Posted by Harvard MBA, a resident of the Community Center neighborhood, on Jan 20, 2007 at 10:42 am
I graduated from Harvard Business School 3 years after the current President Bush. To this day, I fail to comprehend how he possibly could have gotten through that place with such a second rate intellect, a drinking problem, and prep school boy laziness. He clearly did not learn anything while he was there.
As for Condi, I have heard people at Stanford who would have reason to know her make the following comments:
"We can't quite figure out what happened to her."
"Her boss has a mind like a sieve."
That said, she was a fine part of the University during her time at Stanford, and she took a leave on good terms to serve the country. So it is understandable she would say she plans to return. She likely will, but I don't think she will be treated very well, given how she squandered her considerable talents propping up ill conceived ideas from paranoid men with more hubris than judgment.
If what has happened reflect her own true beliefs, she is no better than the rest of the Administration. If she thought otherwise, she clearly was ineffective persuading the President to follow a more sensibile course of action in foreign policy, and on a number of measures, not just Iraq.
Had she done what Colin Powell did, and leave gracefully and quietly, history would treat her more kindly, as would her faculty colleagues at Stanford. Condi will be very lonely, even at the Hoover Institution, when she comes back to Palo Alto.
Posted by Gary, a resident of the Midtown neighborhood, on Jan 20, 2007 at 11:14 am
I seriously doubt that Condi Rice will care very much about her reception by you and yours. You Bush haters just can't get over the fact that Bush won two terms. It kills you. Even if Iraq turns around and eventually becomes a functional democracy, you will still blame Bush for something else.
Your gang over there at Stanford even refused the Reagan Library. Condi will be very comfortable ignoring you leftists.
Posted by Draw the Line, a resident of Stanford, on Jan 20, 2007 at 12:29 pm
I don't believe an intelligent graduate of Harvard MBA school would actually speak the way you did about Dr. Rice or President Bush. Any MBA would understand the policies of this administration, and would applaud Dr. Rice for her courage and her work, even if they disagreed with her methods.
Therefore I can only conclude you didn't do too well in your business 101 classes, or you are a fake.
Give us your full name and let us see who you are.
Or, I call you a sham, a flamer, and a coward.
If you are real...then I doubt Dr. Rice would have anything to do with you anyway. She is more man or woman than you are.
One of the panelists is Larry Diamond, personal friend of Condi, Hoover Institute Senior Fellow, and author of "Squandered Victory: The American Occupation and the Bungled Effort to Bring Democracy to Iraq".
Here is Amazon.com's Spotlight review of Larry's tome:
"Larry Diamond's Squandering Victory stands out as the best evidence on why America found itself in an Iraqi quagmire. If this is the best analysis of the Iraqi situation a Stanford professor deployed to Iraq could come up with, then it is perfectly understandable how the United States was never able to grasp what's going on there.
Read the book's description: "America's leading expert on democracy delivers the first insider's account of the U.S. occupation of Iraq." The leading expert on democracy is not an Arabic speaker and his background on the Middle East seems minimal. His knowledge on the Arab world, like his expertease on democracy, comes mainly from Western media and secondary English sources rather than from primary Arabic texts or sources.
As for the "the first insider's account of the U.S. occupation of Iraq," well, the account was of such an insider that during his stay in Baghdad, he spent all of his time inside the heavily fortified Green Zone - according to his own account - save for a single trip that he made to Babylon in an armored SUV.
Put all of this given together and here's what you get: A Stanford professor and fellow at one of Washington's prestigious think tanks, National Endowment for Democracy, received a call from his personal friend, then National Security Advisor and today's Secretary of State Condi Rice, seeking his participation in salvaging America's attempt to establish democracy in Iraq. With no Arabic and minimum knowledge about Iraq and the Arab world that were apparent in the form of factual mistakes in his book, Diamond joined the American-made Coalition Provisional Authority in Iraq.
His interpretation of what went wrong there came through his observation of the head of CPA Paul Bremer instead of trying to understand the behavior of Iraqis.
And if that's not enough, Diamond even came up with some recommendations that he thought could rectify the situation there. Why not send UN envoy Algerian (Arab) Lakhdar brahimi, who is Sunni, to patch things up in Iraq? After all, he succeeded in a similar mission in Afghanistan. For those who don't know, the majority of the population in Iraq is Arab-speaking Iraqi Shiites. The majority in Afghanistan is Urdu-speaking Pashtun Sunnis. Does the cultural and ethnic difference ring any bell? To the majority in Afghanistan, Brahimi was an impartial Arab UN envoy, Sunni like they are. To the majority of Iraqis, this Sunni Arab was an official of the Arab League which Iraqi Shiites abhorr. He had good links with the toppled Saddam Hussein who oppressed these Shiites. He sumpathized with the agenda of the region's Arab Sunnis, which was in conflict with that of the Arab Shiites. Does he look impartial at all to Iraqi Shiites? Of course not. To many Americans, he does.
I cited this one example to illustrate how shallow and superficial the knowledge of this expert on Iraq is... and he still has the guts to criticize the administration for squandering a chance in Iraq. His book is the best example of why America lost an opportunity there in the first place, not a guide on how it could have been avoided."
Posted by sarlat, a resident of the Crescent Park neighborhood, on Jan 22, 2007 at 3:06 pm
Condi Rice has been exremely unquaified for the two positions she has held during the two terms of the Bush regime. One can only conclude that she got those jobs because of her ucanny habit of telling her master only what they want to hear, never offering an opposing view and putting total obedience above honesty and reality. I have no idea if she is intellectually qualified to be a Stanford administrator, but her blind obedience to her master and her decision to serve the worst and most unqualified president in our history in the first place makes me wonder about her worth to Stanford. Richard Clark considered her a lightweight who didn't have a clue and I suspect he was right.
Posted by green, a resident of the Embarcadero Oaks/Leland neighborhood, on Jan 22, 2007 at 5:50 pm
The fact that Rice has been willing to serve under a criminal dunce like Bush and be implicit in his crimes and hubris should already disqualify her from any position at Stanford. The fact that as national security advisor she ignored repeated warnings about a terrosist attack on US soil and refused to facilitate a meeting between Bush and Richard Clark about this matter makes her incompetence and ineptitude tantamount to criminal negligence. When Bush, Cheney and Rumsfeld face the International Crimes Court in the Hague in a few years, she should be right with them.
Posted by Walter_E_Wallis, a resident of the Midtown neighborhood, on Jan 22, 2007 at 6:12 pm
If Dr. Rice has a fault, it was her failure to fumigate the rats' nest of internationalists that have converted the State Department from a representation of U.S. interests to a facilitator of everybody take a chunk of us.
Posted by green, a resident of the Embarcadero Oaks/Leland neighborhood, on Jan 22, 2007 at 7:01 pm
Rice is one of those people who have too much education for the capacity of their brains. Some un-intelligent people are capable of great academic achievements while having an average or even below average intelect. People who constantly make bad choices, make terrible decisions on just about everything and serve criminal and highly idiotic masters like Bush, can't be considered to be anything but stupid themselves. Her incompetence in both her Bush regime jobs is unprecedented. Her total and unquestioning obedience to her master and her eagerness to always please and tell him exactly what he wants to hear is repulsive and caused our nation tremendous damage. We are now despised all over the world because of the man she servs so obediently. If Bush woke up tomorrow and told Rice that the world is flat she would agree with him with all her heart and travel around the world to promote that view.
Posted by Walter_E_Wallis, a resident of the Midtown neighborhood, on Jan 22, 2007 at 9:02 pm
Dr. Rice is carrying out the Bush policy as is appropriate for the position. She does it with better grace than her Sulky predecessor. She does it with several orders of magnitude better that Madelaine [give away the farm] Albright. I don't think she has given nuclear reactors or missile guidance systems to any of our potential or actual enemies yet. I understand the Secretary has no authority to fire anyone so we await some other occurence to drive out the gagadian [sic?] swine.
Posted by Draw the Line, a resident of Stanford, on Jan 23, 2007 at 1:36 pm
The problem, Mr. Wallis, is that most people who despise Bush and, by extension, Dr. Rice, have no clue what you are talking about because they have no idea of the history of the 90s, Clinton and Albright.
They think North Korea has nukes now because of Bush.
They also think we went into Iraq because of "retribution" for 9/11, or even because we were in imminent danger.
Their history began on 9/11.
They are living proof of the power of the old-time mainstream media.
Posted by sarlat, a resident of the Crescent Park neighborhood, on Jan 23, 2007 at 2:38 pm
Draw the Line, do tell us why we went into Iraq. The rational, according to the Bush crowd and Fox News, keeps changing almost daily, it's hard to keep pace. As far as the 90s under Clinton and Albright, we can only dream fondly back on those days. Even many Republicans long for those days when we were respected around the world instead of being despised, unsafe and bankrupt by a completely corrupt, inept and incompetent administration.
Posted by Walter_E_Wallis, a resident of the Midtown neighborhood, on Jan 23, 2007 at 6:46 pm
Andy, If you think Dr. Rice is a brown noser you don't deserve to drive on Sand Hill Road, completed through her efforts to El Camino. Or was brown nosing a racial or sexist comment?
Sariat, we went into Iraq for a whole bunch of reasons, all fully documented for anyone willing to look beyond Daily KOs for their history. If you let your hatred for Bush lead you to sell out your country then make no claim for our regard.
'What is most remarkable about Rice's work for Bush is not her advice—he could hear much the same thing from Perle or Richard Cheney or others—but her friendship. She really likes Bush, and he seems to reciprocate. They share deep religious faith—both are evangelical Protestants. Both are sports fans and exercise fanatics: During one early meeting, Bush consulted with Rice while she ran on a treadmill. Both are loose and funny but capable of hardheaded pragmatism when it's required. "We have very similar personalities," she says.'
Posted by Robin, a resident of the College Terrace neighborhood, on Jan 24, 2007 at 1:00 pm
My point is this: Stanford University administration has the wrong idea if they think our community is eager to welcome brown-nosing war criminal Condi Rice back to Palo Alto.
And don't tell me a genius like Dr. Rice wasn't assured that a relatively peaceful, but factionalized nation like Iraq would become a LIVING NIGHTMARE if we remove Saddam Hussein and dismantle his entire power structure.
I assume I don't have to explain why our top institutions are duty-bound to be exemplars of common decency.
Posted by Candice, a resident of the Community Center neighborhood, on Jan 24, 2007 at 2:28 pm
Wallis, i know of very few, if any, international law scholars who believe that the invasion of Iraq was legal, but you might find the following informative:
A chief prosecutor of Nazi war crimes at Nuremberg has said George W. Bush should be tried for war crimes along with Saddam Hussein. Benjamin Ferenccz, who secured convictions for 22 Nazi officers for their work in orchestrating the death squads that killed more than 1 million people, told OneWorld both Bush and Saddam should be tried for starting "aggressive" wars - Saddam for his 1990 attack on Kuwait and Bush for his 2003 invasion of Iraq.
"Nuremberg declared that aggressive war is the supreme international crime," the 87-year-old Ferenccz told OneWorld from his home in New York. He said the United Nations charter, which was written after the carnage of World War II, contains a provision that no nation can use armed force without the permission of the UN Security Council.
Ferenccz said that after Nuremberg the international community realized that every war results in violations by both sides, meaning the primary objective should be preventing any war from occurring in the first place. He said the atrocities of the Iraq war - from the Abu Ghraib prison scandal and the massacre of dozens of civilians by U.S. forces in Haditha to the high number of civilian casualties caused by insurgent car bombs - were highly predictable at the start of the war.
"Every war will lead to attacks on civilians," he said. "Crimes against humanity, destruction beyond the needs of military necessity, rape of civilians, plunder-that always happens in wartime. So my answer personally, after working for 60 years on this problem and [as someone] who hates to see all these young people get killed no matter what their nationality, is that you've got to stop using warfare as a means of settling your disputes."
Ferenccz believes the most important development toward that end would be the effective implementation of the International Criminal Court (ICC), which is located in the Hague, Netherlands. The court was established in 2002 and has been ratified by more than 100 countries. It is currently being used to adjudicate cases stemming from conflict in Darfur, Sudan and civil wars in Uganda and the Democratic Republic of the Congo. But on May 6, 2002 - less than a year before the invasion of Iraq - the Bush administration withdrew the United States' signature on the treaty and began pressuring other countries to approve bilateral agreements requiring them not to surrender U.S. nationals to the ICC. Three months later, George W. Bush signed a new law prohibiting any U.S. cooperation with the International Criminal Court. The law went so far as to include a provision authorizing the president to "use all means necessary and appropriate," including a military invasion of the Netherlands, to free U.S. personnel detained or imprisoned by the ICC.
That's too bad, according to Ferenccz. If the United States showed more of an interest in building an international justice system, they could have put Saddam Hussein on trial for his 1990 invasion of Kuwait. "The United Nations authorized the first Gulf War and authorized all nations to take whatever steps necessary to keep peace in the area," he said. "They could have stretched that a bit by seizing the person for causing the harm. Of course, they didn't do that and ever since then I've been bemoaning the fact that we didn't have an International Criminal Court at that time."
Ferenccz is glad that Saddam Hussein is now on trial. This week, the Iraqi government began to try the former dictator for crimes connected to his ethnic cleansing campaign against the Kurds. According to Human Rights Watch, which has done extensive on-the-ground documentation, Saddam's Ba'athist regime deliberately and systematically killed at least 50,000 and possibly as many as 100,000 Kurds over a six-month period in 1988. Kurdish authorities put the number even higher, saying 182,000 Kurdish civilians were killed in a matter of months.
Everyone agrees innumerable villages were bombed and some were gassed. The surviving residents were rounded up, taken to detention centers, and eventually executed at remote sites, sometimes by being stripped and shot in the back so they would fall naked into trenches. In his defense, Saddam Hussein has disputed the extent of the killings and maintained they were justified because he was fighting a counter-insurgency operation against Kurdish separatists allied with Iran. When asked to enter a plea, the former president said "that would require volumes of books."
Ferenccz said whatever Saddam's reasons, nothing can justify the mass killing of innocents. "The offenses attributable to ex-President Hussein since he came to power range from the supreme international crime of aggression to a wide variety of crimes against humanity," he wrote after Saddam was ousted in 2003. "A fair trial will achieve many goals. The victims would find some satisfaction in knowing that their victimizer was called to account and could no longer be immune from punishment for his evil deeds. Wounds can begin to heal. The historical facts can be confirmed beyond doubt. Similar crimes by other dictators might be discouraged or deterred in future. The process of justice through law, on which the safety of humankind depends, would be reinforced."
Posted by Walter_E_Wallis, a resident of the Midtown neighborhood, on Jan 24, 2007 at 4:48 pm
If you paid for that expert advice, demand a refund.
The United States, with UN approval and lots of other countries drove Iraqi invaders from Kuwait. Was that legal?
Iraq was given a truce in return for complying with certain conditions. Iraq failed to comply with those conditions, corrupted UN officials and weapons inspectors with the oil for food program where compassionate permitted payments were instead spent for palaces and weapon developments. Iraq also violated the terms of the truce by continually trying to kill our pilots and by slaughtering disidents. After many chances to come into compliance with the truce terms, we finally, and with considerably less assistance from our co-opted "allies", went back in to force compliance with the UN mandate. Even then, Saddam was given an opportuity to go into exile but chose war. What did Ferenczz do to bring Sadam to justice?
Posted by Albert, a resident of the Duveneck/St. Francis neighborhood, on Jan 24, 2007 at 5:21 pm
Actually, the Iraqis wee cooperating with the UN inspectors and were telling them the truth, that they didn't have WMD. It was Bush who pushed for their withrawal because he was going to invade no matter what. Had they stayed just a few more months, it would've become clear to the whole world that Iraq indeed didn't have WMD and Bush, Cheney, Rumseld couldn't allow that. And who the hell gave a US president to order a foreign leader to go into exile? This is chutzpah at its most absurd level. Hopefully, after Bush and Cheney are impeached, we'll send them into their own exile, in the Hague.
Posted by Walter_E_Wallis, a resident of the Midtown neighborhood, on Jan 24, 2007 at 9:09 pm
You can go to hell as much for lying as for stealing.
Saddam refused inspection of his presidential palaces, of which he had many, paid for by oil for food kickbacks from UN and inspectors. He also demanded advance notice for most other inspections.
The United Nations gave a US president the authority to order Saddam into exile. There was a state of war. Geez, we buy you books and send you to school and all you do is spout Soros paid KOs bullet points.
Posted by Robin, a resident of the College Terrace neighborhood, on Jan 24, 2007 at 11:08 pm
#1 It was GWB who ordered the inspectors out of Iraq, not Saddam.
#2 Iraq was a little country of 27 million people. Iraq had never attacked nor threatened to attack USA. Ever.
#3 Since 1991 and before, any fool would know it's pure folly to dismantle the entire power structure of an extremely factionalized, majority-religious-fundamentalist nation.
#4 We've blown half a trillion dollars WE DIDN'T EVEN HAVE. We've created generational debt that our great-grandchildren will be paying off.
#5 Our military is fried. Now what do we do if a real threat arises?
#6 Thousands of our fellow countrymen who served in Iraq are dead. Those who survive are either physically maimed or mentally maimed. Hundreds of thousands of Iraqis are dead. So much grief and terror and torture for nothing.
#7 USA has lost a pointless war, we look like fools, and pretty much the entire world hates our guts for being such shameful, violent, heartless cowards.
#8 An estimated 286 tons of DU munitions were fired by the United States in Iraq and Kuwait in 1991. An estimated 130 tons were shot toppling Saddam Hussein. No normal American would endorse such evil.
#9 Thanks to our stupidity and cruelty, the region has never been so destablized and dangerous.
#10 If it's not a war crime to fail to maintain a count of casualties on both sides, it should be.
On a positive note, WE HAVE THE INTERNET. Hip Hip Hooray! Many Americans might eventually understand that the Arab-hating masterminds of this nightmare, as well as their cringing Igors (like GWB), have no love of life, no love of decency, no love of the USA.
Watch Senator Chuck Hagel (R-Nebraska) fight back:
Posted by Walter_E_Wallis, a resident of the Midtown neighborhood, on Jan 25, 2007 at 10:46 am
It was one of the less admirable aspects of the South that they addressed Black women by diminuitive terms. I consider any one who refers to Secretary Rice as Condi to be a racist, sexist pig, but that's just me.
Posted by Walter_E_Wallis, a resident of the Midtown neighborhood, on Jan 25, 2007 at 8:19 pm
"#8 An estimated 286 tons of DU munitions were fired by the United States in Iraq and Kuwait in 1991. An estimated 130 tons were shot toppling Saddam Hussein. No normal American would endorse such evil."
Uranium is an abundant element in the earth's crust. There is no evidence that depleted uranium is any worse that any other heavier metal used in ammunition. DU is this war's napalm. DU delivers more energy to a target and thus allows a kill with fewer rounds. Killing is what it is all about.
You sound like someone who sits chomping on a hamburger while bemoaning the plight of the food animal. You know neither the source of your food nor the source of your freedom.