Cynical Nation

Or it could be that she didn't exactly do a great job as NSA so why should she receive a promotion? And um, I don't know that she's terribly diplomatic. Smart, yes. Diplomatic? I realize that that's not all a Secretary of State is, but it is part of the job.

I would have voted to confirm Rice. That said, Powell receives more respect from me because he has earned it in my mind. At numerous points, I have found Powell to speak independently, often with great clarity on a number of issues, before and during this administration including such matters as the wisdom in whether to observe the Geneva Convention as well as the wisdom to go to war in Iraq.

Even when Powell makes mistakes, he speaks with clarity. Rice, on the other hand, continously obfuscates. While she is not the first bureaucrat to do so and hardly the first to be confirmed as Secretary of State, I have listened to her and read her articles prior to the Bush administration and I have never been impressed with the contents or the wisdom contained.

I wasn't that impressed with Madeline Albright that much either, but what I hear from the conservatives regarding the reasons they admire Rice so much, that she is attractive, poised, and that her testimony confounds liberals are not qualities that I personally admire. Yes, she is a success story and I understand Donna Brazille's pride in her achieving what she has as a black woman. However, the only similarity with her and Colin Powell is their race.

I would have voted to confirm her, but I think that hard questioning was in order. While some of the questions could have been better, I wasn't much impressed with her answers either.

If the conclusion about President Bush is that he is "stupid", then Dr. Rice must be "incompetent" for sharing the "stupid" President's vision.

See how easy that is?

Or it could be that the minority has legitimate questions for Dr. Rice regarding how she gathered, analyzed and disseminated information in the runup to the war.

However, in your case, CRB, expressing contempt for those that question how the war was handled is always the easier approach.

I have a drinking buddy who's favorite drink is vodka and Red Bull. I haven't tried it yet myself.

Well, then I stand corrected. Dr. Rice's testimony was extremely impressive coming as it was after nights of Red Bulls and Stolis.

It's simple - Condi is ChimpyBushHitler's puppet who is Dick Cheney's puppet who is controled by Karl Rove via a microtransmitter implanted in his lip, which, by the way, is why 'ol Dick always has that mean sneer on his face.

I hate Republicans. They stole the election.

I'm not claiming Madeline Albright was brilliant, nor am I claiming Powell was he blew his rep with me when his UN presentation proved to be a lot of hot air.

Rice, Ruhmsfeld, Powell - all of these guys were less than genuine with the american people throughout this fiasco. Now personally I think it would be nice if the president cleaned house of all of them. He can find plenty of other people who share his vision - I don't expect him to appoint the likes of Janet Reno for instance. That's why I don't think Gonzales is a bad choice. He wasn't out there spreading disinformation. The others were IMO.

Of course Bush was reelected by the american people so he's free to do what he wants. But I wouldn't have voted to confirm Condi - not because I feel that she shares Bush's views, as I said I would expect a nominee who shared his views. I would have voted against her because I feel she has already failed to do right by the american people once already. You might disagree - but that's how I see it.

And it really is sad that not one republican really had any question of substance for her. Instead we got to hear what her name means, and we got to hear that we shouldn't take past failures into consideration. (I'm paraphrasing)

I can't find any link to give information of who in the Senate voted against Condoleezze Rice?

I can't find any link to give information of who in the Senate voted against Condoleezze Rice?