TranceAddict Forums (www.tranceaddict.com/forums)
- Political Discussion / Debate
-- Secretary of State Condoleeza Rice?
Pages (4): « 1 2 [3] 4 »

i think its funny that you conservative guys never rebut opus arguments here! hmm why can that be

believe me, i already know you're mad that you feel mislead going to war with Iraq. in my opinion, the truth about liberating Iraq has always been there for the world to see i.e. the greater good for long term Middle East peace. most people saw it, including the nations that didn't want to do it, despite what the world thought about the presence of WMD's (and yes, the world thought he had them. it didn't take someone like Chalabi to convince anyone). truth be told, this administration honestly thought they were there in one form or another, but that was secondary to the "greater good" that being isolating Iran and Syria by taking and pacifying Afghanistan and Iraq. the "geater good" was unacheivable without that. my reasoning is not some revisionist pipedream in support for the war in Iraq when we couldn't find stockpiles of WMD's. i saw from the outset for what it actually was.

quote:

Originally posted by St_Andrew i think its funny that you conservative guys never rebut opus arguments here! hmm why can that be

you were saying? genius

quote:

Originally posted by Q5echo for the greater good. for securing definative knowledge. to take him and his heirs out of the greater Middle East peace equation.

Before this war Bush claimed that getting rid of Saddam would "deprive terrorist networks of a wealthy patron that pays for terrorist training, and offers rewards to families of suicide bombers,"... "Without this outside support for terrorism, Palestinians who are working for reform and long for democracy will be in a better position to choose new leaders." The logic works fine when you ignore the millions of dollars flowing in from oil producing states, cheifly the Saudis. You can read on that here + reasearch other articles.

http://www.time.com/time/world/arti...l#Anchor-4top45

As for your new reason for war in Iraq being "For the greater good..." Lord child are you kidding me?

Back in the late 90's Republicans were screaming at Clinton over the War in Kosovo being uneccesary.

Quotes from Floors of Congress:
May 4, 1999: Rep. Tom Delay (R-TX): "We have a President who I don't trust, who has proven my reasons for not trusting him: Had no plan. We have a civil war that was falsely described as a humanitarian problem, when in comparison to other places, it was nothing."

May 4, 1999: Senator Trent Lott (R-MS): "I had doubts about the bombing campaign from the beginning. I didn't think we had done enough in the diplomatic area."

They seethed and complained while the troops were in harm's way and then voted to reduce war funds to $0. Luckily the Kosovo President gave up, signed a peace accord, and now sits arrested in The Hague for mass murder among other things. This was a war where we had many allies (including the Russians who blocked us in the UN). If I'm correct we lost less than 6 US soldiers in the whole war.

Fast forward to today's situation. You really mean to tell me that the Saddam's (nonexistent) links to Al-Queda weren't the point? The 500 (nonexistent)tons of fresh Anthrax, 38,000 (nonexistent) liters of fresh Botulinum toxin and 550 (nonexistent) fresh shells of VX/Nerve gas had nothing to do with it?

We sacrificed over $200 Billion dollars, got 8,956 people wounded and lost 1,217 soldiers, not because of an immenint threat to our National Security but "for the greater good"? I'll admit I'm furious because we buried the first Macon resident lost in the Iraq war LAST WEEKEND JUST OUTSIDE MY NEIGHBORHOOD. His 1yo son will only know his dad as a photo, an empty pair of shoes, and a grave site. Sadly 100's of kids are now in the same situation.

If a President Kerry or Gore had brought us to today's situation, not for an immediate National Security threat & changed the reasoning over and over till they stuck with "For The Greater Good" you'd be outside the White House right now with a lit torch.

quote:

Originally posted by BigManwithaPlan Before this war Bush claimed that getting rid of Saddam would "deprive terrorist networks of a wealthy patron that pays for terrorist training, and offers rewards to families of suicide bombers,"... "Without this outside support for terrorism, Palestinians who are working for reform and long for democracy will be in a better position to choose new leaders." The logic works fine when you ignore the millions of dollars flowing in from oil producing states, cheifly the Saudis. You can read on that here + reasearch other articles. http://www.time.com/time/world/arti...l#Anchor-4top45 As for your new reason for war in Iraq being "For the greater good..." Lord child are you kidding me? Back in the late 90's Republicans were screaming at Clinton over the War in Kosovo being uneccesary. Quotes from Floors of Congress: May 4, 1999: Rep. Tom Delay (R-TX): "We have a President who I don't trust, who has proven my reasons for not trusting him: Had no plan. We have a civil war that was falsely described as a humanitarian problem, when in comparison to other places, it was nothing." May 4, 1999: Senator Trent Lott (R-MS): "I had doubts about the bombing campaign from the beginning. I didn't think we had done enough in the diplomatic area." They seethed and complained while the troops were in harm's way and then voted to reduce war funds to $0. Luckily the Kosovo President gave up, signed a peace accord, and now sits arrested in The Hague for mass murder among other things. This was a war where we had many allies (including the Russians who blocked us in the UN). If I'm correct we lost less than 6 US soldiers in the whole war. Fast forward to today's situation. You really mean to tell me that the Saddam's (nonexistent) links to Al-Queda weren't the point? The 500 (nonexistent)tons of fresh Anthrax, 38,000 (nonexistent) liters of fresh Botulinum toxin and 550 (nonexistent) fresh shells of VX/Nerve gas had nothing to do with it? We sacrificed over $200 Billion dollars, got 8,956 people wounded and lost 1,217 soldiers, not because of an immenint threat to our National Security but "for the greater good"? I'll admit I'm furious because we buried the first Macon resident lost in the Iraq war LAST WEEKEND JUST OUTSIDE MY NEIGHBORHOOD. His 1yo son will only know his dad as a photo, an empty pair of shoes, and a grave site. Sadly 100's of kids are now in the same situation. If a President Kerry or Gore had brought us to today's situation, not for an immediate National Security threat but "For The Greater Good" you'd be outside the White House right now with a lit torch.

Kosovo Iraq apples oranges

to make Iraq what it needs to be for the future of the region. needed to be done. that sucks for those that have lost. impossible express my condolences in words, but we're gonna try to make this right. there are millions and millions of not just Americans or American soldiers, but Muslems as well, that believe what is being done is right. regardless of your anti-war beliefs or hatred for my president. those that think it is right are the ones making the most sacrifices for "the greater good". all i have to do to affirm my belief is think about those sacrifices first before i try to take anything away from their efforts.

quote:

If a President Kerry or Gore had brought us to today's situation, not for an immediate National Security threat but "For The Greater Good" you'd be outside the White House right now with a lit torch.

thats nice. what do you think i would be screaming as my the clothes melted to my skin?

quote:

Originally posted by BigManwithaPlan Fast forward to today's situation. You really mean to tell me that the Saddam's (nonexistent) links to Al-Queda weren't the point? The 500 (nonexistent)tons of fresh Anthrax, 38,000 (nonexistent) liters of fresh Botulinum toxin and 550 (nonexistent) fresh shells of VX/Nerve gas had nothing to do with it?

when did i say all those things and more didn't have anything to do with it?

if you mean when said the words "secondary" i meant it's use in it's most liberal extent. maybe i should have used "laterally"

I accept what you're saying RE: use of language. As for the amounts I picked those out of Colin Powell's speech to the UN, President Bush's State of The Union speech and other pre-war news reports.

or Tony Blair last week?

"When the Americans say we want to extend democracy to these countries, or extend democracy and human rights throughout the Middle East in the Greater Middle East Initiative, people say, well, that is part of the neoconservative agenda. Actually, if you put it in different language, it is a progressive agenda."

quote:

believe me, i already know you're mad that you feel mislead going to war with Iraq. in my opinion, the truth about liberating Iraq has always been there for the world to see i.e. the greater good for long term Middle East peace. most people saw it, including the nations that didn't want to do it, despite what the world thought about the presence of WMD's (and yes, the world thought he had them. it didn't take someone like Chalabi to convince anyone). truth be told, this administration honestly thought they were there in one form or another, but that was secondary to the "greater good" that being isolating Iran and Syria by taking and pacifying Afghanistan and Iraq. the "geater good" was unacheivable without that. my reasoning is not some revisionist pipedream in support for the war in Iraq when we couldn't find stockpiles of WMD's. i saw from the outset for what it actually was.

Well you�re certainly not the only one who recognized the true motives of this war � many Progressives and Independents also saw this as well. Christ, the PNAC 2000 document pretty much outlines this strategy verbatim:

http://www.newamericancentury.org/R...casDefenses.pdf

The difference between you and I, however, is that this philosophy doesn�t mesh very well with a great many individuals, including a number of true Republicans who can�t stand the neoconservative philosophy. But more specifically, my problems with such a philosophy of global hegemony in regards to our movement in Iraq and towards the Middle East are two-fold, the first we have already discussed:

1. Our Administration did everything they could to keep this philosophy under wraps. How so, you ask? Simple, examine the timeline of rationale for going to war-

a) Primary reason was always to disarm Saddam
-Since you yourself had attempted to defend this rationale but eventually had to concede to the ACTUAL reason (point c below), no more need be said here.

b) When primary reason slowly became suspect, Secondary reason became the primary reason: remove this evil dictator from power
-Though it's easy to combine these two, keep in mind that our Administration DID NOT do so - examine your Bush statement to the UN link as evidence
-The talk of finding and disarming WMD slowly dissapated and gave way to the humanitarian crisis taking place in late Spring - early Summer
-This was when Rummy started referring to the Iraqi people welcoming us with "open arms"

c) Though the Secondary rationale remained in the picture (as it should), the Tertiary reason slowly started to emerge from the Administration, which you and I agreed was the true primary rationale: global hegemony, or if you wanna play nice � �spread of democracy to the region�. If this was the true rationale, fine, so be it. I reiterate my problem with this, however �
-Why wasn�t this listed as the primary reason to begin with? Of course the most obvious answer that most agree with is because it NEVER would have been enough to win over Congress or the public. And that begs the question � why? Why wouldn�t that have won over Congress or the public? Perhaps because such a philosophy would not have outweighed the costs of war? And I�m not just speaking financial costs � political relations, killed individuals both military and especially innocents also play into the equation. I need not tell you this, at least I hope I wouldn�t. Bottom line is this simply wouldn�t have been enough.

-And that leads us to the crux of the problem � what did our Administration decide to do instead in order to win over Congress and the public? I believe we already discussed this: make it a threat to us, a REAL threat. So what better threat to have then the two most threatening possibilities?:
I. WMD pointed at our heads
II. Al Qaeda has ties to Saddam, and are one in the same

And what was the result of such threats?

Utter bullshit.

So if you still do not have a problem with our Administration as a result of bringing false threats and trumped up evidence in order to bolster their case for war, and to HIDE their actual motivation because they KNEW it would never sell in the first place, seriously Q5, I really don�t know what else to say at this point. If you honestly believe that such ends justify either blatantly lying or misleading Congress and the Public, and to top it all off have a piss-poor post-war plan, as well as take our eye off the true killer, the true genocidal maniac who truly attacked us, I simply don�t know how I or anyone else could get past such illogical bullshit.

Oh yeah, my second problem:

2. Who gave us the fucking right to play this �global cops� role in the first place? Who gave us the fucking moral right to invade countries, damn the supposed reasons, and spread our version of democracy in the first place? Who gave us the fucking right to pick and choose our allies and enemies in such a region where they are pretty much one in the same in terms of evil dictators and brutal bastards to their own people? Ever heard of that guy in Uzbekistan? Boiling his dissenters �till their brains fucking pop out of their skulls? How the fuck is he any different than Saddam? Oh, right �

HE WANTS TO DO BUSINESS WITH US!

So we slide him a nice little check of a cool coupla hundred million or so ($625 million wasn�t it?), have him agree to a pipeline, and all is kosher with that fucked up dictator, right?

If we are going to play such a role, the hypocrisy needed to be left on the porch before we walked in. That includes invasion of ALL evil dictatorships including Syria, N. Korea, Iran, yes Saudi Arabia, Uzbekistan, and a slew of other countries too. We must carry this philosophy to its logical conclusion if we want to remain justified and valid to such a global role.

If it isn�t obvious from that aspect alone just how patently illogical we are, again I don�t know what else to say.

Second point � what are the consequences of such actions and have we looked past our arrogance to fully examine them?

Uh, no. One of the biggest rationales for our global spread of democracy of course is the necessity to stamp out global terrorism, i.e. Al Qaeda. This is a good goal to want to achieve, and EVERYONE shares the sentiment here � however people disagree as to what approach is the best means of stomping out global terrorism. Should we invade a country that harbored few terrorists at that time in order to set up shop (i.e. military bases) and put pressure on the neighboring countries that harbor terrorists? Well that seems to be the philosophy our Administration is following here, but the consequences are pretty clear:

a) A country that did not harbor Al Qaeda terrorists and their recruits are now flocking in as a result:

http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/middle_east/3746205.stm
http://www.anotheramerica.org/terrorist_recruitment.htm

And what�s worse, as a result of our arrogance, we have done exactly the opposite of what we wanted to achieve � global terrorism and recruitment is on the rise:

reorganized itself in Pakistan:
http://www.alternet.org/waroniraq/20107/

throughout the Philippines:
http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2004...ain645089.shtml

And Experts believe new bases have been established in Yemen, Somalia, the Bangladesh-Myanmar border, and the Pankisi Valley between Georgia and Chechnya
http://csmonitor.com/2003/0521/p01s02-usgn.html

Of course Colin Powell had to correct himself and admit that terrorism was actually on the rise, instead of stating it has decreased:
http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2004...ain614786.shtml

b) How �welcome� were those Iraqi �arms�? Again I think we know the obvious. The majority of Iraqis want us to get the hell out. Now whether or not that�s doable is not what I�m referring to (of course I think we need to stay and finish), it�s the Iraqi sentiment I am referring to. The surveys that have come out have clearly shown that the Iraqi citizens don�t want anything to do with our style and version of �democracy�. Can we honestly blame them, especially considering the destruction our battles towards those insurgents have brought, as well as the fact that these people have never known what a democracy is? Could it be that our version of democracy is not the only viable type of government for ALL regions across the globe? And speaking of insurgents:

http://www.dailystar.com.lb/article...rticle_id=10233

I think it�s clear that given the fact that only 24 of the 1,000 or so caught Fallujah insurgents were foreign, what more need be said about the Iraqi sentiment and recruiting abilities of the insurgent movement?

c) For the sake of brevity as well as a sake of the obvious, how �bout our foreign relations with this entire mess? Thumbs up? Riiiiight.

Bottom line on point 2 � it�s backfiring in our fucking faces, and will continue to backfire so long as we continue to have our idealistic arrogance supercede reality. I cannot support a President or a political philosophy that cannot understand this point, nor can I understand anyone who support it either.

quote:

Originally posted by Q5echo or Tony Blair last week? "When the Americans say we want to extend democracy to these countries, or extend democracy and human rights throughout the Middle East in the Greater Middle East Initiative, people say, well, that is part of the neoconservative agenda. Actually, if you put it in different language, it is a progressive agenda."

Tony Blair, whether willingly or unwillingly is unknown at this point, is confusing the Progressive foreign policy with that of the Neocon foreign policy. I have yet to see any modern day Progressive that would believe an invasion into a dangerous region with the idealistic but unrealistic hope to spread democracy would be in line with a more Utopian global society. However, keep in mind that the neoconservative philosophy was ACTUALLY from the Democratic Party back in the 60's, and has slowly moved toward the Republican foreign (global hegemony) and domestic (increased governmental spending with no end in sight) agenda. There are a few Democrats that may be considered in line with the neocon philosophy, but it has been in ties with the Republican agenda primarily for it's current foreign policy and unmitigated military spending spree (of course it's currently justified with the present war needs).

But to couple the neocon agenda of global hegemony with the spread of humanitarianism is patently false and contradictory with our current actions. If this were the case, many MANY more countries are in need of our spread of democracy over Iraq, some I listed in my previous post. But the two areas that would certainly supercede Iraq if such a rationale existed in the neocon philosophy would be the Congo and Sudan.

And where's our asses in those areas?

How can one possibly justify Bush misleading congress and the public in an effort to acheive his agenda whilst subscribing to conservative principles of smaller taxes, and a smaller social welfare state where Washington elites aren't dictating how you live your life?

What are the American people too stupid to be told the truth? The people need to be misled? Congress needs to be misled? Hmmm sounds like Washington elites who think they know what's good for me and dictate how I live my life.

quote:

Originally posted by MisterOpus1 If this were the case, many MANY more countries are in need of our spread of democracy over Iraq, some I listed in my previous post. But the two areas that would certainly supercede Iraq if such a rationale existed in the neocon philosophy would be the Congo and Sudan. And where's our asses in those areas?

no oil = no need for democracy

i would say condie as bush calls her fits in her new job ...she's a specialist in the eastern and oriental europe speaks russian german english and others languages but the diplomatic dialog isn't her thing i've read like when she said about the iraq war "russia we can forgive ....germany we can forget it and france we gotta punsish her"
im french and i guess she doesn't like france so our relations between france /US may be bad or not so good as they could have been at some times under powell but i dunno france isn't the only important thing i guess but personally i prefered powell even if he was often manipulated by bush and his administration

quote:

Originally posted by igottaknow no oil = no need for democracy

that includes Germany, Japan, Italy, Israel, El Salvador, Nicaragua, Panama, Serbia, and Afghanistan right?

read a book and stay away from DemocraticUnderground.com

quote:

Originally posted by occrider How can one possibly justify Bush misleading congress and the public in an effort to acheive his agenda whilst subscribing to conservative principles of smaller taxes, and a smaller social welfare state where Washington elites aren't dictating how you live your life? What are the American people too stupid to be told the truth? The people need to be misled? Congress needs to be misled? Hmmm sounds like Washington elites who think they know what's good for me and dictate how I live my life.

Thats what i'm saying. I'm conservative on many issues, and liberal on some and when I hear the stupid crap Bush says. I just want to scream WTF how can conservatives support this guy he's not a conservative at all or a liberal he's a centrist neo-nazi that only cares about his business interest. I mean cmon the US have never before had a president with an MBA degree and now we not only have a president with an MBA but a vice-president pulling his strings that also has an MBA. Everyone knows you can't trust people in business, they're only worried about making that money and thats it.

Hmmmm....centrist neo-nazi???

MBAs are evil???

I used to be an undergrad business major with aspirations to go to graduate business school at the University of Texas but I swithced to chemistry because of the utter bullshit that being a business major really entails. In the end, I just couldn't rip people off for a living and feel good about myself, so now i'm going to make alot less money for a much tougher job. k thx plz drive thru.

well, i think her confirmation hearing begins tommorrow. i think that she'll get confirmed even though I disagree with her nomination. i have inside information that she violated at least one federal law, but even if i get that out, i doubt that it will derail her nomination. oh well. secretary rice:

quote:

Originally posted by Spacey Orange i have inside information that she violated at least one federal law, but even if i get that out:

Hey PDD an't better than any other way to get something out there

quote:

Originally posted by MisterOpus1 So why did we do it?

9/11 came to fruition, which further set their plans into motion. This has all been in the works for quite some time now.

It was a "catastrophic and catalyzing event � like a new Pearl Harbor"


http://www.philly.com/mld/dailynews.../5025024.htm?1c

http://vancouver.indymedia.org/news...075_comment.php

quote:

Originally posted by Yoepus Hey PDD an't better than any other way to get something out there

might as well. i contacted a journalist on national paper and never heard from that journalist.

anyway, you heard it here first: she knowlingly hired many illegal immigrants (or had reason to know that she hired illigal immigrants) to work for her when she was provost at stanford. i have firsthand knowledge.

i only mention here because i know this has no real chance of getting in the mainstream media.

some might say 'big deal', but the hiring of illegal immigrants has been publicly mentioned as a reason for the sinking of prior judicial nominations (can't recall any right now)and cabinet positions (Linda Chavez: Lobor Secretary, Kerik: Homeland Security etc.)

quote:

Originally posted by Spacey Orange might as well. i contacted a journalist on national paper and never heard from that journalist. anyway, you heard it here first: she knowlingly hired many illegal immigrants (or had reason to know that she hired illigal immigrants) to work for her when she was provost at stanford. i have firsthand knowledge. i only mention here because i know this has no real chance of getting in the mainstream media. some might say 'big deal', but the hiring of illegal immigrants has been publicly mentioned as a reason for the sinking of prior judicial nominations (can't recall any right now)and cabinet positions (Linda Chavez: Lobor Secretary, Kerik: Homeland Security etc.)

PDD = where you hear everything first

honestly, sounds interesting, you should definitely contact someone, perhaps a democrat congressman/senate or whatever approvces?

quote:

Originally posted by St_Andrew PPD = where you hear everything first honestly, sounds interesting, you should definitely contact someone, perhaps a democrat congressman/senate or whatever approvces?

ideally the people that should get influence by this fact are the senators that are on the committee that may or may not consent to her nomimination. i doubt that they would do anything if i gave it to them because of how politics work in the US; there's too much quid pro quo.

the best people to give it to would be credible journalists and that's what i tried. admittedly, i only contacted one person when i should have tried to contact more. that sucks.

credible journalist and media and public attention would influence sentators a lot more by putting them in the public spotlight. but again, i'm a luttle cynical about the media here, and i'm not sure that they (the media) would give it any attention.

Re: Secretary of State Condoleeza Rice?

quote:

Originally posted by Spacey Orange Is this a good or bad choice? Is she the best person for the job? The correct person?

She's the best person to follow the Neo-con's Mid-East oil agenda...



----------------------------------------------------------------------------


A CRUDE LIKENESS.
(oil tanker named for National Security Adviser Condoleezza Rice)(Brief Article)


Harper's Magazine; 7/1/2001; Silverstein, Ken



How the oil tanker Condoleezza Rice lived up to its name, by Ken Silverstein

"We can't live without oil"--nearly any member of George W. Bush's administration might be given to such a declaration, which seeks to place our favorite fossil fuel in the rarefied company of food, water, and air. The speaker in this case was National Security Adviser Condoleezza Rice, responding matter-of-factly to the revelation last summer that Chevron, on whose board of directors she served for nine years, had named an oil tanker in her honor. Capable of carrying 130,000 tons of cargo, the Condoleezza Rice, whose certificate of survey is pictured here, is one of more than 3,400 oil tankers operating worldwide; these tankers generally run from the Third World, where most oil is located, to the First World--presumably the "we" in Rice's formulation where most oil is consumed. Seen from the stem of the Condoleezza Rice, the world would doubtless seem more distressed by its life with oil than by the thought of a life without it.

Just months after its 1993 certification, the Condoleezza Rice was sold to CalPetro Tankers, a third-party shipping firm, and immediately chartered back to Chevron. Since the Exxon Valdez disaster, this arrangement has become standard among large oil companies, which are desperate to distance themselves from major spills. A shortage of seaworthy tankers, combined with a surge in Western demand for oil, has contributed to a 250 percent jump in oil-shipping prices since last year--adding, by one estimate, 4 [cts.] per gallon to the price of gasoline. Since 1998 this ship has been owned by Frontline Ltd., a Norwegian firm whose CEO, John Fredriksen, controls shipping properties estimated to be worth a billion dollars (a fortune built, in part, on his oil dealings with the Ayatollah during the Iran-Iraq war). Frontline's revenues nearly doubled last year, to $697 million; Lloyd's List calls Fredriksen "pretty well unstoppable" and compares him to a "10th century Viking voyager, snapping up plump prey wherever his dragon ship heaves over the horizon."

As mandated by a 1990 U.S. law, the Condoleezza Rice was built with a "double hull," wherein an extra sheet of steel protects the sea from the tanker's toxic cargo. Double hulls, though by no means a fail-safe measure for preventing spills, do represent a major improvement; but two thirds of oil tankers sailing into U.S. waters--and nearly that portion of tankers worldwide--still have only a single hull. Meanwhile, significant spills still occur almost monthly and remain largely out of the public eye. Last November, for example, when the Westchester ran aground near New Orleans, spilling over 500,000 gallons of crude into the Mississippi River, the story merited only a brief mention in most national newspapers, none of which bothered to report the American company on behalf of which the tanker carried its oil. (It was Capline, a pipeline co-operated by Shell and Texaco.)

Like the Westchester, this ship is registered in the Bahamas--third, after Panama and Liberia, among nations whose flags are most commonly flown by oil tankers. All three are considered "flags of convenience" (FOCs), a term for nations that open their registries to all comers; these nations tend to offer cut-rate fees and taxes, not to mention alluringly lax labor and inspection policies. Panama's licensing process is so slipshod that a union activist recently obtained, entirely through the mail (and with under-the-table payments), a certificate authorizing him to navigate a Panamanian-registered ship. The Bahamas have no minimum wage requirements for crews and no laws requiring recognition of trade unions; even unionized seafarers on its ships (who in this case hail from Russia, India, or the Philippines) are usually not paid more than $1,200 a month, a third of the wage aboard a U.S.-flagged ship. Frequently unaware of their rights, or too afraid to speak out, crews of FOC-registered ships often work up to sixteen hours each day and lack decent medical care.

The Condoleezza Rice is classified as a "Suezmax" tanker--a name derived from its breadth, the maximum permitted to pass through the Suez Canal. Suezmaxes are typically used to ferry crude oil out of resource-rich West Africa, where Chevron has invested $4.4 billion since 1990. The Condoleezza Rice stops frequently in the region: in Nigeria's Niger Delta, where continual oil spills have left the groundwater poisoned (and where a Chevron-hired "kill-and-go" security squad gunned down two protesters in 1998); in Angola, where Western oil money, often in the form of signing bonuses to the government, continues to finance a 25-year-long civil war; and in the Democratic Republic of Congo, which for three years has been embroiled in its own brutal war. Indeed, were Condoleezza Rice herself to retrace the path of her namesake, she might find the trip instructive as to the effects of the oil trade on "national security."

"I'm very proud of my association with Chevron, and I think we should be very proud of the job that American oil companies are doing in ... making certain that we have a safe energy supply," Rice continued last summer, in her (and Chevron's) defense. Perhaps she did not care to contemplate her namesake's pernicious wake, as it were--the oil spills, labor exploitation, and political destabilization endemic to the global oil trade, not to mention the smog, global warming, and other consequences of the West's reliance on hydrocarbon fuels. At any rate, the mutual pride in Rice's association with Chevron appears to have dimmed; in late April, Chevron quietly renamed the ship, gracing it with the pleasingly generic moniker Altair Voyager. Henceforth, it seems, Condoleezza Rice's good name will have to serve the interests of Big Oil in person.

Ken Silverstein is a contributing editor of Harper's Magazine. His last piece for the magazine, "The Church of Morris Dees," appeared in the November 2000 issue.

COPYRIGHT 2001 Harper's Magazine Foundation


--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

You probably didn't know this about Condoleezza Rice.


Knight Ridder/Tribune News Service; 4/6/2004; Becker, Maki


Byline: Maki Becker

NEW YORK _ National security adviser Condoleezza Rice is set to make a dramatic appearance Thursday before the Sept. 11 commission to testify about her knowledge of White House efforts to battle terrorism.

Panel members have said they want to ask Rice, who will be testifying under oath, what Clinton administration officials told the incoming Bush White House personnel about al-Qaida and what the new administration did with the information.

Rice is also sure to be quizzed about charges by former White House counterterror chief Richard Clarke that Bush and his most senior aides were slow to act against the al-Qaida threat despite Clarke's warnings beginning days after Bush took office in 2001.

But beyond her role as a core member of Bush's inner circle, there's a lot more to Condoleezza Rice than most Americans know.

1. She's a fitness buff who likes to unwind by working out to music by heavy-metal legends Led Zeppelin, according to People magazine. She wakes up at 5 a.m. and hits the treadmill right away.

2. She was a college graduate at 19, getting a degree from the University of Denver.

3. She once had a Chevron oil tanker named after her when she served on the company's board of directors. After concerns that her name made the ship a more inviting terror target, the tanker was renamed Altair Voyager.

4. She loves to shop. "On a Sunday, don't be surprised if you see me at one of the malls in Washington, D.C.," she once told Glamour magazine.

5. She has been telling friends she's tired of the rat race and will leave her job at the end of the year to return to academia.

6. She began playing piano at age 3.

7. While in high school, she was a competitive ice skater.

8. She turns 50 this year.

9. She's the daughter of two Birmingham, Ala., high school teachers.

10. A kindergarten classmate was among the four girls killed in the 1963 bombing of a Baptist church by white supremacists.

11. She was a Democrat until 1982.

12. She speaks Russian, French and Spanish.

13. She's a huge football fan and loves the Cleveland Browns. She's said her "dream job" would be NFL commissioner.

14. When she was 14, a guidance counselor told her that her standardized test scores showed she wasn't college material.

15. She's single and laments she has no private life. A sometime escort at official functions, however, is former San Francisco 49ers star Gene Washington.

16. In 1993, she was named provost of Stanford University, the youngest person, first woman and first black to get the job.

17. In February 2001, Israeli Prime Minister Ariel Sharon told reporters he was distracted the first time he met her. "I have to confess, it was hard for me to concentrate in the conversation with Condoleezza Rice because she has such nice legs."

18. She loves to serve up Southern cuisine and is a master at seafood gumbo and fried chicken.

19. She says she can fall asleep just about anywhere _ even once in a helicopter flying over the Gaza Strip.

20. In 1993, after Rice left the White House, where she worked for the current President's father, to join the Stanford faculty, she told the San Francisco Chronicle the advice she'd give to President Bill Clinton about Iraqi dictator Saddam Hussein: "He is an outlaw, but I would be careful about trying to do anything to act to overthrow him."

___

Visit the Daily News online at http://www.nydailynews.com/

Distributed by Knight Ridder/Tribune Information Services.


http://www.highbeam.com/library/doc...D=1G1:115022366




17 USCS � 107 (2000)

� 107. Limitations on exclusive rights: Fair use

Notwithstanding the provisions of sections 106 and 106A, the fair use of a copyrighted work, including such use by reproduction in copies or phonorecords or by any other means specified by that section, for purposes such as criticism, comment, news reporting, teaching (including multiple copies for classroom use), scholarship, or research, is not an infringement of copyright.

Powered by: vBulletin
Copyright © 2000-2021, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.