2008 Woodie Awards
NYT:
The nominees will be people that, one, obviously can do the job and, secondly, will be independent,'’ Bush said. ‘’It’s important that whomever I pick is viewed as an independent person from politics. It’s this independence of the Fed that gives people, not only here in America but the world, confidence.
Absolutely. This independence allows the Fed Chairman to apply medicine to the economy (raising interest rates when the occasion calls for it, or vis versa) which can run counter to what is popular or what politicians espouse. Bush Sr. used to complain that the reason he lost was due to Greenspan raising interest rates in 1991. At least Bush Jr. understands why, although the top candidates are professors (Bernanke, Feldstein, and Hubbard) and quite independent.
Any protest is better than none and the lack of a unifying message just shows in how many areas the Bush administration sucks at.
In yesterday’s speech, Condoleeza Rice suggested that she had insight from knowing that the fall of communism was due to post-war policy - insight that supposedly gave her a sense of confidence that current American policy is guided by proven principles.
What does a man with a hammer see? Nails everywhere.
Yesterday, I had the privilege of hearing Madame Secretary Rice speak at Jadwin. As most of you know, and for those who don’t, Rice was invited to speak in celebration of the Wilson School’s 75th anniversary. Although I personally wasn’t that revoked by anything Ms. Rice had to say, particularly because I didn’t expect much from the beginning, I was a bit disappointed with Dean Slaughter’s remarks.
I understand to a certain extent you are introducing the Secretary of State of this country, but I honestly found some of Dean Slaughter’s remarks to be a bit over dramatized. In her introduction, for example, Dean Slaughter pictorialized Dr. Rice as a direct example of the visionary ideals and characteristics which Woodrow Wilson himself held; filled with a vast knowledge of international affairs and diplomatic acumen, Dr. Rice was far described as the political figure that has repeatedly perpetuated the lies of the Bush administration.
In any case, what got me to share with you this entry was just remembering Dean Slaughter’s face when downstairs in the C level of Frist on election night. When it was announced that President Bush had won some key states, Dean Slaughter- trying to maintain a impartial face- clearly was upset. Yet that same face seemed to completely disappear come nearly one year later.
I’m not questioning Dean Slaughter’s authority or position as the head of the Wilson school. My only disappointment was what for me seemed to be too much of florid speech for Dr. Rice who was even invited, more than emphatically, to come to teach at Princeton if she ever so chooses to.
This, I think, would not be in the best interest of any Princeton student, nor that of the Wilson School.
Condoleezza Rice came to speak at Princeton University today as part of the celebration marking the 75th anniversary of the Woodrow Wilson School’s inception. I was pleasantly surprised at Secretary Rice’s public speaking skills: though I never thought she was particularly awful at addressing an audience, I found her address organized, interesting, and thoughtful.
Perhaps even more surprising was how much I tended to agree with the Secretary’s claims: her arguments for the belief that we have a moral obligation to protect individual rights all around the world and to support democratic organizations wherever they arise were extremely persuasive.
The argument that I didn’t find particularly compelling, however, was the attempt to connect these goals with the Bush administration’s decision to invade Iraq. While it is true that Iraq suffered for years under the brutal dictatorship of a tyrannical sociopath and that the US did have a moral obligation to condemn that oppressive government, that obligation hardly translates into a need to pre-emptively strike another sovereign nation. Most disconcerting of all may be the remarkable shift the Bush administration has taken in its justification for the war: the pre-war justification for invading Iraq was primarily one of self defense, while post-war it has been based on protecting democracy for Iraqi citizens.
Though the point has been made time and time again, I think it especially important in light of Secretary Rice’s speech: whether our foreign policy is based on the idea of spreading democracy throughout the world or protecting the United States from terrorism will drastically alter our foreign policy.
Given America’s influence throughout the globe, it’s particularly important to demand that the Bush administration clearly lay out which paradigm it plans to base its future foreign policy decision-making. Whether or not we get a straight answer to that question is up to President Bush and Secretary Rice.
I’m sure some will say accuse me of being overly harsh in today’s Princetonian:
Criticism of Rice was stronger from other parts of the campus liberal community.
“I’d like her to get up there and say, ‘I was wrong, I lied to the American people, and I’m resigning,’ but I know that’s not going to happen,” said Asheesh Siddique ‘07, coeditor of the liberal publication Princeton Progressive Nation. “Instead, she’s going to make excuses for her and her colleagues’ incompetence and dishonesty.”
“I don’t believe there’s much she can say to convince otherwise skeptical Princetonians that Bush’s Iraq policy is a good one,” added Siddique, who made a name for himself organizing the Frist Filibuster last semester. “I say this because she has no credibility.”
I completely stand by this, and now I’m going to take the opportunity to put up a post I’ve been working on for today. What follows is a sample of what Condi’s said as an official, and what the facts are. Anybody who fabricates that much on issues of national consequence, like war, should have to answer for their lies, and I hope students make Rice do that today. MediaMatters and CAP’s Claim v. Fact database were invaluable resources. So here are some of the lies of Condi Rice:
Condi’s Claim: “”We do know that he is actively pursuing a nuclear weapon. We don’t want the smoking gun to be a mushroom cloud.” (9/9/02)
The Truth: “. . . we have not uncovered evidence that Iraq undertook significant post-1998 steps to actually build nuclear weapons or produce fissile material.” (David Kay, 10/2/03)
Condi’s Claim: “He’s trying to acquire nuclear weapons. Nobody ever said that it was going to be the next year . . .” (7/30/03)
The Truth: “. . . [Iraq] could have a nuclear weapon in less than a year.” (George W. Bush, 10/7/02)
Condi’s Claim: “. . . the overwhelming bulk of the evidence was that this was an attack [9/11] that was likely to take place overseas.” (5/16/02)
The Truth: “Bin Laden Determined to Strike in US” - President’s Daily Briefing, August 6, 2001.
Condi’s Claim: “[T]he administration, I think, has said to the American people that it is a generational commitment to Iraq.” (6/19/05)
The Truth: “It is unknowable how long that conflict will last. It could last six days, six weeks. I doubt six months.” - Donald Rumsfeld (2/7/03)
Condi’s Claim: “[H]ad there been even a peep that the agency did not want that sentence in or that George Tenet did not want that sentence in, that the director of Central Intelligence did not want it in, it would have been gone.” - discussing President Bush’s January 2003 State of the Union assertion that Iraq was seeking to import uranium from Africa on Face the Nation (7/11/03)
The Truth: “In October of 2002, the CIA also ’sent two memos to the White House voicing strong doubts about a claim President Bush made three months later in the State of the Union address that Iraq was trying to buy nuclear materials in Africa.’”
Condi’s Claim: “But let’s remember what we’ve already found. Secretary Powell on February 5th talked about a mobile, biological weapons capability. That has now been found and this is a weapons laboratory trailers capable of making a lot of agent that — dry agent, dry biological agent that can kill a lot of people. So we are finding these pieces that were described.” - on CNBC’s Capital Report (6/3/03)
The Truth: “We have not yet been able to corroborate the existence of a mobile biological weapons production effort. Technical limitations would prevent any of these processes from being ideally suited to these trailers.” - Bush administration weapons inspector David Kay (10/2/03)
Condi, what do you have to say for yourself?
I’d like to give some other fine (or at least informative) articles from sources a bit different than those Asheesh gave:
Josef Korbel’s Enduring Foreign Policy Legacy - Michael Dobbs, The Washington Post, 2000
Star-in-Waiting: Meet George W.’s foreign-policy czarina - Condoleezza Rice - Jay Nordlinger, National Review, 1999
Not to mention this or this (beware the ugly layout!)
I think that reading these sources can often help us to avoid post hoc ergo propter hoc generalizations about why Condi does what she does.
With Katrina costing about $600-700 million a day, and tens of billions of dollars in future years, a rare opportunity has presented itself: the chance to popularly raise taxes. The tax hike, if couched in the language of rebuilding New Orleans, which will be part of its purpose, can also improve the governments financial position by lessening its large structural deficits. President Clinton clearly endorses such a view, not only for its financial role, but also for its political opportunity. Via CNN:
“They [Democrats] should continue to oppose it [Bush’s refusal to raise taxes to finance New Orleans], and they should make it an issue in the 2006 election, and they should make it an issue in the 2008 election,” said Clinton, interviewed on Sunday by George Stephanopoulos on ABC’s “This Week.”
“I think it’s very important that Americans understand… tax cuts are always popular, but about half of these tax cuts since 2001 have gone to people in my income group, the top 1 percent. I’ve gotten four tax cuts. They’re responsible for this big structural deficit, and they’re not going away, the deficits aren’t.”
I think plenty of Americans would support a tax increase if the intended purpose is to fund a recovery from a national disaster, with the beneficial side-effect of lessening our financial dependence on other countries through a smaller fiscal deficit. Those who are against it would be dubbed irresponsible and uncaring about the events that have transpired in New Orleans and the surrounding states, because they apparently don’t want to call for more funding. After all, people are willing to pay higher taxes in light of Katrina, after vicariously experiencing New Orleans in the days following the storm. They certainly were after Pearl Harbor during World War II. I think they were after 9/11 and at the beginning of Afghanistan and Iraq. Maybe they are willing to now as well; Democrats should seize the moment. This could be the start of a whole new era.
There are plenty of very smart people working at FEMA who perceived the immense threat of Hurricane Katrina before it hit, and sounded the alarm bells. Unfortunately, the unqualified people in charge were wearing earplugs. Let’s just hope the veterans of FEMA who have the experience to be top level officials at FEMA remain at FEMA. Else we will see the mass exodus of talented, and frustrated, individuals from the government like what happened at the EPA and the Treasury Department.
Gresham’s law states that the bad money drives out the good. As we have seen, FEMA, through its failures, can do enormous good, with the potential to do much more than it has already done. My fingers are crossed that the bad public workers do not drive out the good ones in this case.
“Where is the Help?” the top headline of CNN.com read today. Indeed, where the hell is it?
Thousands of people are dead and dying and the federal government has proven itself completely impotent at disaster relief efforts.
But this isn’t the only reason that I’m so angry. On Wednesday, Dennis Hastert questioned whether New Orleans should even be rebuilt. Instead, he said “it looks like a city that could be bulldozed.” But what those making their insensitive remarks, and I have no problem pointing out that many of them have so far been Republicans, have failed to recognize is that this entire situation was completely and entirely preventable.
Local leaders have been pleading to the federal government for years to raise the levee levels and improve the flood control system. Not only was hingsight 20/20 in this regard, but foresight was as well. Every literate New Orleanian knew that what did happen could happen. But instead of funding these improvements, the Bush administration cut flood control funding! But President Bush, thanks for ending your vacation early.
Just another WordPress weblog
RSS 2.0
