How would you RATE the Job Performance of Former Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice?

SPC Andrew Griffin — Tue, 26 Jan 2016 11:04:21 -0500

Today in 2005, Condoleezza Rice is appointed to the post of secretary of state. The post makes her the highest ranking African-American woman ever to serve in an U.S. presidential cabinet. Was she a Competent, Effective and Efficient Secretary of State?

Response by CPT Private RallyPoint Member made Jan 26 at 2016 11:32 AM

CPT Private RallyPoint Member — Tue, 26 Jan 2016 11:32:32 -0500

SPC Andrew Griffin I defer the answer to this question to the many performance evaluations that she has received from her superiors in the many institutions she has served in over the many years of her public service.

Response by SGT Jerrold Pesz made Jan 26 at 2016 12:01 PM

SGT Jerrold Pesz — Tue, 26 Jan 2016 12:01:58 -0500

She was by far the best that we have had in many years.

Response by SSG Warren Swan made Jan 26 at 2016 12:28 PM

SSG Warren Swan — Tue, 26 Jan 2016 12:28:13 -0500

Depends on what the criteria used to define "good", "competent", and "effective" is. Was she respected yes. Was she competent? I will not say being we invaded Iraq and lives were lost on shoddy intel. Effective? She got the job done. It's not a popularity contest.

Response by 1SG Private RallyPoint Member made Jan 26 at 2016 1:21 PM

1SG Private RallyPoint Member — Tue, 26 Jan 2016 13:21:11 -0500

If we're grading on a curve, she was far superior to any we've had since.
Going backwards, the last one I can remember that was better was Jim Baker.

Response by Lt Col Scott Shuttleworth made Jan 26 at 2016 1:22 PM

Lt Col Scott Shuttleworth — Tue, 26 Jan 2016 13:22:20 -0500

I believe she set the bar for Secretary of State, black or white, young or old, male or female. She took that job by the reigns and took it to new heights.

She is a very smart, classy, and powerful woman...and I wish she had stayed in the Washington circles...she may be back eventually...I hope so. She can hold her own against anyone. If she ran for president, she would have my vote hands down.

Response by LTC Bink Romanick made Jan 26 at 2016 1:41 PM

LTC Bink Romanick — Tue, 26 Jan 2016 13:41:25 -0500

SPC Andrew Griffin Dismal at best. She's lucky she wasn't tried for war crimes.

Response by MSgt James Mullis made Jan 26 at 2016 1:51 PM

MSgt James Mullis — Tue, 26 Jan 2016 13:51:58 -0500

Superior performer, Promote now.

Response by MSgt Danny Hope made Jan 26 at 2016 3:20 PM

MSgt Danny Hope — Tue, 26 Jan 2016 15:20:30 -0500

I believe she was one of the best in my lifetime. She also had an impressive career prior to the posting. She did the job to the best of her ability, then did what I respect most from our civil servants...she left the job to the next selectee and stayed out of their business.

Response by MCPO Roger Collins made Jan 26 at 2016 3:38 PM

MCPO Roger Collins — Tue, 26 Jan 2016 15:38:08 -0500

When compared to Hillary, sterling. She is lucky she wasn't tried for war crimes or total incompetence if that could be a charge.

Response by SSgt Private RallyPoint Member made Jan 26 at 2016 4:42 PM

SSgt Private RallyPoint Member — Tue, 26 Jan 2016 16:42:23 -0500

Excellent. One of the best.

Response by Capt Walter Miller made Jan 26 at 2016 7:46 PM

Capt Walter Miller — Tue, 26 Jan 2016 19:46:00 -0500

1. Unindicted War Criminal

2. At the 9/11 commission she testified that no one ever dreamed about using airliners for bombs. Turns out this eventuality was planned for at the 1996 Atlanta Olympics.

3. Flatly refused to testify at the 9/11 Commission. Was finally forced to testify, pressured by the families her gross incompetence bereaved.

4. Foreign policy academic expertise was based in knowledge of the Soviet Union. Grossly unqualified to be National Security Advisor or to park non-Russian cars.

5. Treated as a token female by both Cheney and Rummy the Dummy.

6. Pushed "The smoking gun must not be a mushroom cloud" which she had to know was a fabrication.

7. Bears repeating: unindicted war criminal.

8. Feckless incompetent.

Response by Capt Walter Miller made Jan 26 at 2016 8:17 PM

Capt Walter Miller — Tue, 26 Jan 2016 20:17:34 -0500

Subpoenas

In March 2004, Rice declined to testify before the National Commission on Terrorist Attacks Upon the United States (the 9/11 Commission). The White House claimed executive privilege under constitutional separation of powers and cited past tradition. Under pressure, Bush agreed to allow her to testify[55] so long as it did not create a precedent of presidential staff being required to appear before United States Congress when so requested. Her appearance before the commission on April 8, 2004, was accepted by the Bush administration in part because she was not appearing directly before Congress. She thus became the first sitting National Security Advisor to testify on matters of policy.

In April 2007, Rice rejected, on grounds of executive privilege, a House subpoena regarding the prewar claim that Iraq sought yellowcake uranium from Niger.[56]

Iraq

Rice was a proponent of the 2003 invasion of Iraq. After Iraq delivered its declaration of weapons of mass destruction to the United Nations on December 8, 2002, Rice wrote an editorial for The New York Times entitled "Why We Know Iraq Is Lying".[57] In a January 10, 2003, interview with CNN's Wolf Blitzer, Rice made headlines by stating regarding Iraqi president Saddam Hussein's nuclear capabilities: "The problem here is that there will always be some uncertainty about how quickly he can acquire nuclear weapons. But we don't want the smoking gun to be a mushroom cloud."[58]

In October 2003, Rice was named to run the Iraq Stabilization Group, to “quell violence in Iraq and Afghanistan and to speed the reconstruction of both countries."[59] By May 2004, the Washington Post reported that the council had become virtually nonexistent.[60]

Leading up to the 2004 presidential election, Rice became the first National Security Advisor to campaign for an incumbent president. She stated that while: "Saddam Hussein had nothing to do with the actual attacks on America, Saddam Hussein's Iraq was a part of the Middle East that was festering and unstable, [and] was part of the circumstances that created the problem on September 11."[61]

After the invasion, when it became clear that Iraq did not have nuclear WMD capability, critics called Rice's claims a "hoax," "deception" and "demagogic scare tactic."[62][63] "Either she missed or overlooked numerous warnings from intelligence agencies seeking to put caveats on claims about Iraq's nuclear weapons program, or she made public claims that she knew to be false," wrote Dana Milbank and Mike Allen in the Washington Post.[64]

- wiki

Response by Capt Walter Miller made Jan 26 at 2016 8:37 PM

Capt Walter Miller — Tue, 26 Jan 2016 20:37:25 -0500

Some of you guys don't even seem to be even half awake.

Last figures I saw showed 3,300 Americans killed on 9/11.

On 8/6/2001 the PDB says 'OBL determined to strike inside the U.S.' Who exactly should take that for action?

Did you just forget? There were 3,300 dead Americans and the Bush Administration did everything it could to prevent any investigation of what led to that.

Walt

Response by Capt Walter Miller made Jan 26 at 2016 9:02 PM

Capt Walter Miller — Tue, 26 Jan 2016 21:02:04 -0500

This thread certainly illuminates what Patrick Henry said: "The only lamp I have for my path is the lamp of experience."

Many of you remember nothing, making your opinions -worse- than useless.

Walt

Response by Capt Walter Miller made Jan 27 at 2016 8:08 AM

Capt Walter Miller — Wed, 27 Jan 2016 08:08:26 -0500

Response by Capt Walter Miller made Jan 27 at 2016 8:15 AM

Capt Walter Miller — Wed, 27 Jan 2016 08:15:36 -0500

Americans have known about many of these acts for years, but the 524-page executive summary of the Senate Intelligence Committee’s report erases any lingering doubt about their depravity and illegality: In addition to new revelations of sadistic tactics like “rectal feeding,” scores of detainees were waterboarded, hung by their wrists, confined in coffins, sleep-deprived, threatened with death or brutally beaten. In November 2002, one detainee who was chained to a concrete floor died of “suspected hypothermia.”

These are, simply, crimes. They are prohibited by federal law, which defines torture as the intentional infliction of “severe physical or mental pain or suffering.” They are also banned by the Convention Against Torture, the international treaty that the United States ratified in 1994 and that requires prosecution of any acts of torture…

No amount of legal pretzel logic can justify the behavior detailed in the report. Indeed, it is impossible to read it and conclude that no one can be held accountable. At the very least, Mr. Obama needs to authorize a full and independent criminal investigation.

http://www.pensitoreview.com/2014/12/22/bush-and-cheney-have-admitted-they-ordered-torture/

Pensito Review Bush and Cheney Have Confessed to Authorizing Torture – Now Even the New York...

In an editorial today, the New York Times called for prosecuting Dick Cheney, George Bush and their subordinates for war crimes:

Response by Capt Walter Miller made Jan 27 at 2016 8:26 AM

Capt Walter Miller — Wed, 27 Jan 2016 08:26:27 -0500

"President Bush says he is opposed to establishing a special, independent commission to probe how the government dealt with terrorism warnings before 9/11. [CBS NEWS, 5/23/2002] He will later change his stance in the face of overwhelming support for the idea (see September 20, 2002), and will then sabotage an agreement reached with Congress to establish a commission. Several years after leaving the White House, current Bush press secretary Scott McClellan will write that the president’s reluctance to open an independent investigation into the 9/11 attacks (see November 15, 2002) was part of a larger penchant for secrecy in the administration. McClellan will write: “Unfortunately, the initial response of the Bush White House to demands by partisan critics in Congress and elsewhere for an independent investigation fueled the firestorm of anger."

http://www.historycommons.org/context.jsp?item=a052302bushopposes

Context of 'May 23, 2002: President Bush Opposes Independent 9/11 Commission'

This is a scalable context timeline. It contains events related to the event May 23, 2002: President Bush Opposes Independent 9/11 Commission. You can narrow or broaden the context of this timeline by adjusting the zoom level. The lower the scale, the more relevant the items on average will be, while the higher the scale, the less relevant the items, on average, will be.

Response by SMSgt Lawrence McCarter made Nov 14 at 2017 11:23 PM

SMSgt Lawrence McCarter — Tue, 14 Nov 2017 23:23:56 -0500

I would rate Her an A+ or on a scale of 1 to 10 for outstanding performance a 10. I have a more favorable impression of Her than anyone I've ever seem in Washington in a long time. She is a very well qualified woman and one I would not hesitate to vote for including the office of President of the United States.