Continuing the age old tradition of arcana imperii in the interests of raison d’etat, Dr Condoleeza Rice has refused to be drawn on “interrogation techniques” in her confirmation hearing, saying that going into details would not be in the interests of “American security”:
Rice assured lawmakers the administration would never condone torture, but insisted “the al-Qaeda people were not part” of the Geneva conventions.
Condoleezza Rice… named Cuba, Burma, Belarus and Zimbabwe as “outposts of tyranny” requiring close US attention. Early in Bush’s first term, he listed Iraq, Iran and North Korea as part of an “axis of evil” in the post-September 11 era – the United States later invaded Iraq, ousting longtime dictator Saddam Hussein.
Tim Dunlop at Road to Surfdom has much more on Condi’s confirmation while The Currency Lad argues the case for Condi.
UPDATE: Tim continues to follow the story and the Boston Herald reports that Massachussetts Senators Kennedy and Kerry plan to oppose Rice’s nomination.
I will like to first say, the nomination by George W. Bush, President of Dr. Condoleeza Rice to the post of Secretary of State is, indeed, an remark that African American and African American women are part of the political world. This discount any views that African American do not produced the essential qualities that are benefitting to the Foriegn and Domestic Relations in the global society.
Dr. Rice has a tremendous and profound career in International Relations and Political Science. She has proven to be well-qualified for the post. I know that Dr. Rice will prove her critcs wrong that she lack the fundamental objectives to lead the State Department.
As Senator J. Biden stated, ” The President have the right too have his cabinet with the people of his chosing.”
This hearing should not have focused on the war in Irag. Senators Boxer, Kerry, and Kennedy overlooked the qualification of the nominee and focused on the commitment that Dr. Rice has for the President and her post or present post that she reside in. I wonder is this an act of bias against the President or is it a statement that they are opposing every decision that the President is making for his administration. We often wonder, why is there no bipartisanship. This is a reflection by the Democrats that they are not willing to work with the President and his views. The people on November 2, 2004, voted that George W. Bush will represent us as our Commander-in-Chief, Executive Branch, and voice. However, the Senators that voted against the nomination of a dynamic ambassador is truly not hearing the voice of the American people.
I’m truly happy and gleeful over the confirmation. However, it was perturbing that it took so long for the confirmation. The President had every right to have his Secretary of State in her position during the inagural ceremony. Nevertheless, the President and the Secretary, Dr. Rice is at the point that they intended. I, as a African American is truly elated that this time in history is upon the African American race.
“The President had every right to have his Secretary of State in her position during the inagural ceremony.”
why? the Senate has a constitutional right to advise and consent to nominations for Cabinet posts.
Dr Rice was clearly responsible for advice to Bush on the Iraq War as NSA. as an American citizen, I’m grateful to the Democratic Senators (particularly Sen. Boxer) for raising these points.
this whole argument that nominees should be rushed through (and anything else is “partisanship”) is absurd – it’s contradictory to democracy and accountability as well as to the constitutional rights and duties of the Senate.