Condi Rice on Rose last night.

[gonzomax]

http://www.charlierose.com/guests/condoleezza-rice
Here is the half hour of Rice on Charlie Rose last night. She is still a believer. She did shock Rose when she pointed out that there are no intentions to leave Iraq at all.
She did clean up pretty good though.

[XT]

Whats the debate? That she is still part of the administration? That she doesn't feel we will be leaving Iraq soon? Or that she 'cleans up well'...whatever THAT means?

-XT

[Malodorous]

Aimless aside: I just realized I don't know who took Rice's place as National Security Advisor. Apparenlty its this guy (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Stephen_Hadley). Kind of odd one doesn't hear much about him at a time when National Security is so much in the news.

[Cervaise]

Aimless aside: I just realized I don't know who took Rice's place as National Security Advisor. Apparenlty its this guy (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Stephen_Hadley). Kind of odd one doesn't hear much about him at a time when National Security is so much in the news.That's because he keeps saying stupid stuff (http://thinkprogress.org/2007/01/29/hadley-escalation).

[gonzomax]

Trust me XT there is plenty here for debate. She says for instance that there are no plans to leave Iraq at all. Rose gasped when she said we will have permanent bases and she can see no way for us to leave. I wonder why she didn't address the next administrations right to change it all.

[Marley23]

She says for instance that there are no plans to leave Iraq at all.
That's not much of a surprise, but if the Democrats have any sense they'll be all over it soon.

[Malodorous]

Rose gasped when she said we will have permanent bases and she can see no way for us to leave. I wonder why she didn't address the next administrations right to change it all.

Well, the administration is still holding onto the belief that things are going to turn around in Iraq and a democratically elected gov't strong enough to secure the country will arise. If that does happen, I imagine that some sort US presence will remain in the country regardless of whom the next Prez is, so her saying that we plan to stay there is basically just a repetiton of the administrations belief that things are going to get better soon.

[XT]

Trust me XT there is plenty here for debate.

Well then...what did you want to debate exactly? You have to put SOMETHING out to debate you know.

She says for instance that there are no plans to leave Iraq at all.

This is a surprise how exactly? Bush has been saying this all along. Did you not believe him or something? Has Condi said anything to give a different impression?

Rose gasped when she said we will have permanent bases and she can see no way for us to leave.

Is Rose an authority? I don't understand how this is relevent...but then, you haven't layed out a debate yet so maybe it is. Could you explain why Rose being surprised by the unsurprising is...well a surprise? :p


Seriously gonzo...drive by posts are bad enough. Starting a drive by thread is much worse. How about putting in a bit more work and at least saying what it is you want to debate here...

-XT

[ralph124c]

I have to wonder about Condoleeza-at first I thought: "gee. Stanford Ph.D."-she MUST be smart. Now I realize that she's just a flack-she parrots the administration line on everything.
I'll be interested to see her memoirs-wonder what she'll have to say about iraq.

[XT]

I have to wonder about Condoleeza-at first I thought: "gee. Stanford Ph.D."-she MUST be smart. Now I realize that she's just a flack-she parrots the administration line on everything.

If she didn't parrot the administration line she wouldn't be part of this or any other administration. Folks who don't toe the line are rarely kept in high positions of power in the US...regardless of who is in power.

BTW, she IS pretty smart...regardless of what she is parrotting.

I'll be interested to see her memoirs-wonder what she'll have to say about iraq.

At a guess, it depends on how things work out and what the mood of the country is wrt Bush and Iraq when she gets around to writting them. :p I'm cynical enough to know that her book will be remarkable in line with whatever she and the publisher thinks will sell more books...

-XT

[gonzomax]

What I have trouble dealing with,is how she stayed in the same spot. There have been serious worldwide consequences due to the neocon philosophy being turned into policy. Yet she sees . Yet she acts like it was all understandable. She still backs the outrageous WMD claims. Hell even Tenet said Sadaam ordered the WMD investigators out. The lies continue.

[XT]

You ever consider the thought that maybe she isn't lieing...that she is either wrong or simply looks at it differently or is in denial? No, of course you never considered that...

Whats the debate again? That Condi is delusional? That she is lieing? That she is hasn't changed her position on Iraq despite the shift in public sentiment?

-XT

[gonzomax]

I could tell you what I think but you got it all figured out.
Wait, you are wrong. I figure that most neocons and most members of the administration do believe their actions are just and proper. I believe that it is very likely Condi believed that Iraq had WMD. I also believe she was offered evidence that it did not. I believe she thought Sadaam was after nukes. However she decided that in the face of available contrary information. I believe she and the Shrub actually thought they could walk into Iraq and convince the cicizens that we had a better life for them. I believe they did not really know what what life was like in Iraq.
I also believe oil was a big reason we are there. The oil is still there. We are still there. I mentioned she has not changed. The approval ratings of the administration has dropped like a rock. The repubs lost an important election. The people are changing and Rice and Bush are not.
I also think you are a snarky jerk.

[XT]

I also think you are a snarky jerk.

I AM a 'snarky jerk' (though you really shouldn't say so here in GD...you should open a Pit thread)...and you STILL haven't laid out an actual, honest to Marx debate.

Let me spell it out for you without 'snark'. Put some effort into crafting an OP. Put some points out to debate. Give us something to work with. Don't just drop a link with some cryptic BS and then expect an interesting discussion. What about the interview do you want to debate? What did you find interesting/wrong/debate worthy?

Its hard for me to believe that you STILL haven't figured any of this stuff out...

-XT

[Garfield226]

I also believe oil was a big reason we are there. The oil is still there. We are still there.
So...if oil is why we are there, is that the reason the average is up over $3.00/gallon now?

[Squink]

So...if oil is why we are there, is that the reason the average is up over $3.00/gallon now?Perhaps because the massive flow of Iraqi oil that was supposed to pay for reconstruction never happened.
On March 27, 2003, U.S. House and Senate panels heard testimony on the cost of the war in Iraq as part of a lobbying effort for the Administration’s $75 billion supplemental Iraq spending package. Senator Charles Grassley said, “I want to make sure the American taxpayers are not saddled with any of the costs of rebuilding Iraq that can be legitimately paid for, under international law, out of the resources of Iraq.” He outlined the legal argument for using Iraqi oil to fund reconstruction, pointing out that both the Hague Convention of 1907, and the Geneva Convention authorized an occupying power to use state-owned property for this purpose. The Bush administration also hopes to put to use $1.4 billion that has been frozen in U.S. banks since the first Gulf War.

Clearly, the U.S. is counting heavily on Iraqi oil to fund the administration’s reconstruction plan. According to the U.S. Energy Information Administration, "Iraq holds more than 112 billion barrels of oil - the world's second largest proven reserves. Iraq also contains 110 trillion cubic feet of natural gas, and is a focal point for regional and international security issues." (see http://www.eia.doe.gov) In December 2002, Iraq was the seventh largest source of imported oil to the United States.http://globalenvision.org/index.php?category=7&fuseaction=library.print&itemid=407&printerfriendly=1
Deputy Defense Secretary Paul Wolfowitz: “There’s a lot of money to pay for this that doesn’t have to be U.S. taxpayer money, and it starts with the assets of the Iraqi people…and on a rough recollection, the oil revenues of that country could bring between $50 and $100 billion over the course of the next two or three years…We’re dealing with a country that can really finance its own reconstruction, and relatively soon.”http://www.house.gov/schakowsky/iraqquotes_web.htm

[gonzomax]

So...if oil is why we are there, is that the reason the average is up over $3.00/gallon now?
They want to control the price not lower it. They need to control the supply. Sadaam was a wild card and exceeded his OPEC quota or blackmarketed the oil. He could not be controlled.

[tomndebb]

I also think you are a snarky jerk. You've been here long enough to know that is prohibited in GD.

Cool down. Back off. Or take it to the Pit.

[ /Moderating ]

[Zoe]

gonzomax: She says for instance that there are no plans to leave Iraq at all.

xtisme: This is a surprise how exactly? Bush has been saying this all along.

I'm not so sure that Bush has been saying this all along. I think there has been speculation all along and some evidence of the intention to build permanent bases. But hasn't the script always been that when the time was right, we would turn the rains over to the new Democratic society of Iraq and let them get on with ruling their own country?

Please cite for Bush saying that there are no plans to leave Iraq at all and/or Bush stating that we are building or will build permanent bases in Iraq. I don't need evidence of bases going up -- just of Bush admitting it or of his admitting that that is the plan.

Thanks.

[marshmallow]

Zoe, there are plenty of occasions where Bush has said the U.S. will not withdraw troops from Iraq as long as he is in charge. It follows that they would therefore have no plans for withdrawing. So this probably wouldn't count as a 'long term' occupation.

AFAIK, Bush has never even acknowledged the existence of the enduring bases. I can't find it in a quick 'n' dirty search.

[XT]

Please cite for Bush saying that there are no plans to leave Iraq at all and/or Bush stating that we are building or will build permanent bases in Iraq. I don't need evidence of bases going up -- just of Bush admitting it or of his admitting that that is the plan.

Turn it around...show me an instance where Bush said we will be leaving Iraq any time soon. He has repeatedly said that we will 'stay the course', etc etc...and if you REALLY want a cite on that I guess I could dig one up. I know of no instance where he said anything other that some vague handwaving about leaving when Iraq is fully peaceful (as if THATS going to happen soon)...feel free to find such an instance though.

As for the bases, I'm sure I can dig up something on them if you are interested. AFAIK they were built in the early days...not sure what the current plan for them are. I'll see what I can dig up....while you dig up that cite of Bush saying we'll be leaving sometime. :p

-XT

[gonzomax]

I'm not so sure that Bush has been saying this all along. I think there has been speculation all along and some evidence of the intention to build permanent bases. But hasn't the script always been that when the time was right, we would turn the rains over to the new Democratic society of Iraq and let them get on with ruling their own country?

Please cite for Bush saying that there are no plans to leave Iraq at all and/or Bush stating that we are building or will build permanent bases in Iraq. I don't need evidence of bases going up -- just of Bush admitting it or of his admitting that that is the plan.

Thanks.
She said we will step down when they step up.

[XT]

She said we will step down when they step up.

Isn't that pretty much what Bush et al has been saying all along?

-XT