rice speaking at Rutgers represent to the extent they tried to prevent her from being heard.

[...]

Why?

The fact that Condoleeza Rice has not been prosecuted for her criminal conduct does not mean she didn't lie to protect a criminal and to facilitate a war crime that resulted in countless deaths and maiming? While her obvious and irrefutable culpability might escape the perception of the politically uninformed, the apathetic, the naïve, the racially biased and the hopelessly ignorant, it is an insult to the reasoning mind that a prestigious educational institution like Rutgers would invite such a disgraceful, reprehensible individual to address its student body and faculty.

While those who choose to ignore who and what Condoleeza Rice really is the students who protested the invitation are clearly aware of that reality. In spite of any academic achievements, this woman should be treated like the pariah she is rather than honored as a commencement speaker.

Because regardless of what you think of her -- and you oppose the wars under the bush administration - we get it -- a university should be a place for the open exchange of ideas and the recent tactic mostly from the political left to try to silence people really only hurts them in the eyes of the fair minded.

ok -- you say she committed a crime(s) which should diquaslify her from speaking. Please specify the crime you contend she committed but also realize that "war crime" is a generic term that does not identify any specific crime any more than the term "felony" does. What crime did she commit?

 

[MikeK]

Richard Clark was NEVER National Security Advisor. Richard Clark was an advisor on terrorism, but not on all the other national security issues the country was dealing with. Condi Rice was the Presidents National Security Advisor from January 20, 2001 to Janaury 20, 2005. After that she became Secretary of State.

You're right. Pardon my semantic error, which I'll correct as follows.

Clark was advisor to the President on matters of national security -- specifically terrorism, which is what this issue is about. And the fact that he was absolutely right in his admonitions about the 9/11 attack (which Bush quite deliberately ignored), and in his insistence that there was no reason to invade Iraq, makes it unmistakably clear that he was competent, whereas Rice was both incompetent and inclined to criminal conspiracy.

Better?

 

[MikeK]

[Because regardless of what you think of her -- and you oppose the wars under the bush administration - we get it -- a university should be a place for the open exchange of ideas and the recent tactic mostly from the political left to try to silence people really only hurts them in the eyes of the fair minded.

ok -- you say she committed a crime(s) which should diquaslify her from speaking. Please specify the crime you contend she committed but also realize that "war crime" is a generic term that does not identify any specific crime any more than the term "felony" does. What crime did she commit?

In addition to persistently participating in an ongoing conspiracy to facilitate the unlawful invasion of Iraq, she repeatedly perjured her testimony before Congress. Rep. Wexler Confronts Condoleezza Rice On Iraq War Lies; Demands Contempt Vote | Crooks and Liars

 

[U2Edge]

[Because regardless of what you think of her -- and you oppose the wars under the bush administration - we get it -- a university should be a place for the open exchange of ideas and the recent tactic mostly from the political left to try to silence people really only hurts them in the eyes of the fair minded.

ok -- you say she committed a crime(s) which should diquaslify her from speaking. Please specify the crime you contend she committed but also realize that "war crime" is a generic term that does not identify any specific crime any more than the term "felony" does. What crime did she commit?

In addition to persistently participating in an ongoing conspiracy to facilitate the unlawful invasion of Iraq, she repeatedly perjured her testimony before Congress. Rep. Wexler Confronts Condoleezza Rice On Iraq War Lies; Demands Contempt Vote | Crooks and Liars

Military action against Iraq was already authorized under resolution 678 passed by the UN Security Council in 1990. The same resolution the Clinton administration used to justify military action against Iraq every year from 1992 through 2000 in the form of bombing and airstrikes.

 

[U2Edge]

Richard Clark was NEVER National Security Advisor. Richard Clark was an advisor on terrorism, but not on all the other national security issues the country was dealing with. Condi Rice was the Presidents National Security Advisor from January 20, 2001 to Janaury 20, 2005. After that she became Secretary of State.

You're right. Pardon my semantic error, which I'll correct as follows.

Clark was advisor to the President on matters of national security -- specifically terrorism, which is what this issue is about. And the fact that he was absolutely right in his admonitions about the 9/11 attack (which Bush quite deliberately ignored), and in his insistence that there was no reason to invade Iraq, makes it unmistakably clear that he was competent, whereas Rice was both incompetent and inclined to criminal conspiracy.

Better?

Better. Clarke was wrong, and its a good thing he failed to prevent the removal of SADDAM HUSSIEN.

 

[auditor0007]

Recently Condi Rice was asked to give a speech at a graduation ceremony at Rutgers. However, some students protested her coming by chanting, "Condi's lies cost us lives".

As a result, Condi decided not to show up so as not to detract from day for the students.

For liberals, do you think this is a victory? Is this a good thing?

For conservatives, do you think this is a defeat, should she have gone anyway?

Being somewhat in the middle, I do not see this as a good thing. This was a loss for the students and the school. I think the following article pretty much sums up how I feel about this.

Rutgers students frustrated after Rice withdraws as commencement speaker | Fox News

 

[JoeB131]

This is the same university that had Snookie from the Jersey as a speaker Condi Rice is better served not being in the same company.

How many people have died because of policy decisions Snookie made?

 

[JoeB131]

Recently Condi Rice was asked to give a speech at a graduation ceremony at Rutgers. However, some students protested her coming by chanting, "Condi's lies cost us lives".

As a result, Condi decided not to show up so as not to detract from day for the students.

For liberals, do you think this is a victory? Is this a good thing?

For conservatives, do you think this is a defeat, should she have gone anyway?

Being somewhat in the middle, I do not see this as a good thing. This was a loss for the students and the school. I think the following article pretty much sums up how I feel about this.
rl]

I just don't see how having a bloviating public speaker on your day is a good thing.

I graduated from UIC in 1985, and they invited Vernon Jordan to be our commencement speaker. The only thing I remember about his speech is that he promised it would be long and boring, and he was true to his word.

Honestly, the whole thing smacks of stroking each other. They give these guys honorary degrees, they give boring speeches, and they kind of intrude on what should be an important day for the graduates.

It's a tradition that frankly, I think we can all do without.

Now, on to Rice, the real question is, should all those who perpetrated the Iraq War be allowed to filter back into polite society like they did nothing wrong?

I'm kind of thinking they shouldn't. Iraq was a disaster in every aspect of the word. the people responsible for it SHOULD be shunned.

If you want to honor someone, honor the guy who came back without his legs from Iraq because he did his duty.

 

[MikeK]

Military action against Iraq was already authorized under resolution 678 passed by the UN Security Council in 1990. The same resolution the Clinton administration used to justify military action against Iraq every year from 1992 through 2000 in the form of bombing and airstrikes.

The kind of military action authorized and conducted by the Clinton Administration, while unnecessarily cruel and oppressive, was in no way comparable to what the Bush-2 Administration did -- which was invade and occupy a sovereign nation with no just cause. That action cost thousands of American lives, the maiming of tens of thousands more, the death or maiming of an estimated million innocent Iraqis, the literal and unnecessary ruin of a highly civilized modern nation, the projected cost of trillions of dollars in American treasure, and the utter defamation of our Nation's reputation in the world.

What the Bush Administration did is an egregious war crime and everyone who willingly and consciously conspired in its preparation and execution, outstandingly including Cheney, Powell, and Rice, are clearly culpable. The fact that none of these criminals have been charged, but are freely and confidently able to appear in public, is glaring evidence of the perverse nature of contemporary American culture. We have become something depressingly and menacingly similar to Ancient Rome.

 

[Paperman299]

I detest the type of intloerance that the opponenets of Rice speaking at Rutgers represent to the extent they tried to prevent her from being heard.

[...]

Why?

The fact that Condoleeza Rice has not been prosecuted for her criminal conduct does not mean she didn't lie to protect a criminal and to facilitate a war crime that resulted in countless deaths and maiming? While her obvious and irrefutable culpability might escape the perception of the politically uninformed, the apathetic, the naïve, the racially biased and the hopelessly ignorant, it is an insult to the reasoning mind that a prestigious educational institution like Rutgers would invite such a disgraceful, reprehensible individual to address its student body and faculty.

While those who choose to ignore who and what Condoleeza Rice really is the students who protested the invitation are clearly aware of that reality. In spite of any academic achievements, this woman should be treated like the pariah she is rather than honored as a commencement speaker.

Because regardless of what you think of her -- and you oppose the wars under the bush administration - we get it -- a university should be a place for the open exchange of ideas and the recent tactic mostly from the political left to try to silence people really only hurts them in the eyes of the fair minded.

ok -- you say she committed a crime(s) which should diquaslify her from speaking. Please specify the crime you contend she committed but also realize that "war crime" is a generic term that does not identify any specific crime any more than the term "felony" does. What crime did she commit?

Again - Rice was not coming to the university for an "open exchange of ideas." She was not trying to get a paper published, nor was she about to give a speech aimed at poli-sci majors. She was coming to inspire students as some "exemplary" figure. The protest of the students and faculty is the only "open exchange of ideas" which occurred in this story. Her ideas are not, and never have been, in jeopardy of not being heard.

Should Dr. Rice be found guilty of a crime? It's hard to say, since there will never be a trial. But here's what we do know:

Either she missed or overlooked numerous warnings from intelligence agencies seeking to put caveats on claims about Iraq's nuclear weapons program, or she made public claims that she knew to be false.

 

[Camp]

Here is what I don't understand. Everyone got behind Obama for taking out Gaddafi in Libya because we were all told that he would potentially kill lots of innocent people.

However, Saddam took out an entire city of Kurds with WMD's. Yes, that's right, WMDs! He killed far more people than Gaddafi ever could have.

But it is OK for Obama to do what he did but not "W"?

I believe that "W" may have lied about WMD's. (Shrug)

But that is what politicians do, they lie and to think that Obama as not done his fair share of lying is absurd.

Gaddafi took out these folks.

http://victimsofpanamflight103.org/victims