Condi Smacks Clarke on Fox'N Friends

Fox News Channel

[ReleaseTheHounds]

Condi Rice was just interviewed on Fox'N Friends and she did a slam-dunk on Richard Clarke.

She properly noted that he had been Counter-Terrorism Czar for a number of years in the Clinton Administration and had plenty of opportunity to develop strategies to confront Al Qaeda which he (and that Administration) never pursued.

She acknowledged that Clarke had a number of "ideas" about confronting and combatting terrorism -- many of which the Bush Administration adopted. But they were a set of "ideas" not a comprehensive strategy which President Bush was looking for.

Typical Condi performance: flawless.

[Not A Snowbird]

On that vexing topic of abortion, Rice has reportedly described herself as 'mildly pro-choice' on one occasion and 'reluctantly pro-choice' on another.

Here you go. Good luck figuring out what it means!

[Texas2step]

I've got no dog in this fight, but I must admit it's been rather humorous to see the attacks carried out against someone who just asked a question.

If you don't know the answer, then "I don't know" would suffice. If you do know the answer, then "yes" or "no" would suffice.

As it is, close to one third of this thread has been dedicated to attacking a man who asked a question which was in response to something another poster made a comment about.

If the question does not belong on the thread then the comment that started it didn't belong either.

Perhaps you guys are assuming that the answer to the question would not be a positive thing. To be honest I don't know and now I'm curious. What is the position Condi takes?

[section9]

You don't like my graphic? Too effin' bad. Life ain't a bowl of cherries.

Now then, to your bleat:

Of course I have every much as right to post as you do, of course — and I don't bloat every one of my postings with gratuitous graphics.

Look, I know it's hard going through life being an oxygen thief, but you really ought not to set up a straw man. NO ONE is arguing that you don't have a right to post. That was a disingenous little dodge. What I'm saying is that you don't have a right to have your questions answered, especially since you've decided to bring your Johnnie One Note self to a foreign policy thread.

No one owes you an answer to anything. Stop acting as if we do.

Be Seeing You,

Chris

[justshutupandtakeit]

Apparently you have not seen a real attack.

Neither I nor BC knows Condi's position though he thinks he might and is willing to attack her based upon that rumor/supposition.

As stated earlier the proposition that Condi become president was based upon her foreign policy expertise and thus, a legitimate thing to say on a foreign policy/national security/war against terrorism thread.

Where did your confusion start?

[Texas2step]

No one owes you an answer to anything. Stop acting as if we do.

You are right about that, Chris. However, to characterize BibChr's comment as an attack on Condi is: 1) disingenious, 2) paraniod, 3) a sign that his simple question struck some chords.

Every single one of BibChr's comments have been in response to attacks misrepresenting his question.

Some folks don't get it. They don't like the thread being "hijacked" yet they are the ones that are continuing the "hijack" the thread in an effort to obtain the last word.

[aodell]

I have nothing against Dick Cheney but I wouldn't mind seeing Condi as our next VP.

[Gracey]

"What is her position on killing children for being inconvenient or imperfect? "

This is your uncalled for statement. You didn't ask a question, instead JUST LIKE a DEMOCRAT, you make a snide insinuation against a woman who's been saving your butt. I RESENT your insinuation against this wonderful woman. You're no better than Democrats.

I haven't heard ONE not ONE kind word about this woman out of your mouth, and that's what this thread was all about... it's about PRAISING Condi.

I agree, start your own thread. This is an UPBEAT "WE LOVE CONDI" thread for KEEPING YOUR ASS and MINE ALIVE.

GO CONDI!!!! We love ya babe!!!!

[Texas2step]

Apparently you have not seen a real attack.

Actually, I've seen more than my fair share, and launched a few as well. :-) I'm thinking maybe you don't know what constitutes an attack as you have characterized BibChr's original comment as an attack against Condi when all he did was ask a question.

Neither I nor BC knows Condi's position though he thinks he might and is willing to attack her based upon that rumor/supposition.

BC as much as admitted he didn't know Condi's position when he asked the question. You, and others, could have simply answered "I don't know" and you would have been done with it. You didn't. You are the one that went on the attack first, and he has responded in kind.

As stated earlier the proposition that Condi become president was based upon her foreign policy expertise and thus, a legitimate thing to say on a foreign policy/national security/war against terrorism thread.

And, as a possible presidential candidate, a legitimate question was asked in response to that statement. A simple "I don't know" would have sufficed for an answer, but you chose to become your own worse enemy and get the topic off of Condi's foreign relations experience into areas that evidently know one knows about. Again, I have no dog in this fight, I just found it ironic that you were the one that prolonged this "hijacking".

Where did your confusion start?

When you characterized BC's question as an attack and then claimed that your attacks on BC for even asking the question were not attacks. Pretty weak to call BC's question an attack, particularly if you are characterizing your own statements as being non-confrontational, when they are much closer to an attack than the original question.

Better now?

[section9]

You think I haven't dealt with this clown before? He pops up on Condi threads now and again, always describing her as being this side of Reynhard Heydrich in regards to abortion.

Really, this was a foreign policy thread. I resent some asshat coming on here and claiming the thread as his own so he can turn it into an abortion thread.

BibChr is a provacateur, pure and simple. He's not some innocent soul who has no idea what Condi's position on abortion is. If you believe that, than you've got a lot of work to you.

If he wants to paint Rice as a babykiller, which is what he is trying to do, I don't have to allow him to have a free ride.

Be Seeing You,

Chris

[Texas2step]

you make a snide insinuation

A snide insinuation?

What is her position on killing children for being inconvenient or imperfect?

Nope, a legitimate question. Do you have an answer? Then say so, either way.

Look folks, if we are going to characterize questions such as this as an attack and get all irate about questions such as this even being asked, then we're the ones acting like the democraps.

It's a democropic ploy to attack the questions instead of answering them. You cannot tell me it's not. We're (conservatives) better than that.

[Texas2step]

BibChr is a provacateur, pure and simple.

And you guys took the bait. Wouldn't it have been better to ignore him, if that's the case? Why the attacks?

I have to admit, I've seen BibChr around, but I haven't been on Condi threads in the past, other than quick reads. What you guys did was crap in your own bed, IMO.

As someone who reads FR a lot, but not all topics. Here's what it looked like to me:

Someone (Gracey, maybe) says: Condi for President!

BibChr says, What's stance on abortion? (legitimate question for Presidential candidate, IMO)

justshutupandwhatever starts slamming BibChr for asking the question, and then later you jump in.

To a lurker, it looks like you guys are the attackers and BibChr was being unfairly accused of facts not in evidence.

It also makes it look like maybe you do know what her position is and know that it wouldn't be too popular with some FReepers and other American conservatives.

IMO, as conservatives, it's not typically our MO to attack people who are asking questions. We defend our positions, we debate our views, and we move forward.

Again, that's what it looked like to me, and that's what it looks like to thousands of people who read this thread and never comment.

[justshutupandtakeit]

That oh, so innocent question was clearly an attack on Condi. It is foolish to view it otherwise and is typical of the underhanded attempt to divert this thread to one about abortion. You really believe the wording of that question was without intent? Read it again.

He knows very well that he considers Condi pro-abortion and you probably know that he believes that. If you don't then you need to investigate his other posts.

An "I don't know" would merely have provided the opening for him to tell you what he believed it to be. And it would not have been that she was was anti-abortion.

My responses were directed to him to return to the issue. Every one of them. You could consider them the same as a bttt.

Apparently no one is that interested in the actual topic though several have asked that the abortion issue be dropped from this thread.

[BibChr]

How have I overexaggerated? If you just can clarify her position on abortion, that'd be helpful. For instance, President Bush's position is not my own, but I can still support him heartily. I hope you aren't saying that the slaughter of our smallest and most defenseless are not worth considering?

Dan

[BibChr]

Wouldn't it have been great if folks like you, who aren't up to the discussion, had just stayed out of it? Then all that would have happend would have ben gracey's post, my question, her answer, and whatever concluding dialogue?

Well, you have that choice now. Because every time she's pumped for President, I expect to ask whether she's clarified her position yet. Until she does.

Dan

[BibChr]

Praise God. A voice of sanity. I feel less alone.

Should have been such a simple question.

Dan

[section9]

I don't care how it looks. Just like I don't care why the jihadis want me dead. BibChr was being a prat, and everyone knew it. Rice's pro-choice position was irrelevant to the thread at hand. If she runs for office someday, it will be relevant. It isn't now.

You've as much as admitted that BibChr was being a provacateur. Now you are right, I probably should have ignored the little prat, but I can't stand it when the ultras come in and dump on Bush people in the middle of a foreign policy thread.

Is it too much to ask someone to stay on topic?

Be Seeing You,

Chris

[BibChr]

"Good luck," you're not kidding! Thanks, I have seen that, and I DON'T know what it means. One FReeper has announced to me that (s)he knows what it means, and it means Rice is pro-abort. But my idea of the Golden Rule (and 1 Corinthians 13) requires me to wait for her to speak more clearly before I jump to a conclusion.

Eventually, she'll have to clarify. I hope it's not bad news; as I've said, I'm perfectly willing to support her. But I consider that a very important issue for a Presidential vote.

Dan

[BibChr]

THANK you.

[justshutupandtakeit]

The respect I once had for you has been flushed down the toilet and now you are branded as one not worthy of much regard.

One of the biggest enemies the anti-abortion movement has is the tendency to try and make every issue secondary to that. It makes enemies when there need be no enmity and causes those who agree with you in essence to discount your views on other issues.

If you are pretending that was an innocent question then you are a liar as well. It is the equivalent of "have you stopped beating your wife?"

[BibChr]

So, anyway, I'm wondering why you want to keep this going. But at any rate, you know you've no rational right to complain about someone responding to attacks, when you clog up the thread with pointless graphics. And to add to that your attacks on someone for responding to your attacks — well, it doesn't adorn you.

You know how to stop it; that's on you.

Dan