Mengxin Posted January 28, 2005 Report Share Posted January 28, 2005 I'm suprised nobodys brought it up yet, but then again I haven't read too deep into the threads yet. We have a new Sec. of State now. We also have a new Chief of Homeland Security and National Security Advisor. I think (hope) the changes are going to be a positive ones going into the future. Just wondering if anyone felt the same, or even cared. I read this article and sort of got a warm fuzzy after reading it, about the US relations with China and Russia. I liked the way Rice stayed cool when getting grilled over 911 and the Iraq war. This woman knows what's up. Here's a cut from the article...http://www.iht.com/articles/2005/01/27/news/rice.html Rice was sworn in Wednesday evening, hours after the Senate confirmed her by a vote of 85 to 13. Rice, who is the second woman and the first black woman to become secretary of state, took the oath of office in a private ceremony at the White House. She was sworn in soon after 7 p.m. by the White House chief of staff, Andrew Card Jr. .Her former deputy, Stephen Hadley, was sworn in soon afterward as her successor as national security adviser. The president did not attend the event. .In her remarks Thursday, she recalled that this was not the first time she had worked at the State Department: In 1977, during the Carter administration, she was an intern in the Bureau of Educational and Cultural Affairs. "There's a lesson in that," she told her new staff. "Be good to your interns." .At the end of next week, after Bush's State of the Union address, Rice is expected to travel to Europe and possibly to the Middle East, according to European diplomats who are already planning for the trip. The wide-ranging agenda, they said, would concentrate on peace talks involving Israel and the Palestinians, the war in Iraq, Iran's nuclear program and attempts to spread democracy in the region. Relations with Russia and China would also be discussed, including Europe's plans to ease restrictions on arms sales to China, which Washington opposes. ---I like the line about being good to your interns. Remind you of anyone? Link to comment
Trigg Posted January 28, 2005 Report Share Posted January 28, 2005 Nope-ain't gonna go there---NONONONONO Link to comment
hypoclear Posted January 28, 2005 Report Share Posted January 28, 2005 Nope-ain't gonna go there---NONONONONOcome on... don't be shy.. tell us how you really feel!? Mark and Bea and Elizabeth Link to comment
ghall20 Posted January 28, 2005 Report Share Posted January 28, 2005 Nope-ain't gonna go there---NONONONONOIm sure all the heads of nations where women don't have equal rights will listen to her...................with there ear plugs in As Scotty said in Star Treck---You need the right tool for the right Job.. Link to comment
bandj Posted January 28, 2005 Report Share Posted January 28, 2005 We've always heard about females being kinder and gentler and not up to all that macho (i'm tougher than you!) BS guys usually get caught up in (which is not great when you are our chief diplomat) . Give her a chance - I think she's gonna be great! Link to comment
Trigg Posted January 28, 2005 Report Share Posted January 28, 2005 We've always heard about females being kinder and gentler and not up to all that macho (i'm tougher than you!) BS guys usually get caught up in (which is not great when you are our chief diplomat) . Give her a chance - I think she's gonna be great!Ya really think so huh??? I have always heard that past perfomances are the greatest predictor of future performances--Done i ahve said enough--Ain't gonna put a dog in this fight--uh uh-no, zero, zilch, nada, nu uh, bu sing.. Link to comment
pkfops Posted January 28, 2005 Report Share Posted January 28, 2005 Colin L. Powell is a combat soldier; he has special insight in topeople and world events. He has seen human beings at their worst. I knew he would never stay on. Conflicts with G.W.? Remember the "pretzel" incident? MoonCafe should be able to answer. Link to comment
Robert S. Posted January 28, 2005 Report Share Posted January 28, 2005 This post needs to be deleted. Discussion of politics is banned from CFL. Perhaps the original poster has not been around long enough to know this. On looking again, I see M. has been here over a year now. Link to comment
tywy_99 Posted January 28, 2005 Report Share Posted January 28, 2005 Sorry Robert S., just wanted to add my 2c in. Colin Powell- I've always liked the man. I thought he had done a good job, especially since his name was stamped on my marrying papers to take to China!... But- I remember seeing Mike Wallace(I think) interview Powell right after Desert Storm and Wallace asked Powell, "will you ever get into politics?" Powell said, "No. I don't have the "stomach" for it." ...This I remember clearly. That is why I was surprised to see him in office. And at the end, it kind of looked like his statement of some 13 years ago had come true.At the end, it looked like Powell had no stomach left at all for politics. Maybe that's why he left. Link to comment
pkfops Posted January 28, 2005 Report Share Posted January 28, 2005 I don't mean any ill will. As a vet I respect Colin Powell. He got reemed and said no more. I'm not that fond of politics. We just have to deal with it. As far as I'm concerned I'm the guy who carried a rifle and has seen how things are. I just want my paper work to go throughbefore there is a shift in policy. Some Americans are happy in their trailerpark and some want to reach out and touchthe world. Link to comment
chrisnhong Posted January 29, 2005 Report Share Posted January 29, 2005 Pardon my ignorance, but looking at it from afar... It's my understanding that the Secretary of State is supposed to argue the diplomatic solution to problems to the president. The Secretary of Defense is supposed to argue the military solution... If the SecState doesn't do his job in this fashion, then the US may get tangled up in wars that it may have been better off staying out of. The precedent that I have read of is that Robert MacNamara completely overpowered Dean Rusk in the early 60s, allowing .... Is this right? My apologies if I'm completely off the mark. ??? Link to comment
Trigg Posted January 29, 2005 Report Share Posted January 29, 2005 Pardon my ignorance, but looking at it from afar... It's my understanding that the Secretary of State is supposed to argue the diplomatic solution to problems to the president. The Secretary of Defense is supposed to argue the military solution... If the SecState doesn't do his job in this fashion, then the US may get tangled up in wars that it may have been better off staying out of. The precedent that I have read of is that Robert MacNamara completely overpowered Dean Rusk in the early 60s, allowing .... Is this right? My apologies if I'm completely off the mark. ???You ain't wrong!!! Some presidents want a diplomat for the job, some want a soldier and some want someone who will say "Yes masser, you right masser'!!!!!!! Link to comment
ptcrusier333rph Posted January 29, 2005 Report Share Posted January 29, 2005 trigg ouch! wincing Link to comment
Trigg Posted January 29, 2005 Report Share Posted January 29, 2005 trigg ouch! wincingJust sayin' it like I see it. I'll shutup now. Link to comment
Orrin Posted January 29, 2005 Report Share Posted January 29, 2005 Yep.....sorta reminds me of some clown from Arkansas who "never inhaled" or "had sex with that woman" Anyone remember who that might have been? Link to comment
Recommended Posts