Condi takes historical analogies to an absurd level

September 5, 2006

Last week, top administration officials, including Bush, Cheney, and Rumsfeld, equated the war in Iraq with fighting [tag]Nazis[/tag] in World War II. As part of this analogy, the Bush gang made its critics out to be Neville Chamberlain — as if troop redeployment in Iraq is the moral equivalent of appeasing Hitler.

As if that weren’t quite offensive enough, [tag]Condoleezza Rice[/tag] has upped the ante a bit, suggesting that opponents of the war are the moral equivalent of those who would tolerate slavery in 19th century America.

Secretary of State Rice compared the Iraq war with the [tag]American[/tag] [tag]Civil War[/tag], telling a magazine that [tag]slavery[/tag] might have lasted longer in this country if the North had decided to end the fight early.

“I’m sure there are people who thought it was a mistake to fight the Civil War to its end and to insist that the emancipation of [tag]slaves[/tag] would hold,” Rice said in the new issue of Essence magazine.

“I know there were people who said, ‘Why don’t we get out of this now, take a peace with the South, but leave the South with slaves?'” Rice said.

Now, I know that Rice, like much of today’s Republican Party, is desperate. I realize that this appears to be a challenging campaign cycle for the GOP, and they’re willing to engage in whatever demagoguery necessary to survive the next 10 weeks.

But to suggest, out loud, on the record, that critics of the war in Iraq are similar to those who would approve of slavery is perhaps the most breathtakingly stupid remark ever uttered by a Bush administration official. And given the competition, that’s no easy feat.

Ironically, Rice was supposed to be the level-headed one. Just today, Eugene Robinson complemented the Secretary of State for her less-reckless language — while Bush, Cheney, and Rumsfeld were drawing on Nazi analogies, Rice also appeared before the American Legion convention and simply referred to the enemy in the war on terrorism as “violent extremists,” which, as Robinson noted, “sounds so 2006.”

But Rice’s decision to use reasonable rhetoric apparently didn’t last. Also note the choice of publications: Rice didn’t use the Iraq opponents = slavery supporters argument on Meet the Press; she used it in an interview with Essence magazine, which has predominantly African-American readers. It’s about as subtle as a sledgehammer — Rice was effectively telling black voters, “Democratic criticism of the [tag]war[/tag] is analogous to opposition to the Civil War. Unless you like slavery, vote Republican.”

Maybe Rice thought that Essence’s circulation is small enough that these comments wouldn’t cause a stir. Maybe she no longer cares. Either way, the Secretary of State needs to apologize for her inanity.

This Administration has train wreck written all over it. -Kevo

  • Ummm, Condi?

    You DO know who makes up the Republican Base today, right?

    That’s right, Condi – the ones who owned the slaves, and wanted to keep them.

    You might want to rethink your schtick.

  • Have we all forgotten the stretched analogy that Condoleeza made in 2004 between a post-WWII Nazi anti-occupation insurgency (which, as it turns out, didn’t actually exist, for a half-dozen obvious and compelling reasons) and the then-current insurgency in Iraq? And this is a woman with an advanced degree in Soviet affairs? You know, the polity that bore the principle credit for destroying the Third Reich and the principle charge of occupying Germany. And, who schemed and actively oppressed the German people afterward, which is to say was intimately involved in postwar German affairs.

    This is wanton wankery. They assume we’re all stupid.

  • She is correct in the fact that there was a strong “peacenik” side in the opposing (Democrat) party who were pressing for an end to hostilities. Had McClellan lost at Antietam in 1882 or had Meade lost at Gettysburg in 1883, the Dems looking to unseat Lincoln and the Repubs from power could have played that trump card. However, the difference between then and now is that Lincoln had his generals delivering a set of clear wins (eventually – at least no clear losses) which allowed him to continue his platform of bringing the southern states back into the Union. Today we don’t have that same clarity of successes leading to eventual victory.

  • Good God, what next? Compare Iraq to the War of 1812?! “The Democrats would have allowed Washington to be burnt by the British!” Oh wait….

  • I think someone should point out to Dr. Rice that both sides in their (not yet) Civil War in Iraq want to oppress women. That is the equivilent of the Second American War of Independence (okay, the American Civil War 😉 ). So basically, Condi is saying we should stay in Iraq and support the moral equivilents of slave holders on both sides. And if it’s bad in Iraq, it is even worse in Afghanistan (where our flyboys gaily go around killing Canadians) for women.

    No, Dr. Rice. You are the person who is supporting the drug growers, warlords and oppressors of women. Don’t come crying to us about moral equivilency.

  • “I know there were people who said, ‘Why don’t we get out of this now, take a peace with the South, but leave the South with slaves?'” Rice said.

    Er … isn’t that what happened, more or less?

  • “Had McClellan lost at Antietam in 1882 or had Meade lost at Gettysburg in 1883” – J.

    Your third grade history teacher is tearing her hair out, you know.

    That’s two decades late 😉 1862 and 1863!

    But your point is correct, which is why I would not counter attack Dr. Rice directly. The pacifist opposition to the Civil War (excuse, the War of Northern Agression 😉 ) felt it quite acceptable to leave the South as an intact slave-holding country. To them, the eventual millions of dead were not worth the cost.

    Of course, the North did, in the end, under the presistent leadership of President Lincoln, win. But the costs were huge and in some ways, still not paid off today.

    And of course, I don’t see the opposition to this war as the same as the opposition to the ACW. But I think Condi is a lot closer to the truth than Cheney or Rumsfeld, not further from it as CB suggests.

  • But our role in Iraq isn’t comparable to either side in our Civil War. We’re more like the French.

    And I know the French wouldn’t have signed up for populating the Mason-Dixon line with troops, or quelling uprisings in the Al-Atlanta province.

  • Of course, there’s another parallel: The Republicans’ Party fucked that occupation up, too, and effectively gave up on it within three years.

  • “Er … isn’t that what happened, more or less?” – bart

    defacto if not dejuro! Once peace was signed, one objective of the North was achieved, continuity of the Union. When Reconstruction was ended, the South had but one thing left, the ability to oppress African-Americans. They had lost their bid for indepedence, their ability to spread their culture west, their wealth and priviledge, their relative position to the rest of the country, and their laws of slavery. But they got to stand next to the ditch to make sure their former slaves could not get out of it.

    Why, of course, anyone wants to stand next to the ditch ????

  • The problem that we all have to address, though, is that the Republican base, and some portion of Independents/Undecideds, actually buy this kind of argument. And there’s some logic to it — we need to face that. If this war is really like the Civil War in all important respects, then we do need to keep fighting it (setting aside for a moment the fact that I wouldn’t really call what the administration is doing fighting the war). What we’re all reacting to here is the fact that this kind of statement is just really good PR; it paints anyone who disagrees as not just an idiot already “proven” wrong by history, but a racist as well. But we don’t do ourselves any favors by just saying that the statement is absurd because it’s over the top. That just makes us sound like sore losers. We need to ignore the inflammatory implications of the comment and attack the logic directly:

    “This war is nothing like the American Civil War, and what we’re doing there now is highly unlikely to result in better conditions for the Iraqi people or the region.”

    … or, we could use their own logic against them:

    “Well, Condi, we’re sure there are people who thought we should have stayed the course in Vietnam, too … the question is, do you agree with them?”

  • What I find interesting is that all these speeches seem to be have been made to the American Legion. Once again, they are afraid of leaving the bubble.

  • Let’s not forget, either, that the Civil War was NOT about ending slavery when it began. It was about “restoring the Union.” But the war, like most wars, suffered from a case of “mission creep.”

    Next time she tries this analogy, someone should raise that point and see how it plays.

  • Civil war is a sign of progress. We did it, so can they. Come on, people! Get with the program.

    “It’s not easy work, by the way, to go from tyranny to democracy. We had kind of a round go ourself, if you look back at our history. My Secretary of State’s relatives were enslaved in the United States even though we had a Constitution that said all were — that believed in the dignity, or at least proclaimed to believe in the dignity of all. The Articles of Confederation wasn’t exactly a real smooth start for our government to begin. And what you’re watching on your TV screens is a new democracy emerging.” G.W. Bush, April 24, 2006.

  • Lance – I got three out of the four digits right…

    (shamefully blushing) – thanks for the correction. You know what I meant.

  • what a bunch of road apples… they’re throwing out everything but the kitchen sink and i fully expect that to come flying out as well… they’re so used to inciting the base and throwing gasoline on the fire and seeing it flare up, they’re not going to stop trying the same old tricks…

    And, yes, I DO take it personally

  • And what about those few Seattle Mariners fans who still hope for a place in the playoffs?

    Sorry. Condi’s analogy — or, rather, my attempt to comprehend it — just blew my logic circuits.

    I’m now thinking of a “Believe it or Don’t” segment in an old Mad magazine: “Although the Moon is only 1/28th the size of Earth … it is FARTHER AWAY!“

  • Speaking of silly historical analogies, isn’t Condi implying–in a round about way–that George W. Bush is the Abraham Lincoln of our time? In particular, that Bush’s mission to “stay the course” is the moral equivalent of the abolitionist’s crusade–made real by Lincoln–to end slavery.

    These idiots will readily trash Republican party history–the only good part of their history–for the sake of saving George W. Bush’s sorry ass.

    Pitiful. Shameful.

  • Wasn’t Condi Rice the one who told the press in 2000 that both the Civil War and the Civil Rights Movement were unnecessary because the South was coming to the realization in the 19th Century that slavery didn’t make economic sense, and that the southern resistance to civil rights was “wearing down”?

    Is there anything this woman has been right on? Anything? Wasn’t she still convinced in 1992 that the Soviet Union was a threat?

    The gall of these people shows no bounds, which clearly demonstrates just how terrified they are of what’s going to happen on Judgement Day (November 7).

  • Had McClellan lost at Antietam in 1882 or had Meade lost at Gettysburg in 1883, the Dems looking to unseat Lincoln and the Repubs from power could have played that trump card.

    Ummmmm…. subtract 20 years here.

  • Rather than get into the weeds of whether or not this comparison makes any sense, I’ll just note that Rice’s argument works equally well (or badly) at justifying the endless continuation of any conflict. Simply imagine that if you achieve complete victory that you will impose your benevolence on all malefactors, and thus ignore any consideration of whether or not victory is likely, possible, or achievable at a reasonable cost. Indeed, in the current situation, we have only the vaguest notion of what victory would even look like.

    Bad historical analogies are a way to avoid facing the specifics of what we are doing.

  • if Condi were in the Lincoln administration and read a PDB saying, “Jefferson Davis determined to secede from inside the U.S.,” she would have undoubtedly described it as a “historical document” and then defend herself by saying, “Nobody could have predicted, nobody could have imagined the southern states’ secession.”

    What an incompetent person.

  • Of course, there’s another parallel: The Republicans’ Party fucked that occupation up, too, and effectively gave up on it within three years.

    The occupation of the South by Federal troops didn’t end until 1877. Pulling the troops out was part of the deal the Democrats made with the Republicans in return for a corrupt agreement to allow the loser of the 1876 election — Rutherford B. Hayes (known thereafter as “His Fraudulence”) — to become President. In return for the stolen Presidency, the Republicans abandoned the former slaves to the tender mercies of the southern white-racist Democrats, with the sad results of which we should all be aware.

  • A liar’s analogy always includes “there are those…” or “Some have…”, without ever naming anyone. Some have said Condi is a lying cunt. There are those who believe that Condi has no soul. Not me though, I don’t say things like that. I’m a classy guy.

  • Historic analogy or not, this is typical GOP fare: cloud up the issues, divert the people’s attention from the facts, tack inappropriate labels on the opposition, scare people to death, take facts out of context to support an otherwise unsupportable position, and so on. We should not allow such garbage to detract us from the fact that irrespective of history, we are involved in a trumped up, illegal, and unnecessary war that is costing us dearly in terms of deaths of our finest, leaving thousands more incapacitated for life, killing of thousands of innocents, and continuing a war that simply cannot be won by military force! And, the billions of dollars of treasure that could be used to actually provide us real homeland security, medical care for everyone, education for our young, help for the poor, and it goes on and on. Don’t let them detract us from the TRUE and relevant facts.

  • Everytime I hear the Chamberlain analogy, I keep wondering what the position of the Republican party was in 1938. And Prescott Bush in particular. I wonder if there are any good quotes which could be unearthed.

    I also think the picture of Rumsfeld shaking Saddam’s hand in 1983 ought to be posted right next to any article where an administration figure invokes appeasement.

    You know, Lincoln was committed to actually winning the Civil War. He relieved generals when he lost confidence in them. Name one general who has been relieved of command in Iraq.

  • “I’m sure there were people in the Rebel Alliance who were saying ‘You know, it’s a mistake to fight Emperor Palpatine to the end’.”

    Either that, or Condi will next defend the Iraq quagmire wth The Little Puppy Who Lost His Way analogy from Billy Madison.

    VOR,
    You have it the wrong way. Incompetence shrouded in blind obedience is not only welcome, but encouraged in the Bush administration.

  • WTF? Why is anyone taking this analogy even remotely serious? Wanting to leave Iraq is like not supporting the North in the American Civil War?! She set up a straw man . She’d rather argue about the correctness of supporting slavery than whether or not we should be dying in Iraq for a lost cause. For a parrallel to be even remotely close, France would have had to have been occupying the Americas keeping the North and South from all-out open warfare. We would be France in that analogy. Is that what happened? No. So there is no strategic equivalence. Is there is a moral equivelance? Compare – Civil War: North v. South in an internal, bloody conflict – the stakes are to preserve a union torn over the issue of slavery. Iraq: A thousand year conflict amongst the Shia, Sunni’s and Kurds over religion and ethnicity. Add the United States and stir; Season with oil, terrorism, and a helping of Iran, Israeli boogey men and radical Islam. Bake for three years. The stakes? Um … Who gets the oil? Which insane faction rules the country? Preserve a “Union” created by the British in the 20th Century? Fight them there so we don’t fight them here?

    Condi offers lame, second-rate rhetoric. I’d expect more from a Stanford professor.

  • If Shrub thinks you’re a reel smart person, does that mean you are smart or just less dumber than he is?

  • Condi is right. There were people who said why don’t we take peace with the South but leave the South with slaves. One of them was Abraham Lincoln. In August 1862, weeks before signing the emancipation proclamation, he wrote to Horace Greeley that “My paramount object in this struggle is to save the Union, and is not either to save or to destroy slavery. If I could save the Union without freeing any slave I would do it, and if I could save it by freeing all the slaves I would do it; and if I could save it by freeing some and leaving others alone I would also do that.”

    If she is trying to say that Bush and his administration lack the perspective and ability of Lincoln and his administration I wholeheartedly agree. I would also agree that Bush is on the opposite side of history from Lincoln.

    But the whole comparison to a 140 year old civil war is preposterous. Well, except for the fact that Iraq is now in the midst of its own civil war. Though as I seem to recall a prominent Republican told us “It certainly isn’t like our Civil War.”

  • So Rice receives points for being “closer to the truth” than her idiot colleagues in the Fever Patch.

    Nice. Are their degrees of “untruth” now? I missed that memo.

    Oh,and is Stanford even considering taking this third-rate hack back on its staff?

  • “I’m sure there are people who thought it was a mistake to fight the Bush Administration to its end and to insist that the word of the G.O.P. would hold”

  • When we are talking about the civil war in Iraq, could we remember that people are DYING right now because we went in and threw out what security structures they had in place. Comments like “birth pangs, bitches … birth pangs!!” make light of real human suffering, and make Americans look like arrogant morons.

  • “You know, Lincoln was committed to actually winning the Civil War. He relieved generals when he lost confidence in them. Name one general who has been relieved of command in Iraq.” – VOR

    Damn! That is such a good point. When is Boy George II going to fire some incompetent generals?

    “So they adamantly deny that this is a civil war, while making comparisons to the Civil War. These people can’t even get their propaganda straight. ” – Steve expat

    Smirk! And the funny thing is, the faction we have the best relationship with is the one wanting independence (the Kurds).

    “if Condi were in the Lincoln administration and read a PDB saying, “Jefferson Davis determined to secede from inside the U.S.,” she would have undoubtedly described it as a “historical document” and then defend herself by saying, “Nobody could have predicted, nobody could have imagined the southern states’ secession.'” – Some Guy

    All the more amusingly as the South had been for more than a decade getting ready for secession. Try watching the movie ‘Amistad’ (1997) sometime and pay attention to the scene with President Martin Van Buren and the Southern Senator (and ex-Vice President) John C. Calhoun.

    “But our role in Iraq isn’t comparable to either side in our Civil War. We’re more like the French.” – MasonMcD

    Or more like the British, who nearly allied with the South? When you get right down to it, with a Civil War brewing in Iraq, which side is really worth backing? The only politicians working for united Iraq are all wimps as far as I can tell.

    “Preserve a “Union” created by the British in the 20th Century?” – DanF

    The problem is, we’ve tried “self-determination of peoples” after WWI. It lead to the Sudetenland and the Partion of India. Most of the borders of this world divide rather than bring together ethnic groups. Touching the Colonist period constructs scares the S**T out of everybody except the Putinites in Russia.

    “Fight them there so we don’t fight them here?” – DanF

    Yep, let’s fight thousands of them there in Iraq where they are surrounded by millions more of them who look just the same, as opposed to stopping them here at the ports of entry where we would have to deal with dozens. Makes a whole lot of sense, yes?

  • What next? Movie analogies?

    “Iraq is just like ‘Star Wars,’ when the Jedi Knights almost gave in to the Nasties!!”

    And “like that time on ‘Leave it to Beaver,’ when the Beav was about to give up on his Little League team making the playoffs, but Ward (our wardtime president) led him on to victory!”

    “And in the funny papers, when Nancy…”

  • To say the least, a bizarre analogy: I thought the War Between the States (Civil War) was fought between U.S. persons divided into two entities: the Union and the Confederacy. Any British or French (?) meddling was irrelevant.

    In parallel, the Iraq Civil War is today being mainly fought between Iraqis. The meddling of non-Iraqis on one side or the other, assuming there are distinct ‘sides’, is irrelevant, as shown by the insignificant numbers of non-Iraqis identified in all kinds of battles, fights, raids, whatever.

    But in Iraq there is a third party consisting entirely of non-Iraqis: the U.S. (and the rest of the ‘coallition forces’). Now it was usual to call the invasion of an organized army in another country a war of conquest, aggression, imperialism, not a War of Liberation. In the War Between the States it was not foreigners from Iraq or wherever who invaded the U.S. to liberate the slaves.

    So what is Ms. Mushroom Cloud talking about, anyway. Oh, yes, the U.N. authorized the invasion. Her insistence on being addressed as ‘Dr. Rice’ makes very suspicious of her credentials and reminds me of Dr. Kissinger and Dr. Strangelove. Or does she think that Iraq is a U.S. state? Half-baked history for half-baked opportunists: the Republican Bush regime.

  • Ummm, the American Civil war began in 1961 and ended in 1965 with a treaty signed at Appomattox (sp?) Courthouse. Our war against “Terra” got kicked off in 2001 and now its 2006. Shouldn’t we be wrapping things up about now? And where and with whom are we going to be signing any treaties?

  • Alrighty then. It’s just a matter of time, I figure, before those who oppose the war are compared to the following people:

    Pontius Pilate
    Ted Bundy
    Torquemada
    Aaron Burr
    Jack the Ripper
    Yosemite Sam
    Kurtwood Smith in “RoboCop”

    Look for at least one of those sometime next week…

  • So when is Condi going to go after Sen. George Allen for still not giving in to the fact that the south lost and slavery was abolished? Or how about voter suppression of minorities because they tend to vote for the party of the majority of Americans and not the party of the elites? What about all the Republicans who want to do away with a holiday for Dr. Martin Luther King? Or what about how Republicans dragged their feet on renewal of the Voting Rights Act? Where were your rhetorical flourishes then? Condi — you need to look at the warts of your own party before you try to paste them on somebody else.

  • If the Democrats had their way, we would have cut and run from New Orleans in the face of Katrina…I mean, how could anyone have guessed that the levees would be breached?

  • Rice ran Iraq after George got upset with Bremmer. CONDI and BUSH are real CLOSE and when she was put in charge the inusrgency began and then civil war. It may have had something to do with the time they spent together at the Texas Masion. Sure, it’s all about women’s rights and freedom, but who got to PLAY ruler of Iraq? Of course they REBELLED!

  • There’s such an astonishing lack of basic historical understanding in her statement, that I weep to think Rice would actually use such phony knowledge in her decision making.

    In overly broad strokes: Lincoln’s main task in fighting the Civil War was to restore the Union. If he could’ve done it without freeing the slaves, he would have. Emancipation came at a time when Lincoln sought to give the slaughter a higher cause.

    Moreover, external factors were terribly important. Lincoln was fighting time, desperate for a demonstration to foreign powers that they should back the U.S., not the Confederacy. If Britain, which needed Southern cotton, were to recognize the Confederacy and give aid, then Lincoln might’ve had to settle for a peace treaty and a divided Union (with slavery intact). One could compare Britain’s role then to Iran now. That is, we are desperate to salvage our plans to turn Iraq into a client state, knowing full well that Iran would provide stability to Iraq, but definitely not in our favor.

    However, using a 19th Century war to talk about a 21st century invasion and occupation is a bit brain-dead. There’s a lot more to discuss in this “how the American Civil War is not like the invasion and occupation of Iraq” notion, but I have to get back to work.

    It’ll suffice to say: I can play the over-simplified, bogus historical analogy game, too. Consider that this defiant administration is setting up its own version of government, seceding if you will, from the laws and institutions of the United States of America.

    In other words, Condi Rice is working for the modern-day Jefferson Davis.

    Of course, that statement shows how such historical analogies can only take you so far.

    [However, the idea that this administration might consider itself in a state of civil war with a majority of the American people is worth contemplating.]

  • BWAHAHAHAHAHA!!!!!!!!!

    I love to watch Democrats squirm. Rice and Rummy know exactly what they are doing. Further, it’s great to watch you guys take the bait like so many hungry dogs. Imagine watching a pretentious clown like Steve Clemons praise Olbermann, Olbermann for Christ’s sake!, as the latter criticises Rumsfeld’s American legion speech by deploying a legion of straw men.

    Good for Condi. She’s driving home the moral vacuum at the heart of the Left. In the end, you people believe in nothing and would defend nothing. You people would pay the Dhimmi Tax to your Islamic Masters, and thank them by licking their boots for not beheading you that day. That is what she is saying, and you scream when the truth is exposed. What you fail to realize, however, is that she understands campaigns and elections.

    This statement was not for a black audience. She knows that it will get past Essence Magazine and into the General Media. It is designed to reach Republican Base Voters, her biggest fans!

    You people don’t deal with Republicans. I do, every day. The base, the rank and file, love Condi Rice. They also love it when she sticks it to the Left. Today’s interview was a poke in the eye to the Left at a time when the Base needs to be rallied for Congressional Midterms.

    Unfortunately for you guys, this is not a sign of panic. Several races are starting to go our way, including Santorum, Steele in Maryland, and McGavick in Oregon. The Congressional races are starting to firm up. The generic advantage the Dems enjoyed two months ago has vanished. The Dems are perhaps up three in generics. Our internals are showing us in a much better position, which is why you see the Democratic Party’s propaganda broadsheets, the New York Times and the WaPo are publishing “Sky is Falling” pieces about the Republican Party. Condi’s interview is designed to rally the Base, to get us in fighting trim. And while she knows that black voters won’t vote for Bush, increasing numbers of them will vote for attractive and competent Republican candidates.

    The Democrats reacted just as we thought they would. They went spastic. Karl Rove works in mysterious ways. No Fitzmas for you!

    Oh, one last thing. Don’t expect her to go back to Stanford. Expect to be surprised by Condi Rice in the future. I don’t put much weight in her denials of political ambition.

  • What better way to distract the public from Bush administration failures, than by stoking the flames of the terrorist threat, and stirring the passions of wartime “debate.” (A fake and scripted dabate, that is.) This is a classic Republican attempt to frame Bush administration efforts in the most positive of terms.

  • “This statement was not for a black audience. She knows that it will get past Essence Magazine and into the General Media. It is designed to reach Republican Base Voters, her biggest fans!”

    Wait? What’s that I hear in the background? Why it’s Karl Rove:
    “Mwahaha. Silly negroes. See how I use my Condi puppet and a magazine created for and aimed at your people to talk over your feeble little heads to the much smarter caucasians who will get my secret message!!”

    And then the base (once they read either Essence or the NYDN, which is the only place I’ve yet seen the interview mentioned) who were going to vote Republican any way, will…GASP! Vote Republican Anyway. Oh woe. Also Arrrgh. I guess all the Democrats running for office should just give up now in the face of this brilliant political ploy.

    Or maybe this is just another “Prove you’re [fill in the blank with any minority]” challenge. As in “If you don’t like the president you aren’t really black.”

    Or maybe it’s still baloney, no matter how ya slice it.

    However, your analysis was, um…. Well, it’s about what I expect from a person who must be feeling rather befuddled and bewildered by all of the lies his/her fearless leaders expect him/her to believe.

  • Wait. Did Condi equate the Confederate States of America with an illegal non-sovereign terrorist group? She really isn’t running for office in 2008.

  • that’s why she’s a house- uh, secretary. what better site to out the vile miss rice than the one named for her type;
    CARPETBAGGER

  • Hey, Roddy:

    You forgot Captains Kang, Koloth & Kruge.
    And Attila the Hun.
    Plus Sauron the Great, too.

    But when they start comparing us to Oscar the Grouch, then I’m gonna get pissed.

  • Next, they’ll be saying those who appose the War in Iraq are childmolesters who kick thier dog. Of course, that would piss off 60 percent of the country.

  • Prediction: Next it will be the Titanic. As we know, very few of the ship’s passengers departed in lifeboats (cut and ran). Had they stayed aboard and considered the “good things” about being on a swiftly sinking ship (plenty of ice), they could have stayed the course and brought safety and sunshine to a part of the world troubled by big-ass icebergs. It was just like the Nazis. Who cut and ran, sinking their own ship, the Graf Spee? THEY did! These are the lessons of history.

  • Let see if I get this history lesson right from Dr. Rice..

    American Civil War = Iraq War
    Copperhead “let the south leave with slaves” Democrats = liberal “cut and run” Democrats
    Abraham Lincoln = George W. Bush
    Slavery = Terrorism
    Emancipation of slaves = fight against terrorism
    Osama Bin Laden = Jefferson Davis
    al-Zarqawi = Robert E Lee
    al Qaida = Confederate States of America (thanks to George Blair)

    Did I leave anything out? Yes now I see, the Iraqi Civil War is analogous to the American Civil War. Did I correctly understand your history lesson, Dr. Rice?

  • Dear President Bush,

    Once again I see that you have managed to put the cart in front of a bunch of braying jack asses. Let’s see if we can make things crystal clear to you and your administration. The citizens of the United States are not leading the war in Iraq, Afghanistan, or against terrorists – YOU ARE. After 9/11, the country was united in supporting efforts to bring the terrorists to justice, and stop further threats to our country. Instead we have watched in dismay as our leaders failed us.

    Now we are witnessing a complete failure of leadership. We accepted YOUR plan of action despite concern in the military, and your own administration, that the intelligence, and the plan was flawed. In hindsight, those patriotic citizens were right. We are incredibly dismayed that you have mired our brave men and women in Iraq and Afghanistan, and are SOMEHOW managing to lose a conflict to a bunch of guys that live in caves in Pakistan. Telling the citizens in the US to suck it up and learn to live with it is NOT ACCEPTABLE. What we want is results, not excuses.

    Honestly, at a visceral level I have to agree with Dr. Rice’s scenario. Yes, George W. Bush would have lost the Civil War. Yes, George W. Bush would not have change directions and produced an Emancipation Proclamation. No amount of support by the citizens for an idiot can overcome the fact that a boneheaded, stubborn, idiot is in charge.

    Where is our Abraham Lincoln? Where is our General Grant? Where is our W. H. Seward? Where are the great leaders of our time? We are STILL LOOKING. Maybe we will find one in 2008. We do not have any now. We gave you more support than you deserved and you still blew it.

    Until we do vote for a new leader, we have to work as GOOD citizens to protect our country from further stupidity. We will be electing a new Congress with a mandate to change the direction of OUR COUNTRY. You will do the job you swore to do with your Oath of Office and work with the Congress, your equals, to preserve, protect and defend the Constitution of the United States.

    Your boss,

    John Q. Public

  • And for the comment to come from a black woman, no less, is utterly preposterous.

    These people have completely lost their minds.

    Perhaps Condi needs to go back to shopping for shoes. At least that was something she was good at…apparently.

  • Wow… After a practically “dead” weekend, every blog I read jumped in, bright-eyed and bushy-tailed with a double dose of news and commentary. The Carpetbagger Report is always the last one I read — I need a dollop of sanity to relax me enough t go to sleep — and this is the first posting/commentary I’ve read. It’s gonna be a long, looong night, before I collapse in my bed…

    With everyone condemning Condi and her half-assed speech, has anyone ever given any thought to WHY she’s so hell-bent-devoted to the Bush regime? Or why any blacks should even consider voting for Rethugs, never mind defend them publicly?

    Much as I hate 9/10ths of the Rethugh policies (you name it…), I can’t help but notice that, despite their general tendency to be more racist than Dems, they’re also more likely to place minorities (not only blacks) in positions of responsibility (at least overtly), at national levels. They’re very careful to pick “plan B” candidates (second tier of intellectual brilliance) most of the time, but they *do* do it. The second tier is going to be grateful/loyal forever, because they’d never have reached the same prominence otherwise, and the minority they came from is likely to feel grateful also, through having the pride in one of theirs reaching such heights. One stone, two birds, thousands of potential votes.

    Condi isn’t the only one who’s short of brilliant (though she’s way smarter than her boss); Gonzales is another one. Clarence Thomas is no legal eagle either, certainly nothing to compare to Marshall Thurgood whom he replaced (under Bush 41)… Some of the “chosen” “mis-estimated” the reasons they were put where they were, and “forgot their place” long enough to try and show independence of thought (Shinseki, Powell) with well known consequences. It’s not suprising that Condi — both black and a female — is goose-stepping; if she didn’t she’d be stepping off the political cliff

  • Um, hello???

    The US Civil War was fought from 1861-1865, and not in the 1880s! If you’re going to sound off on such things, please at least get your time frames correct. Or else you’ll be as utterly preposterous as the fools who’re running this government…into the ground!

  • Hmm…

    One thing I always understood about the Civil War: it was not fought to abolish slavery.
    That was more or less a side effect, but not a definite goal.

  • My fondest wish is that the South and the North had divided long, long ago. Our priorities are not the same. The North believes in
    diversity, social services, education for all, and the rationality of intelligent human beings. Texas has produced more inappropriate leaders than any other state….perhaps Florida is the next in line for that designation.

    You do realize that the North is more European in its outlook, more cosmopolitan. We would have had a full health-care system, good housing choices for all
    segments of humanity, and a real democracy.

    We have bumbled and stumbled horribly since “we” won the Civil War. I WISH I had to use a passport to visit Florida, South Carolina, and Georgia. I WISH I could get back in tax dollars what I send to the various military bases in those states.

    I WISH I didn’t have to identify George W. Bush as my president.

  • Civil War defined:

    A war between factions of the same country; there are five criteria for international recognition of this status: the contestants must control territory, have a functioning government, enjoy some foreign recognition, have identifiable regular armed forces, and engage in major military operations.

    http://www.globalsecurity.org/military/library/policy/army/fm/100-20/10020gl.htm

    How does the war in Iraq compare to our Civil War? We could withdraw and it could go on without us. We are not one of the factions in the country. At least, we shouldn’t be. If we are one of the sides in the Iraq civil war, we should get out immediately.

  • 66.

    “With everyone condemning Condi and her half-assed speech, has anyone ever given any thought to WHY she’s so hell-bent-devoted to the Bush regime? Or why any blacks should even consider voting for Rethugs, never mind defend them publicly?”

    For the same reason poor people vote for Rethugs? Why do you make a caucasian/non-caucasian division? The simple fact is many people vote for/defend whomever has the most appeal for them even if that appeal is hard for others to understand. I for one don’t see how a man who is living on baloney and white bread because he was laid off and just read that the CEO of his former employer has purchased a small island with his annual bonus and just learned that gas prices are up another 10 cents and just learned that thanks to the fact most of our money is needed to fight a very stupid war his taxes will go up, would vote for a Republican, yet he might. Call it family tradition or misplaced loyalty/faith or some gambler’s instinct that THIS time his pick will come through and deliver. Trust me, it has nothing to do with race.

    “Condi isn’t the only one who’s short of brilliant (though she’s way smarter than her boss); Gonzales is another one. Clarence Thomas is no legal eagle either.”

    OK, I’ll give you Thomas, who is dumber than a box of low IQ rocks. Why do you say Rice & Gonzales are unintelligent? Is it because they are minorities who support Bush & Co? Dear me. How about this:
    They are twisty little creeps who will lie themselves purple to push an agenda, just like their fearless leader. And they do it for the same reason other high ranking members of the Admin do it: MONEY and POWER. Do you think Rice feels any guilt when she looks at her big fat paycheck? Sure, and so does Rove.

    “and the minority they came from is likely to feel grateful also, through having the pride in one of theirs reaching such heights. One stone, two birds, thousands of potential votes.”

    Nope. Sorry. You seem to be falling into the “They know not what they do” trap. It is well intentioned but quite insulting. I cannot speak for ALL minorities but most people look at this sort of thing (especially in the case of C. Thomas) and KNOW it is a crass attempt to deceive them by placing a token brown person in a key position. When they hear the token brown person spouting rhetoric they know is bollocks they do the same thing they would if a non-brown person were doing it: Feel slightly queasy and turn away.

    Minorities aren’t the only people in the admin. who have gotten the push (I was pretty sure Powell quit) when they refused to go along with whatever mad plan Bush came up with that week. Everyone who disagrees get the push. People know this. The people who stay on are doing it for personal gain, period. Brown, white, green, purple, if they lie for this admin. it is because they are without that thing we call a conscience. Not because they don’t know any better and certainly not because they can’t get another high-paying job. Do you think Rice is going to ever be poor? Nope. While people are still howling for Bush’s head on a platter she will be settled into a nice little consulting firm or think tank or maybe go back to University. If she did get the push for daring to differ she could run to the other side and receive wide public acclaim as the woman who dared to defy Bush.
    Please, give the ladies and the non-caucasians a little credit. Try a little REAL equality and admit they can be as greedy, vile and deceitful as their male caucasian peers.

  • The unfortunate thing about Condi is that her slavish political adherence to the Bush Administration’s policies and rhetoric. As a Black woman I really would like to be proud of her and respect her, but it is difficult to fathom who she is as an African American. How did she come about this slavish ideological and political mindset. Where is her conscience and what are HER politics. Could it be that in this day and age a woman so well-educated and so well-spoken has such a limited range of personal history and political acumen as to become an echo of failed policies and duplicitious rhetoric. How can this be? How can she continue to engage in the rhetorical flame throwing that would keep thousands of people dying in a war that should never have begun. It is painful to watch and to witness.

  • Wow! And here I thought David Frum’s 2002 book comparing Bu**sh** to Churchill was the last word in idiocy.

    Now we are getting the hint from Condi that the next wingnut talking point will be that the Codpiece-in-Chief is the very incarnation of Abraham Lincoln!

    There’s just one slight difference: as I recall, Lincoln didn’t start the Civil War based upon hoodwinking the Northern population with bogus accusations about the South’s weaponry.

  • “We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness. — That to secure these rights, Governments are instituted among Men, deriving their just powers from the consent of the governed, — That whenever any Form of Government becomes destructive of these ends, it is the Right of the People to alter or to abolish it, and to institute new Government, laying its foundation on such principles and organizing its powers in such form, as to them shall seem most likely to effect their Safety and Happiness.”

    Yes, the Declaration of Independence acts as a roadmap for US helping people around the world. When Bush was approached by an Iraqi delegation asking for help to topple Saddam, he agreed and the rest is history.

    Dr. Rice is right on the money. Today’s democrat party treats Iraqis with contempt. By rewriting Saddam’s reign into a wonderful orderly place, they illustrate they would love the plantations run by Simon Legree.

    100+ Iraqis leave everyday and arrive in Amman Jordan alone. Approximately 2000 Iraqis leave everyday for places all over the world. Just like the East Germans, former Soviets and other repressed people – when they are FREE they leave for greener pastures. Iraqis are free. Thanks to George Bush, Colin Powell, Condi Rice and Donald Rumsfeld – and thousands of US soldiers who have validated the truth of the words put down in our Declaration of Independence.
    Quit opposing freedom just to regain some political power.

  • Dear SDAI-Tech1,

    Wonderful sarcasm. I love how you capture that incompetent, disconnected from reality reasoning. I doubt if I could do any better. So I’ll just give you the quick check in from the Iraqi’s on the ground:

    From Baghdad Burning:

    “Saturday, August 05, 2006

    Summer of Goodbyes…
    Residents of Baghdad are systematically being pushed out of the city. Some families are waking up to find a Klashnikov bullet and a letter in an envelope with the words “Leave your area or else.” The culprits behind these attacks and threats are Sadr’s followers- Mahdi Army. It’s general knowledge, although no one dares say it out loud. In the last month we’ve had two different families staying with us in our house, after having to leave their neighborhoods due to death threats and attacks. It’s not just Sunnis- it’s Shia, Arabs, Kurds- most of the middle-class areas are being targeted by militias.
    …
    I sometimes wonder if we’ll ever know just how many hundreds of thousands of Iraqis left the country this bleak summer. I wonder how many of them will actually return. Where will they go? What will they do with themselves? Is it time to follow? Is it time to wash our hands of the country and try to find a stable life somewhere else?”

    I suspect today’s Democratic Party wants to figure out how to repair the complete mess in Iraq. The consequences of losing are dire so it’s important to figure out how to win. It’s pretty obvious that President Bush doesn’t know how to win by now. Putting Saddam back in charge is out of the question – is President Bush dumb enough to propose such a solution? I guess nothing should surprise anyone at this point.

    The Declaration of Independence is a beautiful and brilliant document. Maybe you should read it sometime, especially those parts about “Governments are instituted among Men, deriving their just powers from the consent of the governed” and “it is the Right of the People to alter or to abolish it”. I think that means the Iraqi people are supposed do it like we did – a Revolution started by the people. Maybe I slept through the history class where we learned that France bombed the 13 colonies into the stone age and then invaded. But, hey, whatever. Maybe a delegation of disgruntled Al Qaeda will show up at the White House and our President will agree to topple Osama Bin Laden.

    It’s five years after 9/11 and we STILL are not safe. Unacceptable.

    Just my two cents,

    Glen

  • SDAI-Tech1

    “Just like the East Germans, former Soviets and other repressed people – when they are FREE they leave for greener pastures.”

    Uhm..
    Accidentally I am living in that area, and let me tell you one thing.
    When the East Germans became free, they stopped leaving their country.

    They were germans, they wanted to live in Germany.
    The same happened to people of the other former communist countries.
    The moment they became free, they wanted to stay at home.
    The reason of leaving has been eliminated.

    Iraqui-s are leaving their homeland, because the infrastructure has been destroyed in the war, and has not been rebuilt since then.
    They are routinely killed by insurgents and US forces.
    In essence, they leave, because they are not free.

  • Only george bush would promote such an incompetent. She should have been fired on 9/12/01, not promoted to Secretary of State.

  • Condoleezza Rice???

    Sounds like a favored treat on the plantation to me.( In more ways than one)

    Anyway I hate it when black people who have nothing to do with being “black” most of the time, find it convenient to all of a sudden become “black” and literally play the race card on our own people. It reminds me of black folks who say things like ‘I’ll join the klan to get rid of gays!”

    Condi is not a great representative of black thought in this country and I don’t know why anybody would listen to a person who sounds like food! The real sad thing is that she is not a stupid person, she is just shucking and jiving at the highest level, and in Essence Magazine of all places, whomever she was talking to should have said something at that point. Even Collin Powell knew when enough was a enough and jumped ship. Dr. Rice Don’t use your own race to forward an agenda designed by a group of people that would love nothing more than to have slavery back in affect!

    • Comments are closed.