No free ride for Europe, says top Barack Obama aide

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/newstopics/uselection2008/barackobama/2307785/No-free-ride-for-Europe,-says-top-Barack-Obama-aide.html

The snakeoil salesman's pitching his own African-American Stanford national-security policy-wonk named "Rice"!

No free ride for Europe, says top Barack Obama aide

By Toby Harnden in Washington

Last Updated: 5:58PM BST 19/07/2008

Europe will be challenged by a President Barack Obama to contribute more to global security and will no longer have the "easy out" of pandering to anti-Bush sentiment, according to a top adviser to the Democratic candidate.

Former Assistant Secretary of State Susan Rice listens to Barack Obama answer a question at a foreign policy forum in Des Moines, Iowa

In an interview with The Daily Telegraph on the eve of Mr Obama's week-long trip to Afghanistan, the Middle East and Europe, Susan Rice emphasised that the election of Mr Obama would mark a decision by Americans to "turn the page" on President George W Bush.

But the former Rhodes Scholar, who took her Master's degree and doctorate in international relations at New College, Oxford, made clear that an Obama administration would also challenge Europe to do more after a Democratic victory in November's election.

"It would signal a return to the more pragmatic and bi-partisan traditions of American foreign policy, which have been lost to ideology in the Bush years," she said. "He will not proceed through an ideological frame and seek to impose that frame on every challenge.

"There is some truth to the notion that some of the animus at the popular level towards the Bush administration may have made it easier for some of our European partners to avoid taking steps that we may want them to take and that perhaps they ought to take," she said.

"That has, in some respects, perhaps on some issues, given them an easy out. Barack Obama will lead from a position of strength and seek progress, and he will want to work with Europe in very strong partnership.

"It means we in the United States will have to do our part; but Europe will have to do its part too. There can be no free riders if this is going to be an effective partnership."

The Obama campaign has highlighted Afghanistan as a prime example, arguing that Europe should send more troops there and lift restrictions on how they can be used.

On Tuesday, Mr Obama argued for a major sift in American policy away from the "single-minded and open-ended focus on Iraq" towards a broader approach to the world and vowed to send more troops to Afghanistan.

"Among the issues we will want to focus on together are a strong and effective approach to Iran and to the larger non-proliferation challenge, a robust effort to tackle climate change, as well as Afghanistan and Pakistan, where the situation is deteriorating and where we in the US as well as Nato need to do more," said Miss Rice.

She added: "And so Obama will ask more of ourselves and ask more of our closest allies."

Mr Obama is committed to withdrawing American troops from Iraq at a rate of one to two brigades a month. "Obama will maintain a residual US presence, but not permanent bases, to carry out specific missions.

She described these as "protecting our embassy, civilians and humanitarian workers; conducting counter-terrorism operations against remaining al-Qaeda elements; and continuing to train Iraqi police and security forces, if the Iraqis are making progress towards political reconciliation".

One of Mr Obama's toughest tasks would be to rebuild American relations with the world, she conceded.

"What happened in the Bush years, particularly in the early Bush years, was a precipitous drop off in European attitudes towards the United States and towards President Bush in particular.

"The polls for a number of years indicated that the frustration or the disillusion was directed primarily at President Bush. But over time, the United States and Bush came to be conflated in international popular opinion, not entirely but increasingly ... it doesn't serve American interests, and it needs to be repaired."

Miss Rice, 43, who is married with two children, was an Assistant Secretary of State under President Bill Clinton after a meteoric rise to the higher reaches of American policymaking.

Along with Tony Lake, Mr Clinton's first National Security Adviser - the key figure at the right hand of the president who co-ordinates foreign policy - Miss Rice leads a team of some 300 foreign policy advisers.

A tough, plain-speaking adviser who nevertheless has a hearty laugh and a direct, informal manner, Miss Rice is widely seen as being in line to become Mr Obama's National Security Adviser - the same role that Condoleezza Rice, now US Secretary of State, was given by George W. Bush in 2001.

But Miss Rice shrugs off the inevitable comparisons with the "other Dr Rice" - who is no relation - and won't be drawn on what position she might assume in an Obama administration.

"I have no idea who will be President Obama's National Security Adviser," she said. "I wouldn't begin to presume that.

"I wouldn't take the analogy [with Condoleezza Rice] particularly far. I respect Secretary Rice. We have a few things in common - we're African American women working in the field of national security named Rice that both have great affection for and ties to Stanford University, but beyond that I think the parallels are few."

Mr Obama is due to arrive in London on Friday night before meeting Gordon Brown at Downing Street and David Cameron, the Conservative party leader, on Saturday as well as meeting American supporters.

The centrepiece of his trip to Europe will be a major speech in Berlin, where he will arrive after stops in Jordan, Israel and the West Bank. He will then meet President Nicolas Sarkozy in Paris before flying to London, where he will be for less than 24 hours.

But Miss Rice batted away the concerns of some British diplomats that the focus on Germany and the fact that Britain was not Mr Obama's first stop might signal a watering down of what Winston Churchill first described as the "special relationship" between Britain and the United States.

She still valued Churchill's term, she said. "As far back as any of us can remember, the US and Britain have cooperated hand in hand to meet some of the most significant and dangerous security challenges we face.

"Americans look to Britain as a special partner, a special ally of historical and cultural significance as well as very practical everyday significance."

Peter Dow comments -

I am the owner of Rice for President Yahoo Group.

I love Condoleezza Rice.

Former Assistant Secretary of State Susan, you are no "Condoleezza" Rice.

- Peter Dow

Not happy with your email address?
Get the one you really want - millions of new email addresses available now at Yahoo!

#1865

From: Peter Dow <peterdow@...>
Date: Mon Jul 21, 2008 5:23 am
Subject: CNN Wolf Blitzer interviews Condoleezza Rice. July 18, 2008. VIDEO

bty944017

http://www.state.gov/secretary/rm/2008/07/107253.htm

New group link -

CNN Wolf Blitzer interviews Condoleezza Rice. July 18, 2008
This is a YouTube playlist of the 3 uploaded video parts of the interview 1) Iran, 2) Iraq, Afghanistan, Palestine-Israel 3) Rice for V.P.?
http://uk.youtube.com/watch?v=EzvAlGFKwdM&feature=PlayList&p=CDE888051E6672EC&index=0&playnext=1

Secretary's Remarks: Interview With CNN's Wolf Blitzer
Sat, 19 Jul 2008 23:00:00 -0500

Interview With CNN's Wolf Blitzer

Secretary Condoleezza Rice
Washington, DC
July 18, 2008

QUESTION: Madame Secretary, thanks very much for joining us.

SECRETARY RICE: Pleasure to be with you, Wolf.

QUESTION: Let�s talk about Iran right now. The number three diplomat at the State Department, and indeed, the man whose office we�re sitting in right now is meeting this weekend with high-ranking Iranian officials. Now until now, the U.S. position was there would be no such meeting on nuclear issues until the Iranians stopped enriching uranium, which they�re still doing. Why the change?

SECRETARY RICE: Well, let me be very clear that the U.S. demand for a precondition for the suspension of uranium enrichment and reprocessing prior to negotiations stands. And in fact, what Bill Burns will do is he will go to demonstrate the unity of the P-5+1, as we call it, Russia, China, and the three European countries. He will go to demonstrate that we are unified. He will go to affirm that the United States fully backs the package. By the way, I signed the letter transmitting that package. And he will receive the Iranian answer.

He will also make very clear that there will be no negotiation in which the United States is involved until there is a suspension of their enrichment and reprocessing.

QUESTION: So is this just a one-shot deal?

SECRETARY RICE: This is. This is.

QUESTION: He will just sit in this meeting, listen, deliver his little message, receive a response and that will be it?

SECRETARY RICE: Well, of course � of course, he will be listening intently to see if the Iranians demonstrate that they are ready to accept the condition, the demand � and by the way, it�s not a U.S. demand. It is now a demand that is enshrined in three separate Security Council resolutions. And he will listen. And if Iran is ready to suspend, then the United States will be there. But it�s very important to recognize that this is to reinforce a position that we have held since 2006.

QUESTION: But you acknowledge this is a change?

SECRETARY RICE: I acknowledge that what we�ve done is to make a step that we think demonstrates to everyone our seriousness about this process. But what has not changed is that the United States is determined to have negotiations only when Iran has suspended its enrichment and reprocessing. That�s when the United States can join.

QUESTION: This is what you said back on June 3^rd: �If Iran suspends its enrichment and reprocessing activities, I will join my UN Security Council colleagues. I�ll meet with my Iranian counterpart. I�ll do it anytime, anywhere.�

Now could you envisage your doing what the Under Secretary of State for Political Affairs is now doing? In other words, listening in, receiving, not negotiating, but meeting?

SECRETARY RICE: We have one chance to receive the Iranian response. That�s going to be on Saturday when Bill receives that response. I am prepared to go and talk to my counterpart anyplace, anytime, anywhere. But there really must be a suspension, a verifiable suspension, of their enrichment and reprocessing.

QUESTION: What about just participating in a meeting and --

SECRETARY RICE: No, no. Wolf, this --

QUESTION: -- listening in along the lines of what the Under Secretary is doing?

SECRETARY RICE: I think everybody understands, and we�ve talked to our counterparts in the P-5+1, that this is an opportunity for Iran. Very often we hear, Wolf, well, we�re not sure that the United States is really behind this. Well, I signed the letter. Now, Bill will go to receive the response. It�s a bookend. I transmitted the proposal. He will receive the response. That should give the Iranians every indication of how strongly the United States supports this package.

QUESTION: So this is really designed as an incentive to them to do, from your perspective, the right thing?

SECRETARY RICE: That�s right, that�s right. And it is, by the way, a very clear message also that there is complete unity on both tracks, because, of course, we�ve submitted this proposal to the Iranians, but we�ve also designated Iranian banks and other entities. Just a few weeks ago, a couple of weeks ago, the Europeans designated Bank Melli, a major Iranian bank. Major companies are pulling out of Iran like Total, which has pulled out of gas and oil deals there.

And so the world is sending Iran a message on both tracks. First of all, there are consequences for continuing to defy the will of the international community: continued economic isolation, continued isolation that is leading to an ever-worsening economic situation in Iran; and on the other hand, a pathway out, suspend and negotiate.

QUESTION: Because the Iranians are sending, sort of, mixed messages as well. They got their missile test that we all saw only the other day. They�re continuing, by your account, to enrich uranium. John Bolton, who was your United States Ambassador to the United Nations, he said this on Thursday. He said, �This is a complete capitulation on the whole idea of suspending enrichment. Just when the Administration has no more u-turns to pull, it does another.�

SECRETARY RICE: Look, John is a private citizen. He can say whatever he wants. But the issue here is sending the Iranians a strong message about American policy and the unity with our allies. That has been our policy since 2006.

Now, as to their missile test, we have an answer for that, too. It�s called missile defense. And we have the very strong work that we are doing to secure our allies in the Gulf. We have the very strong statements the President and others have made. The Iranians know that we will defend our interests. They�re not confused about that.

QUESTION: Well, the Israelis, as you know, are especially nervous right now. The Defense Minister, Ehud Barak, said on July 10^th, �Israel is the strongest country in the region, as proved � and has proved in the past that it won�t hesitate to act when its vital security interests are at stake.� If Israel deems it�s necessary to protect its vital security interests, would the U.S. go along with a preemptive Israeli strike?

SECRETARY RICE: I think you know, Wolf, that I�m not going to speculate on things that haven�t happened. I can tell you that we have consistently talked with the Israelis. We consult about policy toward Iran. We are all committed, as the international community is committed, to a diplomatic path. The President keeps all of his options open concerning Iran. But we believe that there is pressure growing on Iran to do the right thing, as you put it.

Now, the Iranians may choose not to do the right thing. And if they choose not to do the right thing, then we�ll continue to look at other measures, including potentially going back to the Security Council.

QUESTION: I want to move on to a couple other important issues. But are the Iranians still building a nuclear bomb right now?

SECRETARY RICE: Well, the Iranians are certainly building capabilities that would allow them to have a nuclear weapons program, should they choose. So the enrichment and reprocessing is, in fact, the long pole in the tent for a nuclear weapons program. Look, the Iranians have been � it�s been demonstrated to Iran, we�ve told Iran, if you want a civil nuclear program, if you�re concerned for some reason about energy, there are plenty of ways to have a civil nuclear program as long as you don�t enrich and reprocess, the so-called fuel cycle. We�ve supported the Russian effort to have a civil nuclear plant there where there�s a fuel take-back provision. We�ve supported an idea that the Russians had and that the IAEA has had about perhaps assured fuel supply. It�s an idea the President put on the table. There are lots of ways for Iran to have a civil nuclear program, and enrichment and reprocessing isn�t necessary.

QUESTION: But you believe they�re building a bomb?

SECRETARY RICE: Well, I am concerned, as, by the way, the IAEA is concerned because they haven�t been answering the questions about their activities, that Iran is determined to acquire the capabilities, the technologies, that could lead to a nuclear weapon. And I just have to add, of course, they continue to improve their delivery systems, as we have recently seen.

QUESTION: The United States has not had a diplomatic mission in Tehran since 1979. All of us remember those 444 days when American diplomats were held hostage in Iran. But now, there is word that you and the Bush Administration are thinking of establishing a diplomatic interests section, a diplomatic mission with American diplomats in Tehran, the first time since then. Is that true?

SECRETARY RICE: Well, I�m not going to get into our internal deliberations. We are always looking for ways to reach out to the Iranian people. We believe very strongly that the Iranian people are � they harbor no animosity toward the United States, and we certainly harbor no animosity toward them. We would like to find ways to reach out to them, to make it easier for them to come to the United States, to have access to the United States. But we�re always looking for ways to do that.

QUESTION: It sounds like the answer is yes, though.

SECRETARY RICE: I said we won�t talk about our internal deliberations. We�ll look at all the options and then we�ll let you know.

QUESTION: A sensitive internal deliberation question. The Vice President Dick Cheney � is he onboard with all of this outreach that we�ve been seeing towards Iran?

SECRETARY RICE: I�m not going to get into our internal deliberations. But of course, the Vice President is a very important part of the national security team. The Vice President and I talk all the time. We talk all of the time with the President about these issues. And ultimately, of course, it�s the President who sets the direction.

QUESTION: So � but he�s with you? You � can we say that?

SECRETARY RICE: Wolf, it is the President who sets the direction. But the Vice President and I are on very good terms about � about this issue. We meet frequently about it. He, like I, am concerned that Iran is a dangerous country, that Iran is clever in the use of asymmetric warfare. But I think we also understand, too, that Iran has its vulnerabilities, and we�re beginning to systematically exploit those vulnerabilities.

QUESTION: Do you believe there are different schools, different camps, in Iran right now? There are the hardliners led by the President Mahmoud Ahmadi-Nejad, but there are others who are more receptive to working with you and the United Nations Security Council?

SECRETARY RICE: Well, far be it from me to try to read internal Iranian politics, but I do know that there are mixed voices these days coming out of Iran, that there appears to be debate about the policies of President Ahmadi-Nejad, that there are those who are publicly saying that Iran�s policies are costing it in terms of isolation, in terms of its own economic troubles. And obviously, while I�m not going to spend time looking for moderates in Iran, if there are reasonable people who would like to see on Iran � Iran on another course and who would be more responsive to the needs of Iran�s people, that would be worth pursuing. The way for Iran to show that, of course, is to suspend its enrichment and reprocessing.

QUESTION: Let�s talk about Iraq right now. There is word, as we speak right now, of what Bush Administration officials are now calling an agreement between the U.S. and the Iraqi Government for a �general time horizon for the withdrawal of U.S. forces from Iraq.� Now, that�s an ambiguous phrase, but it sounds like something you�ve opposed for a long time, which would be a deadline or a timetable for withdrawal of U.S. troops.

SECRETARY RICE: I think you will find, Wolf, that in anything that we talk about with the Iraqis and anything that is agreed that we and the Iraqis are going to want to be sensitive to the conditions. We certainly have views about how well the Iraqis are starting to do. They are taking over security responsibility in the provinces. The day is coming when American forces will step back more and more from combat roles. The day is coming when we will be doing more in the way of training and less in the way of fighting. Those goals are being achieved now, as we speak.

And so, it�s not at all unusual to start to think that there is a horizon out there in the not-too-distant future in which the roles and responsibilities of the U.S. forces are going to change dramatically and those of the Iraqi forces are going to become dominant.

QUESTION: Is this � is that a euphemism for a timeline for withdrawal of U.S. forces from Iraq?

SECRETARY RICE: I think that you will find that both the United States and Iraq want to be very attentive to what is actually going on on the ground. And to the degree that you can turn over provinces to the Iraqis because they are stronger, because their enemies are weaker, because political and economic activities are taking hold, of course, you�ll want to do that. And there is no problem in having an aspirational, if you will, time horizon for doing that.

QUESTION: The Washington Post reported the other day that it was now unlikely that you�d be able to negotiate what�s called a Status of Forces Agreement with the Iraqis before your Administration ends and that that would probably be left to the next Administration. Are they right?

SECRETARY RICE: Well, we will find a way with the Iraqis to have a basis for our forces to continue to do what they need to do for Iraq. Iraq wants that as well. A Status of Forces Agreement may be a complicated arrangement to make. One of the things that�s happening is that the Iraqis want to do more and they�re asserting their sovereignty and we�re trying to be sensitive to their sovereignty.

QUESTION: They say they want a timeline.

SECRETARY RICE: They have just said that what we want is a kind of aspirational time horizon, which allows us to look out into the future and say, here�s what we expect in terms of American forces and their roles and responsibilities and those of combat forces.

QUESTION: But if they say the United States should leave, what would the U.S. do?

SECRETARY RICE: Well, we�re there at the invitation of the Iraqi Government. But I think you will find that the Iraqis recognize that they need and want a partner. What we have to recognize is that we have achieved an enormous amount over the last year -- really, since the surge -- a lot. Violence is down, the Iraqi political system is beginning to function, you have Sunni leaders coming back into the government. And I think we would be foolish and they would be foolish to put at risk those gains by too rapid a decline in the American forces there.

But we can look at the situation, we can have an aspirational time horizon, we can look at the changing roles and responsibilities of Iraqis and Americans. Those are all perfectly logical things to do.

QUESTION: Here�s what John McCain said back on May 30^th in Milwaukee. He said this: �I believed for four years, nearly, that the strategy that was employed in Iraq was wrong and I fought against it. It was a flawed and failed strategy and I fought against it.�

Now you�ve been involved in the strategy from day one as the National Security Advisor, now the Secretary of State. Is he right, that for four years, there was a failed strategy in Iraq?

SECRETARY RICE: I believe, Wolf, that we were making progress in Iraq until, really, 2006, when conditions changed and they changed a lot. They changed as a result of a new strategy by the then-leader of al-Qaida in Iraq, Zarqawi, who was determined to set Iraqis against Iraqis in civil conflict. And frankly, with the bombing of the Golden Mosque, he succeeded. And it is true that the strategy that we were pursuing was not going to improve the situation in Iraq, had we stayed with it. And that�s why the President ordered a review of that. That�s why the President ordered an increase in American forces. That�s why we went to a more classical counterinsurgency strategy. It�s why we had a civilian surge, including increasing the number of Provincial Reconstruction Teams.

Yes, we did make a change in strategy at the end of 2006, the beginning of 2007, because as the President said, it wasn�t working. Now, when you know something isn�t working, when you know conditions have changed, of course, you need to make an adjustment, but the President made that adjustment.

QUESTION: Let�s talk about Afghanistan and Pakistan right now. The new government in Pakistan, are they doing everything you want to do to go after the Taliban and al-Qaida in those tribal areas along the border with Afghanistan?

SECRETARY RICE: It�s very clear that more has to be done to stabilize that border between Afghanistan and Pakistan. More has to be done.

QUESTION: So they�re not doing everything?

SECRETARY RICE: More has to be done.

QUESTION: And you�ve conveyed that? Because the United States provides a lot of aid.

SECRETARY RICE: More � more has to be done. But more has to be done not just because of Afghanistan�s security, not just because of concerns about threats to American interests, but because of threats to Pakistan. We�re talking about a place in which militants have killed Benazir Bhutto. They�ve carried out attacks near the Red Mosque. They�ve carried out attacks on Pakistani soldiers. And so, Pakistan has a very strong interest and a very strong stake in dealing with the places that the militants are able to gather and train and carry out their activities.

QUESTION: Here�s what Senator Obama said on Tuesday about this issue: �I will take the fight against al-Qaida, the Taliban, I will make� � excuse me � �I will make the fight against al-Qaida and the Taliban the top priority that we should � that it should be. This is a war that we have to win. I will send at least two additional combat brigades to Afghanistan and use this commitment to see greater contributions with fewer restrictions from NATO allies.�

Is he right?

SECRETARY RICE: Well, first of all, I�m not going to comment on what Senator Obama says. Let me just comment --

QUESTION: But on the substance about --

SECRETARY RICE: Let me talk about the substance. The circumstance is � it�s clear that we do need better action on the border between Pakistan and Afghanistan. It is also the case that the Taliban has come back somewhat stronger. But the Taliban is actually being defeated when they come back in as military organizations. The problem is that they�ve taken to acts of terrorism, which terrorize the population and make it difficult for the government to extend its writ out into the more remote parts of the country.

So it�s a combination of military strategy, reconstruction and development, better governance in these areas that will help to improve the situation in Afghanistan. And that�s the strategy that we are pursuing.

In terms of restrictions on NATO forces, those have been dropping more and more. But I will tell you, it�s going to be very difficult for some of our NATO forces � our NATO allies to drop restrictions. They also have parliamentary systems. They also have publics that have views about Afghanistan. We�ve worked on this issue very hard. Some have dropped caveats. I suspect that others will not.

QUESTION: Last November, the President met with the leaders of Israel, the Palestinians, and � among others, and he said this: �We agree to engage in vigorous, ongoing, and continuous negotiations, and shall make every effort to conclude an agreement between the Israelis and the Palestinians before the end of 2008.�

Now, flash forward to now. We�re getting close to the end of 2008.

SECRETARY RICE: Well, not that close. (Laughter.)

QUESTION: Is --

SECRETARY RICE: We�re about halfway there.

QUESTION: Well, do you believe that this is still doable?

SECRETARY RICE: I think it is still doable. We�re about halfway there. The parties are negotiating and they�re negotiating seriously. I�ve had a series of bilateral discussions with them. The Palestinians were just here this week. I also am having a series of trilateral discussions with them. They are doing this in a way that they don�t go to the cameras every day and say what has or has not been agreed. I think that�s really appropriate because these are very delicate issues.

And let�s look at where we are. A year ago, we had no process, and the peace process is now underway. They�re talking about the most delicate issues. And I think they still have a chance to get an agreement. It won�t be easy. There�s no guarantee. Because, to be frank, if this had been easy, somebody would have solved it a long time ago. And as close as people have supposedly come, they�ve never gotten it across the finish line. So we will keep working. I think they�ve got a chance. But these are really hard issues.

QUESTION: Good luck to you on that one.

SECRETARY RICE: Thank you.

QUESTION: If you achieve that, that would be quite a little legacy for yourself.

SECRETARY RICE: Well, I�ll tell you, I won�t achieve it, and it won�t have anything to do with my legacy. But it will --

QUESTION: Well, you would certainly help.

SECRETARY RICE: But I�ll tell you, the achievement will be Palestinian and Israeli leaders who are able to take difficult choices. And the real benefit will be to the Palestinians and the Israelis.

QUESTION: We�re out of time. But a quick � a couple of political questions.

SECRETARY RICE: Yeah.

QUESTION: You�ve made it clear you don�t want to be Vice President --

SECRETARY RICE: Right.

QUESTION: -- of the United States.

QUESTION: How clear have you made it? In other words, have you told the Republican nominee, in effect, you know what, don�t even consider me?

SECRETARY RICE: Wolf, I tell everybody who will listen, you know, through you and everybody else. Look, I�ve done my part. And I�ve got six months to sprint to the finish, and then I have other things that I want to do. I want to go back to California. I want to write a serious book about American foreign policy. There are issues that have come to concern me greatly, some that I was concerned about before I came here, like the state of education in the United States, which I think is at the root of our competitiveness, it�s at the root of our confidence, and therefore it�s at the root of our international leadership. I�ll go back and work on issues like that. And it�ll be time for somebody else to take the stage.

QUESTION: Does John McCain know that?

SECRETARY RICE: Wolf, I�ve said it to everybody who will listen.

QUESTION: Including --

SECRETARY RICE: Wolf, I�ve said it to everybody who will listen.

QUESTION: I assume he probably knows that. One final question. Your immediate predecessor, Colin Powell, I interviewed him many times. But he said this to Tavis Smiley back in January about this race and about the phenomenon of Senator Barack Obama. He said this: �Let�s enjoy this moment, where a person like Barack Obama can knock down all of those old barriers that people thought existed with respect to the opportunities that are available for African Americans. And my congratulations to him.�

Now, you grew up in the segregated South. You know what racism is in our country. The fact that Barack Obama is now the Democratic presidential nominee, what does that say to you?

SECRETARY RICE: I think it�s great and I think it�s great for our country. And I do think it says that we�ve come a long way. But it�s interesting that it�s from Colin Powell. He knocked down a few barriers of his own.

QUESTION: And you did, too. You, obviously, as well.

SECRETARY RICE: He knocked down the barrier as Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff. He knocked down the barrier as the first black Secretary of State. Yes, I�ve knocked down a few, too. It just shows that our country�s been doing this for a while. And it�s great that this last barrier, perhaps, has also come down.

QUESTION: Have you decided who to vote for?

SECRETARY RICE: Wolf, I � yes.

QUESTION: Do you want to tell us?

SECRETARY RICE: No.

QUESTION: Okay, you don�t have to.

SECRETARY RICE: Thank you.

QUESTION: Madame Secretary, it�s been a pleasure.

SECRETARY RICE: A pleasure, too.

QUESTION: We�re counting on you to achieve some of those goals in these last six months.

SECRETARY RICE: Well, I�m going to do my very, very best. And it has been a great � it will have been, at that time, a great honor to have represented this great country. It�s an extraordinary country. And when I�m out representing it, what resonates with people is not our great power or our great prosperity, but it is the extraordinary values that are exhibited by this country. And I couldn�t have had a better job for the last several years.

QUESTION: Thank you very much.

SECRETARY RICE: Thank you.

2008/597

Released on July 20, 2008

U.S. Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice meets with Jordan's ...

U.S. Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice, left, and Czech Republic's Minister of Foreign Affairs Karel Schwarzenberg, right, shake hands after signing a preliminary missile defense agreement at the Cernin Palace in Prague, Czech Republic, Tuesday, July 8, 2008.

U.S. Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice, left, speaks at a ...

U.S. Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice, left, shakes hands ...

US Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice speaks at a news conference in Tbilisi on July 10, 2008. Rice and her Armenian counterpart Edward Nalbandian signed a deal Monday to fight the smuggling of nuclear and radioactive materials, the State Department said.

Bulgarian President Georgi Parvanov (L) awards US Secretary ...

Bulgarian president Georgi Parvanov, left presents U.S. Secretary ...

Wed Jul 9, 8:20 AM ET

Bulgarian President Georgi Parvanov (L) awards US Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice (C) with the highest Bulgarian distinction, the Stara Planina Order, in Sofia, for her role in obtaining the release a year ago of five Bulgarian nurses and a Palestinian doctor jailed in Libya..(AFP/Dimitar Dilkoff)

A combination showing US Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice. ...

You're once, twice, three times a lady ...

Not happy with your email address?
Get the one you really want - millions of new email addresses available now at Yahoo!

#1866

From: "R. Randy Clarke" <rrandyclarke@...>
Date: Tue Jul 22, 2008 9:07 pm
Subject: Republican Platform Committee Web Site

rrandyclarke

http://www.GOPPlatform2008.com

#1867

From: Peter Dow <peterdow@...>
Date: Fri Jul 25, 2008 4:47 pm
Subject: Condoleezza Rice won�t say who she supports for president

bty944017

I saw this recent blog post -

Condoleezza Rice won�t say who she supports for president

Heh heh.

(CNN) � Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice said she knows who she�s voting for in the presidential election, but she�s keeping quiet about her pick.

�Have you decided who to vote for?� CNN�s Wolf Blitzer asked in an interview that aired Sunday on �Late Edition.�

�Wolf, uh, yes,� Rice said.

Asked if she wanted to share her decision, Rice simply responded, �No.�

In the wide-ranging interview, Rice praised Sen. Barack Obama�s campaign and said having him as the Democratic presidential nominee has been �great for our country.�

Chortle.

Not allowed to say who she�s voting for, more like.

Hint: Colin Powell�s probably voting for him, too.

They always were the sane(r) elements within the Bush administration�Powell much more than Rice, obviously�

http://breaktheterror.wordpress.com/2008/07/21/condoleezza-rice-wont-say-who-she-supports-for-president/

- and so I replied, as follows though my reply isn't showing on the blog yet, maybe the owner wants to review and moderate comments before they appear.

Anyway, here is my reply to the above and if anyone else on Rice for President Yahoo Group wants to chip in with their two-cents worth then please do.

Well I was wondering about that. No-one has commented about this yet on Rice for President Yahoo Group (which I own). I might re-post this there to see if that will prompt any other comments.

"Condoleezza Rice for President in 2012. Join this group of supporters from everywhere on the world wide web."
http://groups.yahoo.com/group/rice-for-president/

The group was previously a 2008 group and it has been quiet apart from my posts, despite the 250 members, ever since Condi ruled herself out for President or as McCain's VP in 2008.

As a die-hard Condista, I am not about to extinguish the last flames of hope for Condi in 2008, as McCain's VP, but, and here I am guessing, I would have thought that the way to increase Condi's chances of being McCain's pick for VP would be to endorse him for President much as President Bush (after tap-dancing) did on the steps of the White House. No?

I mean if the President can express a preference and support for McCain why cannot his Secretary of State?

Also, as a Republican, Condi, one would have thought, would support the Republican nominee. No? But Condi seems for now to have decided to sit this campaign out and be neutral between candidates and the parties it seems.

Anyway, it has got me wondering. I don't know if anyone else wants to comment on this, but you are welcome to join to Rice for President Yahoo Group and sound off about this if you wish.

I really don't have the answer to this one. I mean I am sure that Condi does like Obama, but I just don't see her voting for Obama for President just because "he is black" if that is what is being suggested on this blog.

Maybe Condi is sore at McCain for not choosing her for VP already, even though she says she doesn't want it? I think not, but who knows?

I am guessing, I really, really don't know.

My best guess is that Condi feels as Secretary of State she must be neutral - but she has stopped short from criticising her own President for being partisan by supporting McCain.

Beats me. Look if you have any theories about this please do post on Rice for President Yahoo Group. It is a puzzle.

- Peter Dow
Owner, Rice for President Yahoo Group
http://groups.yahoo.com/group/rice-for-president/

Not happy with your email address?
Get the one you really want - millions of new email addresses available now at Yahoo!

#1868

From: Peter Dow <peterdow@...>
Date: Fri Jul 25, 2008 6:58 pm
Subject: I would oppose an attempted arrest of Condoleezza Rice by Auckland University Students' Association

bty944017

Forwarded to Rice for President Yahoo Group

Peter Dow <peterdow@...> wrote:

Date: Fri, 25 Jul 2008 19:45:55 +0100 (BST)
From: Peter Dow <peterdow@...>
Subject: I would oppose an attempted arrest of Condoleezza Rice.
To: mso@..., ausa.treasurer@...,
ausa.president@..., avp@..., evp@...

To the Auckland University Students' Association

(1) The invasion of Iraq by US led forces was not illegal and neither is their continuing presence in Iraq. Saddam's regime was illegal and in violation of numerous UN security council resolutions specifically about his regime, and also in general violation of the Universal Declaration of Human Rights, 60th anniversary this year, being as Saddam's was a mass-murdering regime etc. We were simply upholding our view of international law - our position was subsequently agreed to by the UN Security Council. This remains the case today.

(2) What did it take to arrest Saddam Hussein? More than your $3,700. It took Condoleezza Rice and those who follow her and President Bush on this issue.

(3) What will it take to arrest Condoleezza Rice? More than it took to arrest Saddam Hussein. You would be fighting your own NZ police and if they needed support from NZ military the police would get it too.

(4) I support attempted arrests of some people - Peter Tatchell attempted a citizen's arrest on Robert Mugabe one time and was beaten unconscious by his bodyguards. Shame on the Queen's police for not helping Peter Tatchell to arrest Mugabe.

(5) I would oppose an attempted arrest of Condoleezza Rice. Shame on you if you pay for such an attempt.

(6) You certainly have made a name for yourselves - the least educated university in the world.

(7) You may be in danger of disgracing the current New Zealand flag which I would object to as a Scot - the union flag is part of the NZ flag and the blue background with white diagonal comes from the Scottish St. Andrew's flag. Therefore I would wish to confiscate your flag and prevent you flying it should you be seen to associate yourself with the current NZ flag while attempting an arrest of Condoleezza Rice - using all means necessary. I suggest you carry a picture of your murderous hero - Saddam Hussein, to identify yourselves in battle. You may not disgrace the colours of Scotland without that being interpreted as a challenge to every patriotic Scot to battle. If I lived in Auckland, I might just pay you a person call and give you the battle you seem to be asking for. As it is, you are on the other side of the world and are out of reach for now.

(8) You absolutely don't want a war with the Scots, least ways not with this Scot. Trust me on that.

Yours sincerely,

Peter Dow,

Owner, Rice for President Yahoo Group

http://groups.yahoo.com/group/rice-for-president

Scottish National Standard Bearer

http://scot.bravehost.com

Student group seeks Rice citizen arrest

Posted July 25, 2008 6:45 AM

by Katie Fretland

Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice visits New Zealand today, where a group of students who oppose the Iraq War have offered a $3,700 reward to anyone who makes a citizen's arrest of her.

The Auckland University Students' Association charges that Rice oversaw "the illegal invasion and continued occupation" of Iraq," AP reports.

Rice plans to meet with Prime Minister Helen Clark and Foreign Minister Winston Peters during her first trip to New Zealand, following a Southeast Asian security forum in Singapore.

Rice said during a press conference today that protests are part of Democracy.

"Student protests are particularly a long honored tradition in democratic society," Rice said. "I can only say that the United States has done everything that it can to end this war on terror, to live up to our international and national laws and obligations."

Law enforcement officials in Auckland said that they are aware of the citizen's arrest plan and will stop anyone who tries to cross police lines.

The AP contributed to this report.

http://www.swamppolitics.com/news/politics/blog/2008/07/condoleezza_rice_citizens_arre.html

Not happy with your email address?
Get the one you really want - millions of new email addresses available now at Yahoo!

#1869

From: Peter Dow <peterdow@...>
Date: Sun Jul 27, 2008 3:21 pm
Subject: Condi flashes her tits in Perth, Australia

bty944017

http://img337.imageshack.us/img337/3773/condiblouseoy5.jpg

Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice has a coffee with Australia's Foreign Minister Stephen Smith and members of his family at a coffee shop in a suburb of Perth, Australia July 25, 2008.

Who needs photoshop when Condi turns on the charm?

http://img376.imageshack.us/img376/4719/condiblouse3or8.jpg

If you've got it, even at 50+ years old, then flaunt it.

http://img337.imageshack.us/img337/7278/condiblouse2be8.jpg

Condi hugs a school-girl to her bosum.

Peter Dow comments.

Princess Sparklepony once more left at the starting gate it seems.

- Peter Dow

Owner, Rice for President Yahoo Group

http://groups.yahoo.com/group/rice-for-president/

Condoleezza Rice 'wardrobe malfunction' during Perth visit

Article from: PerthNow

http://www.news.com.au/perthnow/story/0,21598,24076149-5012990,00.html

July 25, 2008 12:04pm

IT was an outfit that had some readers wondering if US Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice had packed for an Australian summer, not a chilly winter day.

Dr Rice started day two of her Perth stopover with a morning coffee at trendy Perth cafe Cino To Go, with her host, Australian Foreign Affairs Minister, Stephen Smith.

Pictures posted on perthnow.com.au drew some initial concerned and curious reactions, with some readers wondering if Dr Rice had suffered a dreaded wardrobe malfunction.

Condoleeza Rice's wardrobe malfunction

http://www.news.com.au/perthnow/large-gallery/0,25537,5033309-5013959-1,00.html

With the camera lights flashing her flesh-coloured blouse appeared a little more revealing that her secret service minders would have liked.

But there was no reason for readers to be alarmed with Rice's elegant outfit totally befitting the world's most powerful woman.

Dr Rice was later cheered and applauded by 450 schoolgirls after answering their questions during a visit to their Perth school.

Dr Rice, accompanied by Dr Smith, spent almost an hour talking to the girls at Mercedes College, the city's oldest existing secondary school.

It is also the school of Mr Smith's daughter Maddie, who was among the audience of years 10, 11 and 12 girls.

Seated with school principal Sheena Barber and Mr Smith on the school hall stage, Dr Rice fielded more than half a dozen questions from students, drawing hearty applause after every answer.

Then, as as a gift from the school, she was treated to a rendition of What a Wonderful Day from the school choir.

``That's one of my favourite songs,'' Dr Rice said in thanks.

Cheered enthusiastically by her appreciative audience, she was given a book covering 150 years of the school's history and a standing ovation before leaving to visit the SAS Swanbourne Barracks in Perth's west.

Whole blocks of Perth city have been shut down since Dr Rice's arrival last night as Mr Smith's guest.

She attended a dinner at University of Western Australia upon her arrival and was to be driven to Perth's Kings Park after her visit to Swanbourne.

At the picturesque park, which overlooks Perth and the Swan River, she will lay a wreath at the cenotaph and give a news conference to be attended by US and Australian media.

http://www.news.com.au/perthnow/large-gallery/0,25537,5033309-5013959-1,00.html

Not happy with your email address?
Get the one you really want - millions of new email addresses available now at Yahoo!

#1870

From: Peter Dow <peterdow@...>
Date: Sat Aug 2, 2008 12:06 am
Subject: Time: The little-known Rice-Obama link is just the latest surprise in a summer of unexpected shifts in American foreign policy.

bty944017

http://www.time.com/time/magazine/article/0,9171,1828328,00.html

White House Memo

Thursday, Jul. 31, 2008 By MASSIMO CALABRESI / WASHINGTON

A few days before he left on his eight-country world tour, Barack Obama wanted to discuss the trip with an old contact in Washington: Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice. Obama's phone call was in part a courtesy, but over three years of occasional phone conversations, the two have quietly discussed everything from foreign aid to the Middle East and nuclear proliferation.

Obama and Rice have come to have a certain respect for each other, says an Obama aide familiar with their conversations, because both take an intellectual, sober view of foreign affairs. "They've had good exchanges," the aide says. "Does he treat her as someone whom he has respect for? Absolutely. Does he listen to her on occasion? Absolutely."

Rice has pushed the White House to work more closely with its allies, like the Bahrainis, on such issues as Middle East peace and curbing nuclear proliferation.

The little-known Rice-Obama link is just the latest surprise in a summer of unexpected shifts in American foreign policy. Washington has dramatically changed course overseas, agreeing to diplomatic concessions it once derided as softheaded and dangerous--including the possibility of a phased withdrawal from Iraq. The White House has embraced a more active approach to Arab-Israeli diplomacy that it long shunned and has boosted support for Pakistan's government in deference to State Department diplomats, a strategy that involves a renewed effort to capture Osama bin Laden. The shifts amount to an unmistakable effort to clean up President Bush's foreign policy legacy before he exits the stage. "This is bold strategic diplomacy," says former Reagan chief of staff Ken Duberstein, "with an eye to the history books."

The Administration's move away from saber-rattling is most evident with North Korea and Iran, two charter members of Bush's "axis of evil" that the Administration had long sought to isolate. In late June, U.S. negotiator Chris Hill agreed to remove North Korea from Washington's list of state sponsors of terrorism in return for an as-yet-unverified declaration of the components of Pyongyang's nuclear program and the disabling of a key reactor. Bush cleared the way for Rice's top diplomat, William Burns, to break with a long-standing policy and meet face to face with the Iranians in Geneva on July 19. Rice says in public that these moves are the result of years of diplomacy, but a senior State Department official privately admits they are part of an effort to "push this thing as far as it can go" in the last six months of the Bush Administration.

Such moves signal the latest triumph of realism over ideology--and a victory for Rice and her diplomatic team over the neoconservatives led by Vice President Dick Cheney. Since Rice took the helm at State in 2005, she has steadily consolidated her authority over foreign policy. If her clout isn't absolute, it is approaching the veto-proof swat that Cheney enjoyed as the secret vicar of national security in 2002 and 2003.

Meanwhile, Bush's cleanup campaign is scrambling the assumptions of both Obama and John McCain. Bush's endorsement on July 18 of a "horizon" for withdrawal from Iraq has isolated McCain, who once said he favored a 100-year presence there. And so he backpedaled, calling a 16-month withdrawal plan supported by Iraq's Prime Minister a "pretty good" timetable. Bush's new tactics may complicate the calculations of Obama as well. Even a symbolic troop drawdown in Iraq before the election could depress antiwar sentiment among Obama's most loyal voters. Obama knows that as troops are withdrawn, Bush's approval ratings will rise--giving Republicans up and down the ballot a possible boost. That bump will be far larger if bin Laden is captured or killed.

But for now, both candidates are clapping, if sometimes with one hand. Obama and his aides have said Hill's efforts in North Korea offer a model for dealing with other rogue regimes, and on his way back from Europe, Obama backed the Bush overture to Tehran, telling Reuters "the Iranians should take that gesture seriously." When he visited Palestinian President Mahmoud Abbas in Ramallah on July 23, Obama even endorsed Bush and Rice's three-track approach for an accelerated Arab-Israeli peace process and pledged to continue it if elected. McCain has also endorsed the Bush diplomatic moves, while stressing that they are the result of strategies that Obama opposed earlier.

No one expects Rice's diplomatic surge to work in every case--or even to produce visible results before the year's end--but the last-minute moves are already changing the landscape the next President will inherit. As for Rice, friends say she expects to return to Stanford next January no matter who wins the election. It may prove bittersweet to watch as a new President gets credit for policies she and Bush have promoted, but that is the price of embracing diplomacy so late in the game. At least, says the Obama aide, she can expect the phone calls to continue.

Peter Dow comments -

Summer Surprise

WTF is going on?

Surprised? Yes I am, but not as surprised as Obama was when Condi failed to endorse Senator John McCain over Obama.

Sure Condi praised both candidates and their campaigns - as diplomatic as ever - but when Condi failed to give the expected "Of course, as a Republican, I will be voting for the Republican nominee, presumably Senator John McCain" Obama could scarcely believe his ears - and now seizing on the overture to the Obama campaign Condi seems to be offering, Obama has sent his aids out to butter up Condi in public, via praising quotes in articles like this Time article, to try to hang on for dear life to Condi's public "neutrality" and to try to keep her sweet and head-off any republican attempts to get Rice to endorse McCain eventually.

Obama couldn't care less about phoning Condi up afterwards if he is elected president - he has got his own Dr Rice to give him the advice he wants thank you very much.

Obama does care about Condi staying neutral before voting day because some Condi supporters, particularly independent people, might be tempted to vote for Obama instead of McCain if Condi does not give a lead or express a preference.

Well this looks like a high risk strategy from Condi - which may puzzle the McCain campaign, to say the least.

Condistas like myself, I guess, are ready to follow Condi and give her the benefit of the doubt until we see where she is going with this - but there must be many in the McCain campaign wondering what on earth Condi is up to and who would have been expecting a bit more loyalty to the Republican nominee than Condi is delivering right now.

I wonder if the McCain camp have brought this Condi indifference upon themselves by not yet making Condi an offer she cannot refuse - like the VP spot on McCain's ticket for example?

Well if I was John McCain, I would get on the phone to Condi right away and find out what it will take to get Condi's endorsement - and a suggesting a McCain - Rice ticket would be the best move I think.

Not happy with your email address?
Get the one you really want - millions of new email addresses available now at Yahoo!

#1871

From: "krove04" <krove04@...>
Date: Mon Aug 4, 2008 5:11 am
Subject: Why McCain should pick Condi

krove04

if he wants to win.

http://politicaljunkie.blogspot.com/2008/07/why-mccain-rice-in-2008.html

Reply | Messages in this Topic (3)

#1872

From: Peter Dow <peterdow@...>
Date: Mon Aug 4, 2008 12:16 pm
Subject: Hey Condi - please put in a word with President Bush to get this guy Jonathan Pollard released.

bty944017

http://groups.yahoo.com/group/rice-for-president

New group link -

Justice for Jonathan Pollard. The cause c�l�bre of the Israeli patriot imprisoned for life in the US
On November 21, 2007 Jonathan Pollard entered his 23rd year of a life sentence for his activities on behalf of Israel. The median sentence for the offense Pollard committed - one count of passing classified information to an ally - is 2 to 4 years. Pollard received his life sentence without a trial, as a result of a plea bargain which he honored and the U.S. government violated.
http://www.jonathanpollard.org/

(This link has been filed in

Non-Condi-specific links
Maybe general political links but not about Condi as such )

Justice for Jonathan Pollard

The official Website authorized by
Jonathan & Esther Pollard

The Facts of the Pollard Case

Jonathan Pollard was a civilian American Naval intelligence analyst. In the mid 1980's (circa 1983-1984), Pollard discovered that information vital to Israel's security was being deliberately withheld by certain elements within the U.S. national security establishment.
Israel was legally entitled to this vital security information according to a 1983 Memorandum of Understanding between the two countries.
The information being withheld from Israel included Syrian, Iraqi, Libyan and Iranian nuclear, chemical, and biological warfare capabilities - being developed for use against Israel. It also included information on ballistic missile development by these countries and information on planned terrorist attacks against Israeli civilian targets.
When Pollard discovered this suppression of information and asked his superiors about it, he was told to "mind his own business", and that "Jews get nervous talking about poison gas; they don't need to know."
He also learned that the objective of cutting off the flow of information to Israel was to severely curtail Israel's ability to act independently in defense of her own interests.
Pollard was painfully aware that Israeli lives were being put in jeopardy as a result of this undeclared intelligence embargo. He did everything he possibly could to stop this covert policy and to have the legal flow of information to Israel restored. When his efforts met no success, he began to give the information to Israel directly.
Jonathan Pollard was an ideologue, not a mercenary. The FBI concluded after nine months of polygraphing that Pollard acted for ideological reasons only, not for profit. This fact was recognized by the sentencing judge who declined to fine Pollard. (See the addendum for further details.)
Furthermore, on May 11, 1998, Israel formally acknowledged Jonathan Pollard had been a bona fide Israeli agent. This fact wiped out any remaining doubt about Jonathan Pollard's motives. Being an official agent is, by definition, the polar opposite of being a mercenary.
In 1985, his actions were discovered by the U.S. government. His instructions from Israel were to seek refuge in the Israeli embassy in Washington. When Pollard and his former wife sought refuge there, they were at first received and then summarily thrown out into the waiting arms of the FBI.
Jonathan Pollard never had a trial. At the request of both the U.S. and Israeli governments, he entered into a plea agreement, which spared both governments a long, difficult, expensive and potentially embarrassing trial.
Jonathan Pollard fulfilled his end of the plea agreement, cooperating fully with the prosecution.
Nevertheless, Pollard received a life sentence and a recommendation that he never be paroled - in complete violation of the plea agreement he had reached with the government.
Jonathan Pollard was never indicted for harming the United States.
Jonathan Pollard was never indicted for compromising codes, agents, or war plans.
Jonathan Pollard was never charged with treason. [Legally, treason is a charge that is only applicable when one spies for an enemy state in time of war.]
Jonathan Pollard was indicted on only one charge: one count of passing classified information to an ally, without intent to harm the United States.
Prior to sentencing, then-Secretary of Defense Caspar Weinberger delivered a 46-page classified memorandum to the sentencing judge. Since then, neither Pollard nor any of his cleared attorneys have ever been allowed to access the memorandum to challenge the false charges it contains-a clear violation of Pollard's constitutional rights.
The day before sentencing, Weinberger delivered a four-page supplemental memorandum to the sentencing judge. In it, he falsely accused Pollard of treason. Also in the supplemental memorandum, Weinberger advocated a life sentence in clear violation of Pollard's plea agreement. The implication that follows from Weinberger's false characterization of Pollard's offense as "treason" is that the country Pollard served, Israel, is an enemy state.
Pollard was shown the supplemental Weinberger memorandum only once, just moments before sentencing - hardly adequate time to prepare an appropriate defense to rebut the false accusations in it.
No one else in the history of the United States has ever received a life sentence for passing classified information to an ally - only Jonathan Pollard. The median sentence for this offense is two to four years. Even agents who have committed far more serious offenses on behalf of hostile nations have not received such a harsh sentence.
Pollard's attorney never appealed from the life sentence. The time to file for such an appeal was within ten days of sentencing. Years later, with a different attorney, Pollard filed a habeas corpus challenge to the sentence.
The Court of Appeals, in a two-to-one decision, rejected the challenge, largely on procedural grounds.
The majority placed heavy emphasis on the failure to appeal from the life sentence in a timely manner, and on the resulting far heavier burden faced by Pollard in seeking to challenge the sentence via habeas corpus. [Note: "Habeas corpus" is a procedure by which an incarcerated person may bring a court challenge to the legality of his or her incarceration - often long after the underlying case has been concluded.]
In a dissenting opinion, Court of Appeals Judge Stephen Williams called the case "a fundamental miscarriage of justice," and wrote that he would have ordered that Pollard's sentence be vacated.
In November 1995, Israel granted Jonathan Pollard Israeli citizenship. The official presentation took place in January of 1996. This publicly signaled to the U.S. Israel's willingness to accept full responsibility for Pollard.
U.S. government sources falsely accuse Pollard in the media of passing "rooms full of classified information" and "hundreds of thousands of documents" to Israel. This volume of information is an absurdity! Pollard would have needed to make numerous "drops" using a moving van to have transferred such a large volume of information. In actual fact, Jonathan Pollard made a grand total of eleven "drops" to the Israelis, using only a small briefcase to hold the documents.
The government used an insidious formula to exaggerate the volume of information that Jonathan Pollard passed to Israel. The formula was: if only one page or a single sentence of a document was passed to the Israelis, it was counted as if the whole document had been transmitted. Even referenced documents and sources were counted as having been transmitted in toto. Using this calculation, a single page could be counted as 50 hard-bound 500 page volumes!
There is no Mr. "X".
The CIA claim that another highly-placed spy in the U.S. had to exist in order to give Jonathan Pollard his highly specific tasking orders is a complete fabrication. To understand how Pollard was tasked by Israel to secure specific documents, see: Was there another U.S. spy tasking Pollard? - Mr. �X' Exposed.
On May 12, 1998 , in the same statement in which the Government of Israel publicly acknowledged Jonathan Pollard as an Israeli agent, it accepted full responsibility for him, and indicated its commitment to securing his release and repatriation to Israel.
Jonathan Pollard has repeatedly expressed his remorse publicly and in private letters to the President and others. He regrets having broken the law, and is sorry he did not find a legal means to act upon his concerns for Israel. (See Remorse Page.)
Jonathan Pollard has been openly linked to the Middle East Peace Process since 1995.
The Israeli government recognized long ago that Jonathan's sentence was unjust, that the documents he delivered to Israel did not remotely cause the damage that the prosecution claimed but never proved. As a result of this recognition, various Israeli administrations have negotiated, as a matter of basic fairness, to secure Jonathan's release.
Since 1995, within the context of the peace process, the US has repeatedly exploited the plight of Jonathan Pollard to extract heavy concessions from Israel.
However despite express promises made by the United States to Israel, Jonathan Pollard remains in jail.
It was the late Prime Minister Yitzhak Rabin who, in 1995, first began openly to negotiate for Jonathan's release as part of the peace process.
Although President Clinton promised Prime Minister Rabin that he would release Jonathan as part of a Middle East peace settlement, the President refused to honor his promise after Rabin was assassinated.
Rabin's successor, Prime Minister Shimon Peres, continued to link Jonathan to the peace process, and even went so far as to include a spy swap proposal as part of the deal for Pollard's release.
The Wye Plantation summit is a prime example of U.S. exploitation of Jonathan Pollard.
Both before and again during the Wye summit negotiations in the fall of 1998, President Clinton promised to release Jonathan Pollard. Pollard was the deal-maker at Wye which enabled the accords to be completed.
At the last minute, with the eyes of the world focused on the Wye Accords signing ceremony which was about to take place in Washington, Clinton reneged on Pollard's release, creating a storm of negative publicity for Israel.
How the Wye fiasco came about:
In September, 1998, just before the mid-term Congressional elections, President Clinton (who at the time was facing impeachment hearings and in need of a foreign policy PR victory) asked Israeli Prime Minister Binyamin Netanyahu to attend a three-way summit with the Palestinians at Wye River, Maryland.
Clinton knew that a successful summit at Wye just before the Congressional elections would be good not only for his image, but would also reap great political benefits for the Democrats in their bid to regain control of Congress. As an inducement to Netanyahu, Clinton promised to release Jonathan Pollard within the context of the summit.
Understanding the value of Jonathan Pollard for his own re-election bid, and needing him as a sweetener to sell any kind of "peace" deal to the Israeli people, Netanyahu ignored the entreaties of Republican friends like Newt Gingrich and agreed to attend the summit. (Gingrich would later repay Netanyahu by leading the Republican charge of slander and lies against Jonathan Pollard.)
Once the Wye summit was underway, Clinton quickly "forgot" his promise to free Jonathan Pollard and there was little Netanyahu could do.
Talks at Wye broke down over the release of Palestinian murderers with Jewish blood on their hands and over Israel's request for the extradition of Ghazi Jabali, the chief of Police in Gaza who was wanted for his role in planning and executing terrorist attacks in Israel.
To break the stalemate, the Palestinians suggested Jonathan Pollard as the solution. They proposed that Pollard be sold to Netanyahu once again: the US would give Jonathan to Israel in return for Israel's freeing of hundreds of Palestinian terrorists and immunity for Ghazi Jabali.
The US and Israel agreed to the Palestinian plan to swap Pollard for terrorists and murderers.
President Clinton personally worked out the details of the deal in a late-night private session with a Palestinian and an Israeli representative.
According to the deal, Prime Minister Netanyahu was to receive a side letter from President Clinton the next morning (one of approximately 30 side letters the Americans had promised) guaranteeing Pollard's release for November 11, 1998, one week after the US House elections.
The Pollard negotiation was the deal-maker at Wye which allowed the summit to be successfully wrapped up and a signing ceremony to be planned for the next morning in Washington, on Friday October 23, 1998.
Only hours before the signing ceremony, P.M. Netanyahu received all of the American side-letters that had been promised to him, except one - the one guaranteeing the release of Jonathan Pollard.
Netanyahu threatened not to attend the signing ceremony unless he got the Pollard side letter. Clinton said, "Trust me." Netanyahu, knowing he was about to be double-crossed by Clinton over Pollard for the second time, refused.
Netanyahu demanded that in the absence of a side letter of guarantee, Pollard should be freed into his custody immediately, or no signing ceremony. Arik Sharon supported Netanyahu and they threatened to leave Wye without signing the accords.
In order to take the pressure off of President Clinton, CIA chief George Tenet quickly leaked the news of Pollard's imminent release to the media in a deliberate - and ultimately successful - attempt to torpedo the deal.
He sent emissaries to Capitol Hill to hold emergency meetings with leading Senators and Congressmen to enlist their support in publicly denouncing Pollard's release. Many lies were told by the CIA emissaries about Jonathan Pollard to convince the legislators to act swiftly and in unison. Believing the lies, the legislators complied and began an unprecedented series of public actions to prevent the release of Jonathan Pollard.
Meanwhile at Wye, under heavy pressure and still fearful that Netanyahu would not back down, Clinton quickly negotiated a private fall-back position with Netanyahu: Clinton would publicly promise to do a "speedy review"of the Pollard Case and he would use that review to free Pollard a few months later, parallel to the release of the 750 Palestinian terrorists who were part of the price Israel had agreed to pay for Pollard.
Under heavy public pressure and betrayed by his own Minister of Defense, Yitzhak Mordecai*, who closed ranks with Clinton, Netanyahu folded and accepted this private deal. The signing ceremony was held in Washington as scheduled. *(Mordecai himself is now on trial in Israel in 2001 for sexual assault.)
Netanyahu's capitulation at Wye, the public spectacle of his being brought to heel by the Americans, and the lopsided deal he brought home from Wye now that Pollard was no longer perceived to be a part of it, would shortly cost him his premiership.
After Wye, the White House falsely accused Netanyahu of having injected Pollard into the Wye summit at the last moment.
However, eye witnesses to the Pollard deal at Wye, including the Israeli and the Palestinian who had negotiated the deal with Clinton and the former Israeli Cabinet Secretary, all later contradicted the White House version of events and affirmed that President Clinton had committed himself to the release of Jonathan Pollard as an integral part of the Wye Accords.

Note: Prime Minister Netanyahu was the first prime minster of Israel to agree to free Palestinian terrorists with Jewish blood on their hands. That is the price the Americans demanded for Pollard at Wye. To this day, this represents a keen embarrassment for Netanyahu and his party, even more so since he did not receive Pollard but the Palestinian murders were released nonetheless. That is why no official source from the Netanyahu government ever wants to publicly admit to it. They keep the details to a minimum, but all concur that Pollard's freedom was bought and paid for by "concessions"at Wye.
When Netanyahu returned to Israel after Wye, he created a firestorm of publicity by releasing 200 Palestinian common criminals from Israeli prisons.
The Palestinians were outraged, and insisted that these common criminals were not the prisoners that they had bargained for at Wye. The Americans angrily protested. Netanyahu reminded the Americans that the Wye Accords do not specify exactly which prisoners Israel must release. Critics wondered if the Prime Minister had lost his mind to antagonize the Americans this way.
Only those close to Prime Minister Netanyahu understood that this was Netanyahu's private, pointed reminder to Bill Clinton that if he was thinking of double-crossing him yet a third time over Pollard, he should think again. No Pollard, no release for the Palestinian murderers and terrorists.
Unfortunately for Jonathan Pollard, Netanyahu's government fell before he was able to act on this.
In a meeting with Netanyahu right after his electoral defeat in the Spring of 1999, Jonathan Pollard's wife, Esther, received assurances from the former prime minister that the new prime minister, Ehud Barak, had been fully briefed about what had been agreed to at Wye and about the fall-back position; that is to say, Israel had yet to free the 750 terrorists with blood on their hands and was still supposed to receive Pollard home in a "parallel gesture" from President Clinton.
Not long after Barak took office, the 750 Palestinian murderers and terrorists walked out of prison as free men. Jonathan Pollard remained in his American jail cell.
In an attempt to justify Clinton's reneging at Wye, a story was leaked to the press that George Tenet, a Clinton appointee, had threatened to resign as head of the CIA if Pollard were released.
The story, though not logical, sounded plausible and it became popular to cite the opposition of the American Intelligence community as the reason Clinton did not honor his commitment at Wye to free Pollard.
This was soon exposed as the lame excuse it was when Clinton freed a group of unrepentant FALN terrorists in the fall of 1999, in an attempt to improve his wife's popularity with New York State's Hispanic community in her election bid for the Senate. (See Senate Race Page.)
To this day, the same lame excuse continues to be used to justify the unjustifiable failure of Clinton to honor his commitment.
In September of 1999, despite strenuous opposition from all of his government advisors and agencies, President Clinton freed 14 unrepentant Puerto Rican terrorists, members of the FALN, charged with bank robbery and various acts of terrorism, including over 130 bombings in the US, and the deaths of American police officers.
Clinton ignored a solid wall of opposition from the Justice, Intelligence and Defense departments and Congress, invoked his powers of executive clemency and set the FALN terrorists free. In doing so, he unequivocally put the lie to the notion that any government agency might tie his hands or influence his decision in matters of clemency. (See FALN Page and Clemency Page.)
More than two years elapsed after Wye. President Clinton did no review. Jonathan Pollard remained in prison while the US continued to extract Israeli concessions for his release.
Those who still believed the myth that it was the American Intelligence Community that was tying the hands of President Clinton, also clung to the belief he would finally honor his many promises to release Jonathan Pollard - including the commitment he had made at Wye - at the end of his term, when he could do so without fear of political reprisal.
Beginning in 1991 Rabbi Mordecai Eliyahu, the former Chief Rabbi of Israel, and Jonathan's rabbi, offered himself to the U.S. Justice Department as Jonathan's guarantor. The offer was ignored.
Rabbi Eliyahu repeated the same offer every year after that in private letters to President Clinton.
Every offer went unacknowledged until the fall of 2000, when Esther Pollard received a letter from the White House indicating that the President was aware of the former chief Rabbi's offer and that it would be part of the President's consideration in reaching a final decision on her husband's case.
President Clinton never kept his promises.
When he left office in January 2001, Jonathan Pollard was not included among those that to whom Clinton granted clemency:
- in spite of his repeated express commitments to Israel to free Pollard in return for numerous heavy concessions
- in spite of his commitment to free Pollard as an integral part if the Wye Accords
- in spite of the appeals of the Jewish community, and
- in spite of the gross injustices of the Pollard case which include:
  - a grossly disproportionate sentence
  - a broken plea agreement
  - use of secret evidence
  - a false charge of treason
  - ineffective assistance of counsel
  - ex parte communication between prosecutors and judge
  - a lack of due process
  - a sentencing procedure infected by false allegations and lies
On his last day in office, Clinton granted clemency to 140 people. Many who received executive clemency had been convicted of very serious offenses, including murder, robbery and drug dealing. Some of those pardoned had served no prison time at all before being pardoned. Among those pardoned were Clinton's brother, and a former head of the CIA. (See Clemency Page.)
In September of 2000, Jonathan Pollard's attorneys, Eliot Lauer and Jacques Semmelman, filed a motion in the US District Court of Columbia to vacate his sentence.
The motion, supported by documentation, presents a compelling and very disturbing picture of serious government misconduct that went unchecked by Mr. Pollard's then-counsel. As a result of that misconduct, and as a result of his attorney's ineffectiveness Jonathan Pollard was sentenced to life in prison on the basis of false allegations, and under circumstances that violated his plea agreement. (See Legal Doc: Declaration of Jonathan Jay Pollard In Support of Motion for Resentencing. See also Legal Doc: Memorandum of Law in Support of Jonathan Jay Pollard's � 2255 Motion for Resentencing.)
Since he was sentenced in 1987, none of Jonathan Pollard's security-cleared attorneys have been able to see the classified portions of the docket in order to challenge them in a court of law or to defend him in a clemency proceeding.
In September of 2000, Jonathan Pollard's attorneys filed a separate motion requesting that attorney Eliot Lauer be allowed access to the secret portions of the Pollard court docket. (See Legal Doc: Motion to Unseal the Pollard Record.)
On January 12, 2001, Chief Judge Norma Holloway Johnson denied the attorneys' request to allow Eliot Lauer access to the complete Pollard docket, upholding the government's claim that Lauer's seeing the secret portion of the record poses a risk to American national security.
Both Lauer and Semmelman hold TOP SECRET level security clearances, which they obtained from the Justice Department in order to be eligible to see their client's full record.
A motion for reconsideration was filed January 18, 2001. (See Legal Doc: Motion for Reconsideration of Court Order.)
Amicus briefs supporting Jonathan's new legal cases have been filed by the American Civil Liberties Union, as well as by top American legal authorities. (See Amici Briefs on the Court Case Page.)
Five Prime Ministers of Israel and three Presidents of Israel have requested Jonathan Pollard's release from the United States. Israel has pledged to be responsible for its agent who has served many years in prison under harsh conditions, and who has fully and repeatedly expressed his remorse. (See Remorse Page.)
Between close friends and strong allies, that ought to be enough.
On November 21, 2007, Jonathan Pollard entered the 23rd year of his life sentence, with no end in sight.

Peter Dow comments -

Well as Condi sprints to the finish, could she not put in a word (again if she has already done so) for this poor guy Jonathan Pollard.

Why?

(1) Well he was just helping Israel who is an great friend and ally of the US - so any harm done could not be THAT bad. US interests have not really been damaged so that anyone noticed anyway.

(2) The guy has been punished enough. 23 years - come on, let's have a bit of compassion for the poor guy. Punishing him way more than he ever deserved just makes him a martyr - kind of like Nelson Mandela.

(3) The President should have some power to pardon or quash a sentence or order a prisoner's release on the grounds of mercy. If the President has the power to do the right thing then he should. So Condi should try to persuade the President to free this man. Condi could not free him herself but she could certainly ask for mercy on his behalf.

(4) It would be a nice birthday present for Israel's 60th birthday.

Peter Dow,

Owner, Rice for President Yahoo Group

President Bush, right, and Israeli President Shimon Peres talk during a welcoming ceremony in Tel Aviv on Wednesday.

Not happy with your email address?
Get the one you really want - millions of new email addresses available now at Yahoo!

#1873

From: Peter Dow <peterdow@...>
Date: Mon Aug 4, 2008 1:17 pm
Subject: Re: Why McCain should pick Condi

bty944017

Hi Krove04 and welcome to Rice for President Yahoo Group!

I guess the page your link is to is by the same "John Marzan" who was writing in 2005 the "Filipinos for Condi Rice, A Pinoy blog dedicated to push and help Condoleeza Rice run for president in 2008" - around the time Condi fever was at its peak?

I used the banner of John's "Filipinos for Condi Rice" blog to spoof a "Condi meets Arroyo" page for my video -

"You wanna McCain - Rice 2008 ticket, or, a piece of Condi?"
http://uk.youtube.com/watch?v=eHhDWfQGUQ0

The video is set to Britney Spear's "You wanna piece of me?" and Britney's lyrics make a mention of her being in the Philippines and so John's blog title was just what was required.

The blog page was fictitious but the meeting between Condi and Philippine President Arroyo happened right enough.

The point is with writers from the Philippines (John) to Scotland (me) calling for a President or a Vice-President Condoleezza Rice it is a wonder that more Americans don't seem to realize what they've got there in Condi and aren't themselves pushing harder to get Condi to run on the ticket.

- Peter

krove04 <krove04@...> wrote:

if he wants to win.

http://politicaljunkie.blogspot.com/2008/07/why-mccain-rice-in-2008.html

Not happy with your email address?
Get the one you really want - millions of new email addresses available now at Yahoo!

Reply | Messages in this Topic (3)

#1874

From: ftg_post_hbs <ftg@...>
Date: Tue Aug 5, 2008 12:20 am
Subject: Re: Re: Why McCain should pick Condi

hbsopm34

peter you    are correct ..americans do not realize
what a unique individual they have in condi rice ,,,
--- Peter Dow <peterdow@...> wrote:

> Hi Krove04 and welcome to Rice for President Yahoo
> Group!
>
>   I guess the page your link is to is by the same
> "John Marzan" who was writing in 2005 the "Filipinos
> for Condi Rice, A Pinoy blog dedicated to push and
> help Condoleeza Rice run for president in 2008" -
> around the time Condi fever was at its peak?
>
>   I used the banner of John's "Filipinos for Condi
> Rice" blog to spoof a "Condi meets Arroyo" page for
> my video -
>
>    "You wanna McCain - Rice 2008 ticket, or, a piece
> of Condi?"
> http://uk.youtube.com/watch?v=eHhDWfQGUQ0
>
>   The video is set to Britney Spear's "You wanna
> piece of me?" and Britney's lyrics make a mention of
> her being in the Philippines and so John's blog
> title was just what was required.
>
>   The blog page was fictitious but the meeting
> between Condi and Philippine President Arroyo
> happened right enough.
>
>   The point is with writers from the Philippines
> (John) to Scotland (me) calling for a President or a
> Vice-President Condoleezza Rice it is a wonder that
> more Americans don't seem to realize what they've
> got there in Condi and aren't themselves pushing
> harder to get Condi to run on the ticket.
>
>   - Peter
>
>
>   krove04 <krove04@...> wrote:
>           if he wants to win.
>
>
http://politicaljunkie.blogspot.com/2008/07/why-mccain-rice-in-2008.html
>
>
>
>
>
>
> ---------------------------------
>  Not happy with your email address?
>   Get the one you really want - millions of new
> email addresses available now at  Yahoo!

Reply | Messages in this Topic (3)

#1875

From: Peter Dow <peterdow@...>
Date: Fri Aug 8, 2008 10:08 pm
Subject: Yahoo/POLITICO Interview: Condi - "Look, I�m a Republican, all right?"

bty944017

http://www.state.gov/secretary/rm/2008/08/107992.htm

Mike Allen, Chief Political Correspondent interviews Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice.

The complete interview
http://cosmos.bcst.yahoo.com/up/player/popup/index.php?cl=9169962

35 minutes 11 seconds

Full Transcript of the interview not all of which is on video -

Note there are several errors in the State Department transcript as documented here. The misquotes require to be corrected because on a couple of occasions anyway they seem to misrepresent the sense of what Secretary Rice has said.

These "mistakes" seem to distort the record in such a way so as to seem to minimise President Bush and Secretary Rice's achievements.

Sections of the interview can be viewed individually via the following links -

Iranian answer 'not adequate'
http://cosmos.bcst.yahoo.com/up/player/popup/index.php?cl=9159883

2 minutes 7 seconds

QUESTION: Madame Secretary, thank you for sitting down with The Politico and Yahoo! News to talk about your accomplishments, the last eight years, and what lies ahead. You�re one of the few people who�s been along for the whole ride, so we have a lot to talk about.

We�ll start with Iran. A big deadline has passed. They were supposed to tell us if they were going to stop enriching uranium. If they don�t, they could build a bomb. Now what�s the latest on what�s going to happen? We understand that there are some new sanctions that are being considered.

SECRETARY RICE: Well, yesterday, the P5+1, the group that has offered Iran this very generous package but has also demanded that Iran stop its enrichment and reprocessing, the political directors met. They agreed that the Iranian answer is not adequate, that it is not a really serious answer. And so we�re now going to begin to consult on how to get back on the second track, which is to move again toward Security Council � toward a Security Council resolution. We�ve always said Iran has a way out if they ever wish, but we will seriously pursue sanctions if they don�t.

(cut to later in the interview)

QUESTION: ... Because of this foot-dragging, are we going to be tougher with them?

SECRETARY RICE: Well, we�ve been pretty tough with them already. We have three Security Council resolutions. We are making a difference in terms of their own financial --

QUESTION: Should they feel like time is running out? Like, should they feel the heat being turned up?

SECRETARY RICE: They should have felt like time was running out quite a long time ago. Because when you are under Chapter 7 resolutions, when you are having trouble getting banks to come in, getting investment, when export credits are going down from around the world, when you have inflation roaring, time is running out.

QUESTION: And do you think that they recognize that? They�re not acting like they do.

SECRETARY RICE: Well, we�ll see. They � what is happening to Iran is that its isolation is costing them. It�s having an effect. I think that�s one reason that you�re seeing them trying to give half-answers rather than simply saying no. But the fact is we won�t accept half-answers, either.

Iran nuclear weapons by 2010?
http://cosmos.bcst.yahoo.com/up/player/popup/index.php?cl=9160289

2 minutes 14 seconds

QUESTION: Madame Secretary, the time is running. Both the National Intelligence Estimate and the Israelis have said that at this rate, by 2010, they could have a nuclear weapon. Do you think that the time is coming when sanctions won�t be enough? What other sort of diplomatic, military options might we have to consider?

SECRETARY RICE: Well, the President keeps all of his options on the table, but we still believe that the diplomatic option can work and that there is time for it to work, because not only --

QUESTION: How much time?

SECRETARY RICE: Well, I don�t want to try to get into timelines. The fact is that we�re working at it every day. There is a coalition of states as well as Security Council resolutions that show the Iranians what they have to do. And we have to remember that it�s not just the Security Council resolutions, but a number of other financial measures that the United States, Europe, and others have taken, and a number of companies and banks that have gotten voluntarily out of Iran because of the reputational risk and because of the investment risk. And you have to hope that there are reasonable people in Iran who see this as not the way to run a country.

QUESTION: I mean, you have to hope, but what are the chances? How optimistic are you that it will work?

SECRETARY RICE: Well, I think there is a lot of ferment in Iran right now. You read in the newspapers, even in � even in their newspapers, as controlled as they are, a lot of questioning of the policies of President Ahmadinejad. After all, inflation is running wild in Iran. It�s a country that�s experiencing, of all things, brownouts in a country that has as much energy as it does.

And so this is a � this is something that is being discussed in Iran. And we keep saying to Iran, and the United States has said we don�t have a permanent enemy here. We can move to a better place, but the Iranians have to make a tough decision.

QUESTION: So do you think unhappiness in the population might --

SECRETARY RICE: Well, not necessarily in the population, because unfortunately, of course, this is a dictatorship. But among the elites, that there may be those among the elites who don�t want to see this kind of isolation because of business interests or others, that you have to hope that that might be the case.

The Iran nuclear nightmare scenario?
http://cosmos.bcst.yahoo.com/up/player/popup/index.php?cl=9160266

1 minute 55 seconds

QUESTION: Now, Madame Secretary, if Iran were to have a nuclear weapon, what would be the nightmare scenario?

SECRETARY RICE: Well, I�m not going to speculate, but I think the very fact that you see countries talk about the need themselves for nuclear energy and a nuclear option in the region, you could see that it could have significant proliferation consequences in the region around Iran. And so the best thing to do is to not let it happen.

QUESTION: Now of course, the country that really worries about a nuclear Iran is Israel, and of course, their air force has even practiced a potential attack on Iran. Since we�re such a close ally of Israel, do you worry that if Israel were to act against Iran, that we would be blamed?

SECRETARY RICE: Well, we don�t say yes or no to Israeli military operations. Israel is a sovereign country. But we are in very close contact with the Israelis and we talk about the diplomatic track that we�re on. I think they believe that diplomacy � they�ve said that diplomacy can work here. And I know they�re doing their part to talk to all of the countries with which they have good relations to explain why it�s important to have a tough edge to our diplomacy.

QUESTION: Well, Madame Secretary, you�re the diplomatic voice of the United States. Would you use this opportunity to tell Israel that they should not strike Iran?

SECRETARY RICE: As I�ve said, we�re on a diplomatic course and that�s the important thing.

QUESTION:... Twenty percent of the world�s oil goes through water controlled by Iran. Is oil Iran�s secret weapon?

SECRETARY RICE: Well, I don�t know what the Iranians would do without the revenue that they receive from selling oil. And so the idea that they would somehow deprive the world of Iranian oil exports would have to have a pretty devastating effect on Iran itself.

Taliban's resurgence
http://cosmos.bcst.yahoo.com/up/player/popup/index.php?cl=9166684

2 minutes 46 seconds

QUESTION: Now turning to Afghanistan, by every measure, things are going badly there. The Taliban has regrouped. Opium production is up. What do you think needs to be done diplomatically and militarily?

SECRETARY RICE: Well, first of all, I just have to quarrel with the premise. I don�t think everything is going bad in Afghanistan. You have to look --

QUESTION: It can�t be what you would like to see.

SECRETARY RICE: Well � well, it certainly could be a good deal worse if you look at where they were in 2001. This is a country that was controlled by the Taliban. They�ve now had the election of a president. They�re about to have other elections next year.

QUESTION: But look at the trendline.

SECRETARY RICE: Well, no, but the trend � but --

QUESTION: The trendline isn�t what you would want.

SECRETARY RICE: But let me � let me finish, Mike � because I think this is � we have to recognize that there are difficulties in Afghanistan. But the idea that nothing is going right in Afghanistan when health is improving for ordinary Afghans, when education is improving, when they�re building roads and infrastructure, when they are training and we�re training and equipping Afghan forces that are operating very effectively, when there is an international coalition there to support them, including NATO troops, much is going right.

Now the problem is that yes, the Taliban has regrouped, but not really regrouped in � as a military force, but rather in kind of hit-and-run terrorist incidents that, in fact, do affect the population. And so a couple of things need to be done. Afghan forces need to be trained in larger numbers and faster. The problems across the Afghan-Pakistan border have to be dealt with. We�ve said many times that when the Pakistanis were here in Washington just 10 days ago or so, we were very clear that something has to be done about terrorists who are using Pakistani territory to run cross-border raids into Afghanistan.

And of course, government has got to improve. This is a country that�s really never had a very strong central government. But we�re trying to extend the writ of Kabul out into the regions through Provincial Reconstruction Teams. The Afghans themselves need to fight corruption, which is, in part, one of the reasons for that terrible connection between opium production, terrorism, and corruption.

So these are all elements that need to be worked on. In places where there are good governors who have taken on the opium problem, you actually have, if not opium-free, extremely rapidly declining opium production. And so there are many things that can be done here. It�s just a difficult environment. This is one of the world�s poorest countries that went through almost 30 years of war. And we keep talking about reconstruction; this is really construction in Afghanistan, because in many ways, these institutions would not exist.

Rice: Al-Qaida has changed
http://cosmos.bcst.yahoo.com/up/player/popup/index.php?cl=9169068

3 minutes 34 seconds

(cut this section moved up)

QUESTION: But doing the hard jobs that you�ve done for this President, how much do you worry hour-to-hour, day-to-day about an attack on the U.S.? Is it imminent?

SECRETARY RICE: Every day. Every day. For us � for those of us who were in responsibility � the � of places of authority on September 11^th, you have to understand that every day is September 12^th. It�s your greatest fear. And the good news is we have much more robust defensive measures we have here in the country. We have much more robust intelligence and law enforcement sharing between our agencies. And we have a much more robust international net that makes it harder for terrorists to operate, but it doesn�t make it impossible, and therefore, you have to worry every day that they might succeed.

(cut - this following section actually preceded the section above)

QUESTION: Well, there are a lot of signs of resurgence of al-Qaida. And you said that when you went into Iraq, you would be taking the fight to al-Qaida. In fact, there are indications attacks are up. If you look at this graph from a Rand study --

SECRETARY RICE: Now, you know, I�ve seen that same �

QUESTION: Okay.

SECRETARY RICE: I know Rand very well. I was very active with Rand at one point.

(Note that the official State Department transcript quotes Secretary Rice as saying - "Iran" rather than "Rand" in the previous line. See Rand Graduate School commencement exercises, July 15, 1995 / Condoleezza Rice )

QUESTION: And the Pentagon helped pay for the study.

SECRETARY RICE: But I � I�m actually a social scientist. And the first thing I would want to see is, what is the definition of attack. Because I do know that al-Qaida is a different kind of organization than the one that existed in 2001. The one that existed in 2001 was a highly centralized set of cells with highly centralized command and control that allowed them to do the kind of major attack against the United States that they pulled off. There is some �

QUESTION: So you don�t think a major attack like that is possible now?

SECRETARY RICE: Well � no, no, of course it�s possible. And I�ve said many times that the United States is safer, but not safe.

QUESTION: Right.

SECRETARY RICE: They have to be right once. We have to be right 100 percent of the time.

QUESTION: Yes, yes.

SECRETARY RICE: But they are a different organization. Much of their leadership and their field general leadership has been eliminated. They have to communicate in far less sophisticated ways. But they have franchised out. And there are multiple, less connected, less hierarchical organizations.

And so I think I have to look at a notion of what�s an attack and where. In some places, like Southeast Asia, where we were very worried about an upswing in terrorism, the terrorism threat seems to have diminished. In some places like the Maghreb, there clearly is an uptick.

QUESTION: Madame Secretary, is it � are there some ways in which a diffuse al-Qaida is more scary?

SECRETARY RICE: Well, it�s different. And so you have to have different ways of fighting it. But in many places, Saudi Arabia, you see that they have really taken on that al-Qaida leadership and they�ve destroyed a fair amount of it. In other places, it�s still more prevalent. But its defeat in Iraq, which � I do believe we will defeat them in Iraq. We�re well in � on our way to making it very difficult for them to operate in Iraq.

SECRETARY RICE: Now, you know, I�ve seen that same �

QUESTION: Okay.

SECRETARY RICE: I know Iran very well. I was very active with Iran at one point.

QUESTION: And the Pentagon helped pay for the study.

QUESTION: So you don�t think a major attack like that is possible now?

SECRETARY RICE: Well � no, no, of course it�s possible. And I�ve said many times that the United States is safer, but not safe.

QUESTION: Right.

SECRETARY RICE: They have to be right once. We have to be right 100 percent of the time.

QUESTION: Yes, yes.

QUESTION: Madame Secretary, is it � are there some ways in which a diffuse al-Qaida is more scary?

QUESTION: How close is that? How � how � on what horizon do you imagine?

SECRETARY RICE: Well, I � I can�t get -- I just think that we see that this is a much weakened organization in Iraq, in part because Iraqis rose up against them.

QUESTION: Much weakened in Iraq. And would you say much weakened globally as well?

SECRETARY RICE: I think they�re certainly weakened from the point of view of their ability to get a foothold in the center of the Middle East. Had they won in Iraq, they were talking about Iraq as the nestbed from which al-Qaida would generate. Now they don�t talk about Iraq in that way anymore.

Time to get tough with Pakistan?
http://cosmos.bcst.yahoo.com/up/player/popup/index.php?cl=9167679

2 minutes 31 seconds

QUESTION: Now, Madame Secretary, the CIA says that Pakistan, our theoretical ally in the war on terror, is actually aiding al-Qaida. Is that why Pakistan won�t let the U.S. put more troops inside to fight terrorism?

SECRETARY RICE: Well, I think we have to be precise. The point is that Pakistan, the government, the entity � and by the way, I would say they�re not our theoretical ally; they are our ally. They are � there are elements in Pakistan that one worries that there are connections to the militants in the region. There are also clearly efforts that we think are not working to have deals, if you will, or negotiated solutions to the militant problem. And the � but the point is that these militants are as deadly and dangerous for Pakistan as they are for � also for Afghanistan. Just witness the fact that one of the networks there was � is widely believed to be responsible for the assassination of Benazir Bhutto.

QUESTION: Madame Secretary, isn�t it time, though, for a bolder statement about Pakistan? This is a country that built up the Taliban. This is a country that sponsors terrorism against India. People are wondering, isn�t it about time to take a tougher stand?

SECRETARY RICE: Well, I think we�re taking a pretty bold stand. And by the way, the Pakistanis themselves understand that they need to take a bolder stand. Again, this is a threat not just to us or to Afghanistan, but to them. And extremism has taken a place in Pakistan, in part because of the transit of the more extreme elements who were coming out of Afghanistan after the defeat of the Soviet Union.

This has been rooting in in Pakistan for a long time and it�s going to take a while to expel extremism. You have to do it through fighting the extremism, all out. You � there are certain irreconcilables. You also have to do it through longer term ways of providing education, for the people who might now study in radical madrasas, study in schools that will teach them skills. You have to do it through the economic and social development of places like the Federally Administered Tribal Areas, which are deadly poor --

QUESTION: Sure.

SECRETARY RICE: -- really poor. And so there are many elements to this. But Pakistan has a now democratically elected government. That�s something that the United States advocated for. And we�re going to be a partner and a friend of that government.

What's next for Iraq?
http://cosmos.bcst.yahoo.com/up/player/popup/index.php?cl=9168775

2 minutes 37 seconds

QUESTION: Madame Secretary, John McCain and Barack Obama have been going round and round about how fast the U.S. should withdraw from Iraq. Do you think that Senator Obama�s policy on Iraq is too rigid, or do you think it�s flexible?

SECRETARY RICE: Well, I see people starting to talk about the issues of when will forces come out and timelines, to me, seem to be narrowing somewhat. But nonetheless, the important point is we�re now talking about how to build on success.

(The official transript on the State Department misquotes Secretary Rice as saying "we're not talking about how to build on success" which is a perverse reversal of what Secretary Rice actually said! )

If I had been sitting here a year ago telling you we would be talking about could American forces, as General Petraeus has suggested, be able to continue to come down, because the Iraqis themselves are so much more capable because they�re taking over more and more security functions, because they�re leading and led in places like Basra in a highly successful operation, and you would have said, oh, come now, that�s wishful thinking.

Well, the very fact that any discussions now of the roles, responsibilities and aspirational timelines for American forces are in terms of how do we protect the success and move it forward is, in itself, a tremendous vindication of the President�s decision to surge forces.

(Note the official State Department transcript misquotes Secretary Rice as saying "is, in itself, a tremendous indication of the President�s decision to surge forces". )

QUESTION: So taking your point, Senator Obama opposed the surge. But if he were president, it sounds like he would benefit from it.

SECRETARY RICE: Well, America has benefitted from the surge. Iraq has benefitted from the surge. And the whole region has benefitted from the surge. Look, there � I � there were reasons to have questions about the surge. The President asked all of those tough questions himself.

QUESTION: Interesting.

SECRETARY RICE: The advisors asked all of those tough questions. What would our forces do? We weren�t just going to surge troops to keep doing the same thing we�ve been doing. And General Petraeus and the generals there, many of whom had been in Iraq before, came back, had a smart counterinsurgency strategy in which there was both political outreach to Iraqis themselves, the enlisting of Iraqi fighters like the Sons of Iraq in Anbar, and additional American forces, along with the role that the State Department played in sending diplomats and aid workers out into the Provincial Reconstruction Teams and building then on the successes of throwing the terrorists out. So this was a very different strategy. And that, together with the additional forces, is what succeeded

Obama's VP?
http://cosmos.bcst.yahoo.com/up/player/popup/index.php?cl=9161217

1 minute 4 seconds

QUESTION: Now, Madame Secretary, a lot of people have asked you about serving on a ticket with Senator McCain. If asked, you would you serve on a ticket with Senator Obama?

SECRETARY RICE: I � I don�t need another job in government with anybody. Look, I�m a Republican, all right? Senator McCain is a fine patriot and he�s really the � he would be a great president. But there�s something to be said for fresh blood. And I know that there are a lot of very good people who could be his vice president.

QUESTION: Would you feel safe with a President Obama?

SECRETARY RICE: Oh, the United States will be fine. I think that we are having an important debate about how we keep the country safe. I think we are having an important debate about our responsibilities, our obligations, our interests in the Middle East in the wake of the now increasing evidence of success in Iraq. Those are important judgments for the American people to make.

Denying allegations of White House wrongdoing
http://cosmos.bcst.yahoo.com/up/player/popup/index.php?cl=9160921

1 minute 29 seconds

QUESTION: Madame Secretary, as you know, there�s a new book by Ron Suskind, which says that the White House ordered the CIA to falsify intelligence about Iraq�s ties to al-Qaida. Is it possible the U.S. Government forged a letter from Iraq�s intelligence chief to Saddam Hussein?

SECRETARY RICE: The United States Government didn�t forge a letter -- the White House in which I was working. And I think that --

QUESTION: And they didn�t direct --

SECRETARY RICE: And I think the people who he � as I understand it, the people that he quotes as being sources for that have denied it.

QUESTION: And so you think it�s impossible that such a letter was created?

SECRETARY RICE: Look, the United States � the White House was not going to ask somebody to forge a letter on something of this importance.

QUESTION: And so you believe it did not occur?

SECRETARY RICE: It did not occur. The intelligence might have been wrong; that�s now clear.

QUESTION: Right.

SECRETARY RICE: Not because people weren�t working very hard. But when you have an opaque regime like Saddam Hussein�s regime, that had used weapons of mass destruction before, that had them before, one can understand how the judgment may have been wrong. But the decision to go to war was based on the strategic threat of Saddam Hussein, the fact we�d been to war against him before, the fact that he still threatened his neighbors, and the fact that we were told that he was reconstituting his weapons of mass destruction.

Did U.S. misread Russia's leader?
http://cosmos.bcst.yahoo.com/up/player/popup/index.php?cl=9165801
1 minute 39 seconds

QUESTION: Now, Madame Secretary, you came to government as a Soviet specialist. And the President looked into Vladimir Putin�s eyes and said that he believed he could get a sense of his soul. Since then, of course, Putin has cracked down on his own people�s freedoms; he has turned out to be a very unreliable ally. How did you all so misread this former KBG agent?

SECRETARY RICE: Oh, no, I�m not --

QUESTION: Were you out-scooped?

SECRETARY RICE: I�m not so sure that anybody misread it. What we � what we understood was this was somebody who was going to act in the interest of Russia, one way or another. And I�ll say one thing for Vladimir Putin: When he said he was going to do something he did it, and when he said he wouldn�t, he wouldn�t � he didn�t do it.

Now, Russia --

QUESTION: And that�s not true of everybody --

SECRETARY RICE: And that�s not true of everybody.

QUESTION: Yeah.

SECRETARY RICE: So you have to give him that. Now, Russia is a country that I think in 2001 was still coming to terms with what its post-Cold War interests were.

QUESTION: Mm-hmm.

SECRETARY RICE: And if you look at the way that they supported the initial Afghanistan invasion by the United States, even so much as supporting our basing needs in Central Asia, you have to say that this was a relationship that was off to a very good start. And it continued to have some real successes on global nuclear terrorism, on the Middle East, on Iran, on North Korea. On issues concerning the internal development of Russia, we�ve been very disappointed.

QUESTION: Very disappointed?

SECRETARY RICE: Very. Because I think everyone believed that Russia was moving to a more democratic path, and that has turned out not to be the case.

Russia's rising oil stature
http://cosmos.bcst.yahoo.com/up/player/popup/index.php?cl=9161745

1 minute 39 seconds

QUESTION: I know this is something close to your heart. Madame Secretary, the Russian energy company Gazprom, says that in a few years it will pass Exxon Mobil as the largest publicly traded company in the world. What do you think the next administration should do to deal with this increasingly assertive Russia?

SECRETARY RICE: Well, let�s wait and see whether or not, in fact, Gazprom meets those expectations.

QUESTION: But the Russians --

SECRETARY RICE: But quite apart --

QUESTION: Right.

SECRETARY RICE: -- from whether they do, look, it is absolutely the case that Russian oil and gas diplomacy, the kind of Russia, Inc., is a problem.

QUESTION: That�s a problem?

SECRETARY RICE: A problem.

QUESTION: What do you mean by that?

SECRETARY RICE: A problem. Because it mixes politics and commerce in a way that makes oil and gas an instrument of the state.

QUESTION: Mm-hmm.

SECRETARY RICE: And therefore, takes away, in a sense, some of the market constraints --

QUESTION: Absolutely.

SECRETARY RICE: -- on the behavior of these large oil and gas concerns. But you know, there�s a downside to that. Many of the predictions now are that Russia�s oil production, productivity, is actually going down because they�re not receiving the kind of investment in their fields and the ability to recoup old fields that they actually need. And in this sector of the economy, that sector of the economy, oil and gas, and frankly other extractive industries as well � minerals and the like � the more that this becomes state owned, operated, and dominated, they�re going to continue to have trouble getting investment.

The Olympics' potential impact on China
http://cosmos.bcst.yahoo.com/up/player/popup/index.php?cl=9165559

2 minutes 41 seconds

QUESTION: Now Madame Secretary, you�re about to head to the Olympics, probably one of the better parts of your job. There are signs every day that China is not living up to the promises that it made when it got the Olympics. Just yesterday, we found out that the Gold Medalist Joey Cheek isn�t getting a visa, obviously, because of action on Darfur. Do you worry that President Bush, yourself, other leaders who go there, are being played by the Chinese?

SECRETARY RICE: No, I think the Chinese are getting plenty of attention to some of the things that they are doing that disappoint, given the obligations and the representations that they undertook. And I think there�s a spotlight on some of this.

Now, let�s be very clear, it�s a sporting event. And this really needs to be about the athletes. These are people who have trained for their entire lives for this moment. And so I � we all hope that the Olympics are going to be a great success. We also hope that the Chinese are going to handle this in a way that gives some confidence that, going forward, China recognizes that having gotten the Olympics, it�s being recognized as a responsible stakeholder in international politics.

QUESTION: And do you think they�ve been responsible so far?

SECRETARY RICE: Well, in some things they have; in others they�ve not.

QUESTION: Are you surprised? Like, did you think that they would use this as their golden opportunity to treat Christians better or to release prisoners? Like, were you quite optimistic?

QUESTION: Well, I wouldn�t say optimistic. I think there are limitations on what an Olympics can do for a political system that is clearly still a closed political system. Someone said to me, �The nature of China�s political system was well understood when the Olympics were granted there.� Now, you can hope, and I think we have pressed China, not just during these Olympics but before the Olympics, and we will press them after the Olympics, to make progress on human rights, to assure internet freedom � something that we�re all very much concerned about � to begin to open up their political system. There are lots of pressures and strains in that system. They need a more flexible political system.

QUESTION: So, Madame Secretary, even in retrospect, do you think it was the right thing to do?

SECRETARY RICE: The right thing to --

QUESTION: To give Russia � to give Beijing the --

SECRETARY RICE: It was the decision of the IOC.

QUESTION: Do you think it gave them leverage?

SECRETARY RICE: I�m, frankly, glad that the Chinese have this Olympics. It is putting a spotlight on China in many ways.

QUESTION: And did it give the West leverage you had never had?

SECRETARY RICE: Well, it�s not so much a question of leverage, but it does put light of day on some Chinese practices that, frankly, I think they would rather not have had in the open.

Progress with North Korea
http://cosmos.bcst.yahoo.com/up/player/popup/index.php?cl=9168618

1 minute 36 seconds

QUESTION: Madame Secretary, we talked about some problems area. You personally have achieved a lot � achieved some success with North Korea, talking directly with them, something the President said he would not do.

SECRETARY RICE: Well, no, the President never said he wouldn't talk to North Korea. He said he saw no purpose in bilateral negotiations with the North Koreans. And in fact, this is a multilateral negotiation with the North Koreans, because if this was just between the United States and North Korea, we would not be where we are today. This is because China has played its role, South Korea has played its role, and those two countries in particular have a lot of leverage with North Korea. It is because Japan and Russia have played a role. And North Korea can�t do what they tend to do, which is to blame the United States for problems, get a little bit of help from South Korea, a little bit of help from China.

QUESTION: Right.

SECRETARY RICE: They now have to confront all five parties at once. And that�s the reason that the Six-Party Talks are having success.

QUESTION: Do you worry that your willingness to show some flexibility there has undercut your Iran policy?

SECRETARY RICE: Not at all. We would be perfectly willing to talk to Iran if they, like the North Koreans � the North Koreans have at least signed onto a program for denuclearization that is an agreed program for denuclearization. That�s effectively what we�re asking the Iranians to do: sign onto a framework for negotiations that doesn't have you practicing enrichment and reprocessing while we�re talking; freeze that, stop that, suspend those activities; and then we can negotiate.

Secretary Rice knows her football
http://cosmos.bcst.yahoo.com/up/player/popup/index.php?cl=9161351

42 seconds

QUESTION: Where will Brett Favre be playing when the NFL season begins?

SECRETARY RICE: Well, I don�t know where he�ll be playing, but I hope he�ll have a chance to play. I hope that � from all I read, if it doesn't work out with the Packers, I hope he finds a team. And you know, we have to remember, Joe Montana actually ended his career in Kansas City. Nobody really remembers that. They remember him as a 49er. Johnny Unitas actually ended his career in San Diego, Joe Montana in � Joe Namath in Los Angeles. This could work out for everybody.

Condi's Hollywood crush
http://cosmos.bcst.yahoo.com/up/player/popup/index.php?cl=9160750

42 seconds

QUESTION: And Madame Secretary, as a last question, as you know, Thandie Newton is playing you in the upcoming movie W. I wonder if there�s somebody that you�d hoped would play you.

SECRETARY RICE: (Laughter.) I have no idea. I didn�t know that. And it�s fine. I�m sure she�ll do a very fine job.

QUESTION: Do you have a leading man that you�d like to play opposite you?

SECRETARY RICE: (Laughter.) I�ll leave that to � leave that to the casters � cast directors.

QUESTION: And who would you say is your Hollywood crush?

SECRETARY RICE: My Hollywood crush? Oh, I�ve got lots of them. I mean, doesn't everybody love Denzel Washington?

Photoshopped image - Mr & Mrs Washington

http://img139.imageshack.us/img139/5905/condindenzel17298br2.jpg

This image is also stored in Rice for President Yahoo Groups photos album -

Photoshopped: Soft Power

http://ph.groups.yahoo.com/group/rice-for-president/photos/browse/a5f4

(you need to join Rice for President Yahoo Group and be logged in with your Yahoo ID to be able to see the Group's photos albums)

Peter Dow comments -

Condi may be hinting here that as a Republican she considers herself becoming VP to a Republican President McCain a more reasonable prospect rather than her becoming VP to a Democratic President Obama.

I hope this is a sign that Condi is rowing back from her strict neutrality between the parties when she refused to say in the Wolf Blitzer interview who she would vote for for President because whatever Condi's chances of being McCain's pick for VP they are certainly a lot greater than Obama ever picking her.

Not happy with your email address?
Get the one you really want - millions of new email addresses available now at Yahoo!

#1876

From: Peter Dow <peterdow@...>
Date: Mon Aug 11, 2008 11:52 pm
Subject: Ohio McCain fans' VP favorites - Romney & Rice. CNN Ed Henry's video & analysis

bty944017

http://edition.cnn.com/video/?/video/politics/2008/08/10/henry.mccain.veepstakes.cnn

CNN Video: Ohio and GOP VP choices

Ohio McCain supporter for a VP Rice. Still from a CNN video report August 10, 2008

From the report by CNN's Ed Henry

Voice-over - "Others are hoping for a wild-card."

Lady in pink with a "Condy Rice for VP" sign - "for Vice-President,"

Question - "For Vice-President?"

Lady in pink - "She's a woman, she's an African-American and she's smart. She's very intelligent."

Voice-over - "Secretary of State - Condoleezza Rice!"

Lady in pink - "She already said "No" but if he gently twists her arm, she will say "Yes"."

Ed Hendry - "Several other voters told me they want to see Rice cut into Obama's support among African-Americans and women. They also like her national security credentials.

The problem is that experience comes with an unpopular president and besides, in the last few days, Rice said again, she does not want the job."

August 11, 2008

Analysis: McCain's VP � who will it be?

http://politicalticker.blogs.cnn.com/2008/08/11/henry-mccains-vp-who-will-it-be/

Posted: 09:52 AM ET

From CNN White House Correspondent Ed Henry

WASHINGTON (CNN) � With John McCain touring Pennsylvania Monday with his good friend and the state's popular former governor, Tom Ridge, the buzz is inevitably building about whom the Republican presidential candidate will select as his running mate.

If chemistry winds up being a key factor for McCain, Ridge has to be high on the so-called short list of veep possibilities � and the fact that Pennsylvania is such a critical swing state doesn't hurt. Plus, as a moderate Republican, picking Ridge could help give McCain even more street cred with independent voters as he tries to re-build the maverick image that faded a bit as he grew closer to President Bush in recent years.

But on the other hand, choosing Ridge could alienate social conservatives because of the former governor's long support for abortion rights. Given the reactions I gathered on my recent trip to another key battleground, Ohio, Republican rank-and-file voters want a conservative to fill out McCain's ticket and help get the party's base to the polls.

Their overwhelming favorite is Romney � not Ridge.

While I was in Lima, Ohio, last week I decided to ask Republican voters waiting on line for a McCain town hall meeting what they think, in order to gauge their passion.

The overwhelming favorite, no question, was former Massachusetts Gov. Mitt Romney. More than a dozen Republicans told me Romney would be McCain's best choice, especially with the economy emerging as issue number one on the campaign trail. "McCain's no businessman," said Sherry Key, adding of Romney: "I think he's good at economics and that's what John McCain needs. It's the only thing he's lacking."

Roberta Leach said Romney would excite economic conservatives in particular. "He can run a business, he can run the country," she said.

Another Republican woman, Chris McNamara, said that Romney is also a "little more conservative on family values" than McCain.

Romney backer Diane Hager told me that in such a close election with Democrat Barack Obama, she's worried that if McCain does not pick a conservative it will hurt him in November. "I think if he doesn't pick a conservative running mate he's going to have some conservatives that stay home and don't vote and that would be a real big mistake," she said.

Interestingly, several voters I spoke to knew very little about another person on McCain's short list, Minnesota Gov. Tim Pawlenty. "I don't know much about him, it's a new name," said Sue Kayser, who told me she's backing Romney. "People aren't going to vote for an unknown."

In fairness to Pawlenty, however, he has been on the national stage for a shorter time than Romney and did not run for president himself so it makes sense that he has less name I.D. And it's worth noting that many voters told me they would consider Pawlenty carefully and could be swayed to support him � but they said McCain would have to do a much more aggressive job of selling the governor to Republican voters than he would have to with Romney.

And there's another wild card in the mix: Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice. McCain supporter John Hiles told me he likes that Rice could pull female and African-American votes from Obama, as well as the Secretary's national security credentials. "She's capable of leading this country," he said.

Of course, that experience came under an unpopular President whom McCain is trying to split himself from these days. In addition, Rice keeps saying she does not want the VP job. So the overwhelming consensus I found in that one important part of Ohio was Romney.

Unlike his close relationship with Ridge, McCain has had some frosty dealings with Romney. Still, back in 1960, two presidential candidates � John Kennedy and Lyndon Johnson � didn't have much use for each other after a brutal Democratic primary campaign. Their partnership worked out pretty well because Kennedy and Johnson agreed on at least one thing: They both wanted to win.

Peter Dow comments -

Looks like Condi would get a lot of support as McCain's VP with more Ohio McCain fans naming "Romney" as their favorite presumably because they accept Condi's "No" as final.

We at Rice for President Yahoo Group don't accept "No" for a final answer from Condi for 2008 yet and like the Lady in Pink said, McCain should try gently twisting her arm (or I suggest kissing her ass, or both!)

Yet again we heard the myth repeated by commentators like Ed Henry that Bush's unpopularity is supposed to rub off on Condi somehow - yet the Teflon lady herself remains popular when you actually ask voters informally like in the video or in scientifically conducted polls, when for example, a New York poll predicted a landslide nationwide for a McCain - Rice ticket.

Send instant messages to your online friends http://uk.messenger.yahoo.com

#1877

From: Peter Dow <peterdow@...>
Date: Thu Aug 28, 2008 2:10 pm
Subject: Best Answer: How to argue that Romney isn't a great choice for McCain's VP

bty944017

Well I only got one more vote than the 3 next most popular answers to this question, but a win is a win in politics.

- Peter Dow,

Owner, Rice for President Yahoo Group

Robinson Cruz

Resolved Question
http://answers.yahoo.com/question/?qid=20080822222415AA40bam

How can anyone argue that Romney isn't a great choice for McCain's VP?

He know business and economic better than anyone. How else can you make hundreds of millions of dollars off the labor of others if you aren't a business genius.

Here's hoping McCain picks Romney. We'll have a field day with that one. The only good thing I can think of about Romney is that he probably knows how many houses he owns.

5 days ago

Additional Details

5 days ago

The new campaign slogan: "McCain / Romney: Gold-medal winners in the flip-flopping competition."

Or how about: "Proud Conservatives since 2007."

by peterdow...

Member since:: August 20, 2007
Total points:: 292 (Level 2)

Best Answer - Chosen by Voters

Well Rice for President Yahoo Group has reported that Romney and Rice remain the most popular choices for McCain's VP amongst McCain active supporters.
http://groups.yahoo.com/group/rice-for-president/message/1876

I feel for Americans not wishing to let the opportunity of a VP Rice go despite Condi ruling herself out. It will be a great missed opportunity for all of us in the world.

The answer to your question is that Rice may be considerably more popular with all American voters than Romney is and so a McCain - Rice 2008 would win by a landslide according to our analysis of one poll.
http://groups.yahoo.com/group/rice-for-president/message/1823

I don't know enough about Romney to tell you his weaknesses except that, like the rest of us, he is not Condi so he cannot be as good as her.

For example, Condi is good for the economy and business too because Universities are drivers of new technology which is the only way to increase competitiveness for Americans in the future. As Provost of Stanford, Condi has had a leading position in one of the world's leading universities.

Whereas what does Romney know about foreign policy?

- Peter Dow
Owner, Rice for President Yahoo Group

4 days ago

Source(s):

Rice for President Yahoo Group
"Condoleezza Rice for President in 2012. Join this group of supporters from everywhere on the world wide web. "
http://groups.yahoo.com/group/rice-for-president/

19% 4 Votes

Yahoo! Answers <answers-alert@...> wrote:

Date: 25 Aug 2008 23:34:42 -0700
From: Yahoo! Answers <answers-alert@...>
Subject: Yahoo! Answers: Your answer has been chosen as the best answer
To: peterdow@...

Take me to Yahoo! Answers. I want to answer more questions!

Hey, peterdow@..., look what you got!

Congratulations, you've got a best answer and 10 extra points!

Your answer to the following question really hit the spot and has been chosen as the best answer:

How can anyone argue that Romney isn't a great choice for McCain's VP?

Go ahead, do your victory dance. Celebrate a little. Brag a little. Then come back and answer a few more questions!

Thanks for sharing what you know and making someone's day.

The Yahoo! Answers Team

Get the Yahoo! Toolbar for one-click access to Yahoo! Answers.

Send instant messages to your online friends http://uk.messenger.yahoo.com

#1878

From: Peter Dow <peterdow@...>
Date: Fri Aug 29, 2008 9:33 pm
Subject: Spoof: Sarah Palin is diagnosed with McCain-Dow syndrome.

bty944017

McCain-Dow syndrome or trisomy 2008 (or McCain-Dow's syndrome in British English) is a presidential election disorder caused by the presence of all or part of an inappropriate vice-presidential nominee on the ticket.

US Republican presidential candidate Senator John McCain (R-AZ) ...

Republican presidential candidate, Sen. John McCain, R-Ariz., left hugs Republican Alaska Gov. Sarah Palin as McCain announces her as his Vice Presidential running mate Friday, Aug. 29, 2008 at Ervin J. Nutter Center in Dayton, Ohio

It is named after Peter Dow, the British writer who described the syndrome in 2008 and John McCain the republican presidential nominee who selected Sarah Palin as his vice-presidential nominee, the first woman to be definitively diagnosed with McCain-Dow syndrome.

The condition is characterized by a combination of major and minor differences in structure. Often McCain-Dow syndrome is associated with some impairment of cognitive ability and intellectual growth as well as facial appearance. McCain-Dow syndrome can be identified whenever the vice-presidential nominee is selected.

Individuals with McCain-Dow syndrome tend to have a lower than desirable cognitive ability for a Vice President, often ranging from mild to moderate learning disabilities.

A small number have severe to profound mental disability. The incidence of McCain-Dow syndrome is estimated at 1 per 3 to 4 VP nominees, although these statistics are heavily influenced by the age of the presidential nominee. Other factors may also play a role.

Many of the common physical features of McCain-Dow syndrome also appear in people with a standard set of political opinions. They may include winning beauty pageants and appealing to the republican pro-life base.

Early presidential campaign intervention, screening for common problems, republican strategy advice where indicated, a conducive family environment, and vocational training can improve the overall development of vice-presidential nominees with McCain-Dow syndrome.

Although some of the physical genetic limitations of McCain-Dow syndrome cannot be overcome, education and proper care will improve quality of life.

It's a fucking retard!

Sarah Palin with Down's syndrome son.

U.S. Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice, left, and Poland's ...

"McCain's picked Sarah who?"

Peter Dow,

Owner, Rice for President Yahoo Group

PS. Hell hath no fury like a Condista scorned!

#1881

From: Peter Dow <peterdow@...>
Date: Sat Aug 30, 2008 11:02 am
Subject: Excalibur (Was: Spoof: Sarah Palin is diagnosed with McCain-Dow syndrome)

bty944017

http://img54.imageshack.us/img54/3188/excaliburmm7.jpg

"as well" Davyd? I never tossed Eric off the list. He stormed out in a huff, remember? He is welcome to re-join if he wants.

But since a full-scale rebellion or disertion in the Rice for President Yahoo Group ranks may be under way,

I had better deploy an argument or two in a hurry it seems.

As you know Davyd, this is how I replied to Eric on another Condi group he is still a member of -

Well as you may not have guessed Eric, the "retard" I was referring to was Sarah Palin, not her son.

Palin may not be clinically retarded but next to Condi's brain-power, like most of us, Palin comes up short.

However, the style of the spoof was a dig at one suggested reason for a VP Palin - it is said that she is pro-life, anti-abortion, and therefore appeals to many in the GOP base.

I am also speaking up for those women who want the right to choose and don't want to be criminalized because they decide to abort a fetus with Down's syndrome.

It is all very well Sarah Palin taking her own decision about her own child - I see no problem with that - the problem is that she may be one heart beat away from presiding over failing to defend women in America who wish the right to choose.

Also my attraction to Rice is her great intellect and the fact she is an excellent leader - her colour or sex are pleasant enough, but that isn't my reason for my supporting her for president or for VP.

Sorry that you didn't understand the particular nature of my spoof.

Thanks for being with Rice for President Yahoo Group for so long.

- Peter

I didn't post that here initially as Eric hasn't waited for my reply - he just stormed out.

I also added a few more comments in defence of my spoof on another group -

My post wasn't about picking on anyone except Sarah Palin and maybe John McCain too for his bad choice of VP nominee.

My post was about defending people from a certain vocal portion of the GOP who seem to have got the kind of candidate they want in Sarah Palin
- one who picks on women who need an abortion, and one who maybe picks on gay people too.

Americans and the world need a President and VP who will defend people and not let them get picked on.

I THOUGHT John McCain might be the man to do that - particularly if he got a good VP like Condoleezza Rice who would also defend Americans and others in the world from terrorists and the like.

But it looks like I have been disappointed about McCain - he seems to be very choosey about the Americans he wants to defend and those he wants to pick on.

Sarah Palin's son is not under threat from me - but other people's sons and daughters are under threat from Sarah Palin. That's the point of the post.

My standards are of the highest - not lower than low. Sorry you fail to understand that.

Also I am not questioning a baby's right to live - because the issue is abortion of fetuses, not murder of babies.

At a certain point, when the diagnosis of Down's syndrome is made through routine screening, at that point in pregnancy, the woman must be allowed the right to choose whether to continue the pregnancy all the way to birth or whether to choose to abort and maybe try again for a non "retard" baby next time.

No-one can make that decision for the woman but no-one should stop her making her own decision either.

Quite frankly the whole right-to-life / right-to-choose issue shows signs sometimes of getting out of hand when extremists so-called "right-to-lifers" end up murdering abortion doctors and surgeons! What happened to the right to life of the doctor?

But my complaint about Sarah Palin for VP is about more than this one issue - it is a complaint about Palin's standard of leadership - the intelligence and ability of the candidate - which always has been Condi's big plus point for the presidency.

A tick-box way of assessing presidential candidates is not sufficient. "Pro-life? Yes? Tick Box. Elect candidate."

There are far too many difficult decisions to make as president, requiring a keen intellect to analyse the situation and the options, to elect a tick-box candidate.

Now some people have pointed out that George Bush maybe isn't an "Einstein" - but with Cheney and Condi there to advise him, he has brain-power at his side.

Having a president who is clever and wise or advised by clever and wise people is what matters most for non-Americans and Americans alike, I submit.

Now, McCain is 72 - a great American patriot, no question, who could easily have been a great president with someone like Condi advising him at his side.

But no, McCain wants Palin at his side. So brain-power is out the window and American may be going to have a tick-box presidency perhaps.

So it is a seriously bad development - worthy of an angry spoof or two.

The situation is not made any better by the fact that the Democrats hardly seem to be making a good claim for the presidency either. It is hard to enthuse about Obama on Iraq, Iran or dealing with the newly aggressive Russians in Georgia and elsewhere.

Oh America, oh the world has such hopes for you. It is so sad when you fall short.

I fear Americans are "losing it" right now. Americans get to decide who sits in the White House, but you don't get to decide who in the world follows you.

In the legend of King Arthur, he mortally wounded, instructed Percival to throw Excalibur into a pool of deep water because no-one was there to inherit the power of the magic sword who could be trusted to use it wisely.

The story serves as an allegory for an eternal truth about leadership - sometimes there isn't anyone around who is up to job of uniting people in peace and justice and until that special great leader appears, the people must suffer unending wars and disasters.

Poor leadership isn't something that people should be expected to "get over". It is something that needs to be fought against and good leadership offered.

Condi may be prepared to "get over" the GOP going for McCain-Palin by heading back to Stanford. But I will be fighting to encourage republicans and Americans to bring Condi back center-stage in world affairs, as soon as possible.

While Condi lives, there is still hope for this generation. Certainly in 2012 but maybe even before then, who knows?

Right now, we live at a very special time in history - there is someone around to provide leadership of the standard and quality to lead the world to live free and to prosper - that person is Condoleezza Rice.

To apply the allegory, Condi is fit to hold Excalibur, as no-one else is in this generation.

I have also added this image to the Group's photo folders but you need to be a group member and signed into your Yahoo account to view it there.

http://ph.groups.yahoo.com/group/rice-for-president/photos/view/e5d1?b=92

As legend has foretold, the sword has risen again - but McCain may be requiring us to chuck it back in the water for another 4 years anyway because he is going with Sarah Palin for VP! For fuck's sake America!

Check out the Excalibur sequence in this Condi video -

Get It On. Condi Rice rules Britannia!
Music video of Britons kissing up to Condoleezza Rice, the US Secretary of State - Tony Blair at Davos, Switzerland and David Miliband in London before travelling with Condi to Afghanistan. Music is "Get It On" by T. Rex. Includes some sexy photoshopped images of Condi, "dirty and sweet but I love you". Video fantasy of offering British symbols of power for Condi to wield as she rules fair Albion (Britain) - the Crown of Scotland, Excalibur, King Arthur's sword of power. (Well this Scot and Briton would rather have Condi than Queen Elizabeth, any day.)
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=QsQkmsYBeFE

- Peter Dow,

Owner, Rice for President Yahoo Group

CDHoit <cdhoit@...> wrote:

Eric,

Point well taken. I have to admit the �usually� tasteless photo-shopping is also offensive. Folks who have subbed to this list, and find that sort of thing tend to associate ALL of us with that. I�m sticking around to study the nature of someone who is not even a US citizen being so hung up on Condi as to make promotion of her a joke. Although this reply will get me tossed off the list as well. Cest la vie�.

Davyd

From: rice-for-president@yahoogroups.com [mailto:rice-for-president@yahoogroups.com] On Behalf Of Eric and Kathy Craft
Sent: Friday, August 29, 2008 5:09 PM
To: rice-for-president@yahoogroups.com
Subject: Re: [rice-for-president] Spoof: Sarah Palin is diagnosed with McCain-Dow syndrome.

Goodbye Peter.

Your ignorance is only surpassed by your venom. Your crude remarks about our (NOT YOUR) possibly soon to be vice president's child are way over the top. I can not in good conscience remain in the company of such ignorance and venom.

Go ahead and rip into me with your reply. I don't care, I won't be here to see it anyway.

Eric...

Peter Dow wrote:

McCain-Dow syndrome or trisomy 2008 (or McCain-Dow's syndrome in British English) is a presidential election disorder caused by the presence of all or part of an inappropriate vice-presidential nominee on the ticket.

Republican presidential candidate, Sen. John McCain, R-Ariz., left hugs Republican Alaska Gov. Sarah Palin as McCain announces her as his Vice Presidential running mate Friday, Aug. 29, 2008 at Ervin J. Nutter Center in Dayton, Ohio

It is named after Peter Dow, the British writer who described the syndrome in 2008 and John McCain the republican presidential nominee who selected Sarah Palin as his vice-presidential nominee, the first woman to be definitively diagnosed with McCain-Dow syndrome.

The condition is characterized by a combination of major and minor differences in structure. Often McCain-Dow syndrome is associated with some impairment of cognitive ability and intellectual growth as well as facial appearance. McCain-Dow syndrome can be identified whenever the vice-presidential nominee is selected.

Individuals with McCain-Dow syndrome tend to have a lower than desirable cognitive ability for a Vice President, often ranging from mild to moderate learning disabilities.

A small number have severe to profound mental disability. The incidence of McCain-Dow syndrome is estimated at 1 per 3 to 4 VP nominees, although these statistics are heavily influenced by the age of the presidential nominee. Other factors may also play a role.

Many of the common physical features of McCain-Dow syndrome also appear in people with a standard set of political opinions. They may include winning beauty pageants and appealing to the republican pro-life base.

Early presidential campaign intervention, screening for common problems, republican strategy advice where indicated, a conducive family environment, and vocational training can improve the overall development of vice-presidential nominees with McCain-Dow syndrome.

Although some of the physical genetic limitations of McCain-Dow syndrome cannot be overcome, education and proper care will improve quality of life.

It's a fucking retard! Sarah Palin with Down's syndrome son.

"McCain's picked Sarah who?"

Peter Dow,

Owner, Rice for President Yahoo Group

PS. Hell hath no fury like a Condista scorned!

#1884

From: Peter Dow <peterdow@...>
Date: Sat Aug 30, 2008 5:34 pm
Subject: Why knows what a double entendre is? Who appreciates political satire?

bty944017

Davyd,

I think you are taking the punch-line of the spoof out of context.

Quoted (unfairly) on its own the punch-line only has the one meaning, and yes that meaning is offensive and unfair to Down's syndrome children, who, once born, are entitled to love and care as I am sure we all agree.

But seen in the context of the "McCain-Dow syndrome" spoof, this punch-line is clearly (clear to those who appreciate political satire anyway) a double-entendre - where the other meaning in the spoof is that Sarah Palin, suffering as she does from McCain-Dow syndrome, is somewhat retarded compared to what we would hope and expect from a Vice President in terms of intelligence, wisdom and leadership ability.

Unless you are intellectual enough to understand the satirical double-entendre then the punch-line is just offensive. Therefore the spoof pokes fun at all stupid readers who may be offended and reminds the clever reader that he or she is indeed more clever that the average Joe - as political satire is supposed to do.

That is why clever people find political satire funny and why the backwoods-men of the GOP base start fuming about the "liberal media" because it all goes over their heads - like this spoof seems to have gone over Eric's and your head Davyd.

In the context of this group, Rice for President Yahoo Group - the standard for President or Vice President we are trying to set, is EXTREMELY high - there is no shame in any individual not being as smart as Condi - after all, who is as smart as Condi?

But there is a problem, a serious political problem worth getting angry about, about choosing someone as ordinary as Sarah Palin to be the Vice President of the United States of America - for fuck's sake this is not a town major Americans are electing here but supposedly the next in line to be leader of the free world.

Except that if Sarah Palin ever becomes President of the United States of America, I don't think the free world will be paying the President much attention and Forbes will rate Palin somewhere down the list of the world's most powerful women of maybe about 20th most powerful.

Here is my prediction, though it is early days to be sure.

You want to make Nancy Pelosi and Hillary Clinton the most powerful people in the world? Because putting Sarah Palin in as VP will most likely do that. The Democrat controlled Congress may hold President McCain in contempt if he is relying on Palin's advice and support and certainly no-one will pay the vice - president's office the slightest bit of attention - it will become a laughing stock of the world.

The Senate and the House hold Condoleezza Rice in respect because of her outstanding ability - a President needs a VP of that kind of standing to get meaningful co-operation with Congress whereas Sarah Palin has none of that credibility.

Goodness knows what problems Sarah Palin will have presiding over the Senate?

The one thing I do know about Sarah Palin for sure is that she is not Condi therefore she cannot be as good a VP, so it is missed opportunity when McCain selects Palin as his VP nominee instead of selecting Rice.

- Peter

CDHoit <cdhoit@...> wrote:

Peter,

I fail to see any other interpretation of this exact copy off your post:

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

And don�t get into semantics or �what you meant��. I think it shows your thinking all too clearly.

But just for the sake of argument: Are you suggesting that our future VP is a �retard�? She most definitely is NOT. Too bad you couldn�t receive the broadcast from Friday night where she was interviewed. She was very articulate, NOT reading off any teleprompter, and plainly stated her views.

Davyd

#1886

From: Peter Dow <peterdow@...>
Date: Sat Aug 30, 2008 10:49 pm
Subject: Maybe the democrats and independents will understand my spoof?

bty944017

http://groups.yahoo.com/group/rice-for-president/

Davyd,

I am shocked and dismayed that you think I am so low as to have "open prejudice toward the mentally handicapped."

I do not. I would never do such a thing.

I need some moral support so I have just written to some democrat and independent groups to distribute the spoof and to explain the hot water I am getting into with people who don't get the double entendre and who don't understand my political satirical comment. Here it is - now concentrate this time please.

- Peter

To Democrats and Independents -

Hi,

I'd like to distribute the following spoof which is an angry, some would say venomous, political satirical comment on the nomination of Sarah Palin by John McCain to be his nominee for Vice President.

Those who don't "get it" may find it very offensive and even those who do "get it", may think it goes too far. So afterwards I attempt to justify the spoof and how it is intended to work.

But first, the spoof itself ...

SPOOF

Individuals with McCain-Dow syndrome tend to have a lower than desirable cognitive ability for a Vice President, often ranging from mild to moderate learning disabilities.

Although some of the physical genetic limitations of McCain-Dow syndrome cannot be overcome, education and proper care will improve quality of life.

It's a fucking retard!

Sarah Palin with Down's syndrome son.

(OK that's the punch-line and the end of the spoof proper but I signed off on Rice for President Yahoo Group with the following as well which speaks to my motivation as someone who wanted McCain to select Rice as his VP nominee.)

"McCain's picked Sarah who?"

Peter Dow,

Owner, Rice for President Yahoo Group

PS. Hell hath no fury like a Condista scorned!

OK having signed off on the supposedly funny spoof l will now seriously discuss the spoof at various levels.

The first thing is to explain the joke to those who don't "get it".

People who don't get it, such as those who don't tend to appreciate political satire, will tend to read the punch-line in only one way. The punch-line is intended to have two possible interpretations - it is what is called a "Double entendre".

First the punch line which is the photograph and the final line -

It's a fucking retard!

Sarah Palin with Down's syndrome son.

Taken in isolation, those who read the spoof but have very short memories and who can't interpret the punch-line in the context of the spoof (commonly called "stupid" people) when they get to the picture and read the punch line, they have already forgotten about the earlier part of the spoof concerning Sarah Palin's supposed McCain-Dow syndrome and how that has caused Palin's supposed "learning disability".

So for the stupid people, they read the punch-line in just one stupid way. They think it can only mean this -

"Sarah Palin's new baby is a fucking retard.

Sarah Palin with Down's syndrome son."

The stupid people simply can't read the punch-line with the following intelligent interpretation which makes the punch-line a double entendre. The following is what I mean primarily although obviously I know very well there is a double entendre -

"McCain's pick for VP is a fucking retard.

Sarah Palin with Down's syndrome son."

Therefore the stupid people don't see the joke and they think I am just making a cruel and offensive comment about a poor Down's syndrome child.

Whereas what I really want to make is a political satirical comment about the intellectual failings of Sarah Palin, when compared to the person I wanted to see on the republican ticket - Condoleezza Rice.

So of course, I get a very hostile response from stupid people who don't get it, and even those who do get it, are easily embarrassed it seems by those who don't get it because it is using the incidence of Sarah Palin's Down's syndrome child to make an important satirical comment against Sarah Palin.

Sure, making fun of the disabled is pretty low and for the low-lifes who do that, I personally have little sympathy and have booted someone who did that out of my forum one time.

But I am not intending to make fun of the disabled, but rather to make fun at both the stupidity of Sarah Palin, the stupidity of her supporters and the stupidity of people who don't understand political satire.

I do have a higher motive (you will be glad to know) for this spoof which I would like you to understand.

I maintain that it is necessary to identify stupid politicians with the most hurtful words that we can (and "retard" is hopefully very hurtful for a VP nominee).

If the tragedy of a Down's syndrome child helps satirists to hurt a very dangerous stupid politician who will, I suppose, go on to kill many innocent people because of her stupidity and incompetence in the job of Vice President, then the liberty taken allows one small benefit to mankind from this personal tragedy.

Remember stupid politicians and their stupid supporters will hurt the people in many real ways because of their incompetence and there are few ways for caring individuals like us to hurt them back and to try to stop them doing too much harm.

There is one specific harm that Palin and those pro-life supporters who support her for VP threaten to do, if not stopped, and again this harm has relevance to Down's syndrome although that is not the only good reason a woman may have for choosing to have an abortion.

I am also here speaking up for those women who want the right to choose and who don't want themselves or their doctors to be criminalized and harmed by punishments because they decide to abort a fetus with Down's syndrome or for any other reason.

It is all very well Sarah Palin taking her own decision about her own child - I see no problem with that.

The problem is that Palin may soon be one heart-beat away from presiding over failing to defend women in America who wish the right to choose to have an abortion (and the right to choose not to have an abortion too of course).

Well that's my spoof and that's the hot water I have got myself in with people who don't understand the subtlety of my political satire.

Join us on Rice for President Yahoo Group -

"Condoleezza Rice for President in 2012. Join this group of supporters from everywhere on the world wide web."

http://groups.yahoo.com/group/rice-for-president/

CDHoit <cdhoit@...> wrote:

Peter,

So now, Eric and I are sub-intelligent, as opposed to the brilliant star of your BS genius? I really think it might be time for you to pack it in, because all your �stupid�.backwoods men� cannot possibly sense such a complicated matter as your satire. Face it, there was NO double entendre, just a crude outlander being nasty. Give it up, Peter, Condi is NOT going to be President or VP, not matter what anybody does. And your putdown of Sarah Palin as not being able to do her job is the worst kind of second-guessing. And just because I point out your open prejudice toward the mentally handicapped, should not give you license to try and slither out of it with fancy explanations of your so-called punch line.

But I suppose you will merely get riled up that someone will stand up to you. Arguing with you is like dueling with an unarmed man; I don�t have to justify my intelligence or 4 decades of newspaper editor/publisher. My work stands on its own.

Davyd~ The Wordsmith

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~`

YOU WROTE��.,

I think you are taking the punch-line of the spoof out of context.

Quoted (unfairly) on its own the punch-line only has the one meaning, and yes that meaning is offensive and unfair to Down's syndrome children, who, once born, are entitled to love and care as I am sure we all agree.

But seen in the context of the "McCain-Dow syndrome" spoof, this punch-line is clearly (clear to those who appreciate political satire anyway) a double-entendre - where the other meaning in the spoof is that Sarah Palin, suffering as she does from McCain-Dow syndrome, is somewhat retarded compared to what we would hope and expect from a Vice President in terms of intelligence, wisdom and leadership ability.

Unless you are intellectual enough to understand the satirical double-entendre then the punch-line is just offensive. Therefore the spoof pokes fun at all stupid readers who may be offended and reminds the clever reader that he or she is indeed more clever that the average Joe - as political satire is supposed to do.

That is why clever people find political satire funny and why the backwoods-men of the GOP base start fuming about the "liberal media" because it all goes over their heads - like this spoof seems to have gone over Eric's and your head Davyd.

In the context of this group, Rice for President Yahoo Group - the standard for President or Vice President we are trying to set, is EXTREMELY high - there is no shame in any individual not being as smart as Condi - after all, who is as smart as Condi?

But there is a problem, a serious political problem worth getting angry about, about choosing someone as ordinary as Sarah Palin to be the Vice President of the United States of America - for fuck's sake this is not a town major Americans are electing here but supposedly the next in line to be leader of the free world.

Except that if Sarah Palin ever becomes President of the United States of America, I don't think the free world will be paying the President much attention and Forbes will rate Palin somewhere down the list of the world's most powerful women of maybe about 20th most powerful.

Here is my prediction, though it is early days to be sure.

You want to make Nancy Pelosi and Hillary Clinton the most powerful people in the world? Because putting Sarah Palin in as VP will most likely do that. The Democrat controlled Congress may hold President McCain in contempt if he is relying on Palin's advice and support and certainly no-one will pay the vice - president's office the slightest bit of attention - it will become a laughing stock of the world.

The Senate and the House hold Condoleezza Rice in respect because of her outstanding ability - a President needs a VP of that kind of standing to get meaningful co-operation with Congress whereas Sarah Palin has none of that credibility.

Goodness knows what problems Sarah Palin will have presiding over the Senate?

The one thing I do know about Sarah Palin for sure is that she is not Condi therefore she cannot be as good a VP, so it is missed opportunity when McCain selects Palin as his VP nominee instead of selecting Rice.

- Peter

CDHoit <cdhoit@...> wrote:

Peter,

I fail to see any other interpretation of this exact copy off your post:

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

And don�t get into semantics or �what you meant��. I think it shows your thinking all too clearly.

But just for the sake of argument: Are you suggesting that our future VP is a �retard�? She most definitely is NOT. Too bad you couldn�t receive the broadcast from Friday night where she was interviewed. She was very articulate, NOT reading off any teleprompter, and plainly stated her views.

Davyd

#1888

From: Peter Dow <peterdow@...>
Date: Sun Aug 31, 2008 12:20 am
Subject: Condoleezza Rice's views on abortion

bty944017

http://uk.youtube.com/watch?v=65r_eKaeWl0

Frank,

I have not sought to spoof those who value the lives of the unborn. I have sought to spoof Sarah Palin as somewhat retarded, which, next to Condi, she is, in my opinion.

This is a Rice for President Yahoo Group - and unsurprisingly I intended also the group to support Condi for VP in 2008 though that opportunity has gone now.

This group is not intended to support any old GOP ticket, no matter what retard the GOP picks to run on the ticket. My support for McCain, like my support for President Bush is conditional on them having the good advice of Condi to depend on.

I don't see McCain having that advice as Condi is not on his ticket nor yet in his administration - so I am free to support Rice in my way, right now, spoofing Palin, same as you are free to support Rice in your way in your group.

I am not making light of Down's syndrome. What a cheek.

I am making political satirical comment against Sarah Palin who gets way too much respect from stupid people, in my opinion.

The right-to-choose issue is not people in general choosing to abort someone else's pregnancy against their will.

The issue is women who wish to choose to abort THEIR OWN unwanted pregnancy.

You seem to wish to criminalize and to punish women and/or their doctors?

You seem to want to control women and enslave then against their will? Deny them control of their own bodies?

I wish to defend women against people who intend to make criminals out of them for having an abortion.

Members of this group have never been allowed by me the group owner to post here about picking on innocent people - that was part of the rules you got when you joined the group.

So don't pick on innocent people using this group.

Don't pick on disabled people. I don't and no-one else has tried to here, thank goodness.

Don't pick on innocent women wanting abortions or innocent gays, and people used to try to pick on gays here until I banned that kind of thing. Now picking on women who want abortions has reared its ugly head I am sorry to say.

Do that somewhere else if you must. I am not providing a platform for anti-abortion, criminalize-women views, so don't bang on about such views here.

If you want to criminalize women for having abortions, committing adultery and so on and if you want to cut their heads off in public then join the fucking Taliban - an organisation of medieval retards.

Maybe someone has already set up a Taliban Yahoo group?

Don't justify criminalizing women or gays here because you will get banned. Simple as that, unless you resign first of course.

This is Condoleezza Rice giving her own views on abortion -

I do not think Condi would express herself as I do. Certainly she would not swear. I have never heard her be satirical. It is not her style.

I would hope Condi would see that I am defending people in my own way and that Condi would allow me that, but I do not know, never having had Condi speak or write to me personally on anything.

- Peter Dow

Owner, Rice for President Yahoo Group

Frank DiSalle <fd10801@...> wrote:

Sorry, Peter

But spoofing people who value the lives of the unborn, is no way to
win hearts and minds ...

Making light of of Down Syndrome? Even more repulsive ...

Let me suggest to you that no one has rights with out limit -- no one ...

Let me remind that the end result of a pregnancy is, was, and always
will be , a child ...

Not a Tonka Toy

Not a drawbridge

Not a funnel

But a human child ...

No one, man or woman , has a right to prevent it from being born...

I guess this is where we part company ...

I will wait a short while to see if you even have a response , and to
see if it is in any way superior to the one you supplied the
previously departing couple ...

Than I will finally decide ...

You must ask yourself one question : Would Condi approve of this parody

Frank DiSalle

Waiting for Condi since 2002

#1890

From: Bob Wilson <yoemanbob@...>
Date: Sun Aug 31, 2008 4:48 am
Subject: Re: Condoleezza Rice's views on abortion

yoemanbob

Peter;

Sometimes you win and sometimes you loose. For a Brit though, I enjoy your comments as always. Keep up the good work. If McCain wins I do believe Coni will be a part of his admint.

Bob

--- On Sat, 8/30/08, Peter Dow <peterdow@...> wrote:

From: Peter Dow <peterdow@...>
Subject: [rice-for-president] Condoleezza Rice's views on abortion
To: rice-for-president@yahoogroups.com
Date: Saturday, August 30, 2008, 8:20 PM

Frank,

I have not sought to spoof those who value the lives of the unborn. I have sought to spoof Sarah Palin as somewhat retarded, which, next to Condi, she is, in my opinion.

This is a Rice for President Yahoo Group - and unsurprisingly I intended also the group to support Condi for VP in 2008 though that opportunity has gone now.

This group is not intended to support any old GOP ticket, no matter what retard the GOP picks to run on the ticket. My support for McCain, like my support for President Bush is conditional on them having the good advice of Condi to depend on.

I don't see McCain having that advice as Condi is not on his ticket nor yet in his administration - so I am free to support Rice in my way, right now, spoofing Palin, same as you are free to support Rice in your way in your group.

I am not making light of Down's syndrome. What a cheek. I am making political satirical comment against Sarah Palin who gets way too much respect from stupid people, in my opinion.

The right-to-choose issue is not people in general choosing to abort someone else's pregnancy against their will.

The issue is women who wish to choose to abort THEIR OWN unwanted pregnancy.

You seem to wish to criminalize and to punish women and/or their doctors?

You seem to want to control women and enslave then against their will? Deny them control of their own bodies?

I wish to defend women against people who intend to make criminals out of them for having an abortion.

Members of this group have never been allowed by me the group owner to post here about picking on innocent people - that was part of the rules you got when you joined the group.

So don't pick on innocent people using this group.

Don't pick on disabled people. I don't and no-one else has tried to here, thank goodness.

Don't pick on innocent women wanting abortions or innocent gays, and people used to try to pick on gays here until I banned that kind of thing. Now picking on women who want abortions has reared its ugly head I am sorry to say.

Do that somewhere else if you must. I am not providing a platform for anti-abortion, criminalize- women views, so don't bang on about such views here.

If you want to criminalize women for having abortions, committing adultery and so on and if you want to cut their heads off in public then join the fucking Taliban - an organisation of medieval retards. Maybe someone has already set up a Taliban Yahoo group?

Don't justify criminalizing women or gays here because you will get banned. Simple as that, unless you resign first of course.

This is Condoleezza Rice giving her own views on abortion -

http://uk.youtube. com/watch? v=65r_eKaeWl0

I do not think Condi would express herself as I do. Certainly she would not swear. I have never heard her be satirical. It is not her style.

I would hope Condi would see that I am defending people in my own way and that Condi would allow me that, but I do not know, never having had Condi speak or write to me personally on anything.

- Peter Dow

Owner, Rice for President Yahoo Group

Frank DiSalle <fd10801@gmail. com> wrote:

Sorry, Peter

But spoofing people who value the lives of the unborn, is no way to
win hearts and minds ...

Making light of of Down Syndrome? Even more repulsive ...

Let me suggest to you that no one has rights with out limit -- no one ...

Let me remind that the end result of a pregnancy is, was, and always
will be , a child ...

Not a Tonka Toy

Not a drawbridge

Not a funnel

But a human child ...

No one, man or woman , has a right to prevent it from being born...

I guess this is where we part company ...

I will wait a short while to see if you even have a response , and to
see if it is in any way superior to the one you supplied the
previously departing couple ...

Than I will finally decide ...

You must ask yourself one question : Would Condi approve of this parody

Frank DiSalle

Waiting for Condi since 2002

#1892

From: Peter Dow <peterdow@...>
Date: Sun Aug 31, 2008 10:07 am
Subject: Obama said 'McCain doesn't get it' Maybe Obama is right?

bty944017

http://uk.youtube.com/watch?v=65r_eKaeWl0

Well John McCain's choice of Sarah Palin says to me that John McCain doesn't get the need for a very high quality leader for Vice President like Condoleezza Rice.

McCain may not get, for example, that the way Condoleezza Rice expresses her views on the tough moral issue of abortion is a position around which many people can unite on an otherwise often divisive issue.

McCain may not get that picking Sarah Palin for VP simply in order to fire up the elements in the GOP base who want to see tougher anti-abortion laws which criminalize women, is no way to run a Presidency or a Vice-Presidency whatever it does for his campaign.

I even doubt Palin will turn out to be good for McCain's campaign but he has had his chance to figure that out and McCain has come to his pick for VP (after meeting Sarah Palin just the once it was reported

) and now the GOP looks like it is stuck with Palin, unless she drops out "to spend more time with her family" or something.

It would be really nice if McCain in some way had to drop Sarah Palin as VP nominee, the way President Bush was forced to drop his nominee for Supreme Court judge Harriet Miers. But that is maybe too much to hope for.

Davyd, I do get that I am in hot water with people like Eric, Frank and you because you did not get the other interpretation of the double entendre in my satirical spoof and have misinterpreted the spoof as supposed evidence of prejudice against disabled or Down's syndrome children, which I assure you it is not meant to be.

Like Condi I would wish to see disabled children loved and cared for - there is no prejudice on my part, I assure you. Sarah Palin was the satirical target of my spoof - no-one else.

On the other hand, although I will try to explain myself, I am not apologising because some people do not understand my political satire. I am not a professional satirist like Jon Stewart of the Daily Show so maybe you should understand if my political satire is pretty amateurish.

Bob, thanks for the words of encouragement. I am in a bit of hot water right now with some people and thanks for turning on the cold tap.

I sure would like to see Condi return to fore of world politics under a McCain administration, if not as VP then something equally high profile would be something better than her disappearing off back to Stanford.

- Peter Dow,

Owner, Rice for President Yahoo Group

CDHoit <cdhoit@...> wrote:

PETER,

YOU STILL DON�T GET IT, DO YOU?

DAVYD

From: rice-for-president@yahoogroups.com [mailto:rice-for-president@yahoogroups.com] On Behalf Of Peter Dow
Sent: Saturday, August 30, 2008 7:20 PM
To: rice-for-president@yahoogroups.com
Subject: [rice-for-president] Condoleezza Rice's views on abortion

Frank,

I have not sought to spoof those who value the lives of the unborn. I have sought to spoof Sarah Palin as somewhat retarded, which, next to Condi, she is, in my opinion.

This is a Rice for President Yahoo Group - and unsurprisingly I intended also the group to support Condi for VP in 2008 though that opportunity has gone now.

This group is not intended to support any old GOP ticket, no matter what retard the GOP picks to run on the ticket. My support for McCain, like my support for President Bush is conditional on them having the good advice of Condi to depend on.

I don't see McCain having that advice as Condi is not on his ticket nor yet in his administration - so I am free to support Rice in my way, right now, spoofing Palin, same as you are free to support Rice in your way in your group.

I am not making light of Down's syndrome. What a cheek. I am making political satirical comment against Sarah Palin who gets way too much respect from stupid people, in my opinion.

The right-to-choose issue is not people in general choosing to abort someone else's pregnancy against their will.

The issue is women who wish to choose to abort THEIR OWN unwanted pregnancy.

You seem to wish to criminalize and to punish women and/or their doctors?

You seem to want to control women and enslave then against their will? Deny them control of their own bodies?

I wish to defend women against people who intend to make criminals out of them for having an abortion.

Members of this group have never been allowed by me the group owner to post here about picking on innocent people - that was part of the rules you got when you joined the group.

So don't pick on innocent people using this group.

Don't pick on disabled people. I don't and no-one else has tried to here, thank goodness.

Don't pick on innocent women wanting abortions or innocent gays, and people used to try to pick on gays here until I banned that kind of thing. Now picking on women who want abortions has reared its ugly head I am sorry to say.

Do that somewhere else if you must. I am not providing a platform for anti-abortion, criminalize-women views, so don't bang on about such views here.

If you want to criminalize women for having abortions, committing adultery and so on and if you want to cut their heads off in public then join the fucking Taliban - an organisation of medieval retards. Maybe someone has already set up a Taliban Yahoo group?

Don't justify criminalizing women or gays here because you will get banned. Simple as that, unless you resign first of course.

This is Condoleezza Rice giving her own views on abortion -

http://uk.youtube.com/watch?v=65r_eKaeWl0

I do not think Condi would express herself as I do. Certainly she would not swear. I have never heard her be satirical. It is not her style.

I would hope Condi would see that I am defending people in my own way and that Condi would allow me that, but I do not know, never having had Condi speak or write to me personally on anything.

- Peter Dow

Owner, Rice for President Yahoo Group

Frank DiSalle <fd10801@gmail.com> wrote:

Sorry, Peter

But spoofing people who value the lives of the unborn, is no way to
win hearts and minds ...

Making light of of Down Syndrome? Even more repulsive ...

Let me suggest to you that no one has rights with out limit -- no one ...

Let me remind that the end result of a pregnancy is, was, and always
will be , a child ...

Not a Tonka Toy

Not a drawbridge

Not a funnel

But a human child ...

No one, man or woman , has a right to prevent it from being born...

I guess this is where we part company ...

I will wait a short while to see if you even have a response , and to
see if it is in any way superior to the one you supplied the
previously departing couple ...

Than I will finally decide ...

You must ask yourself one question : Would Condi approve of this parody

Frank DiSalle

Waiting for Condi since 2002/

.

#1894

From: "CDHoit" <cdhoit@...>
Date: Mon Sep 1, 2008 5:46 am
Subject: RE: Condoleezza Rice's views on abortion

cdhoit

Once a government is committed to the principle of silencing the voice of opposition, it has only one way to go, and that is down the path of increasingly repressive measures, until it becomes a source of terror to all its citizens and creates a country where everyone lives in fear. -Harry S. Truman, 33rd US president (1884-1972)

Applies to people as well.

Davyd

From: rice-for-president@yahoogroups.com [mailto:rice-for-president@yahoogroups.com] On Behalf Of Bob Wilson
Sent: Sunday, August 31, 2008 12:22 AM
To: rice-for-president@yahoogroups.com
Subject: RE: [rice-for-president] Condoleezza Rice's views on abortion

Davyd;

I turely dought if Peter understands any of this....

Bob

--- On Sun, 8/31/08, CDHoit <cdhoit@...> wrote:

From: CDHoit <cdhoit@...>
Subject: RE: [rice-for-president] Condoleezza Rice's views on abortion
To: rice-for-president@yahoogroups.com
Date: Sunday, August 31, 2008, 12:46 AM

PETER,

YOU STILL DON�T GET IT, DO YOU?

DAVYD

From: rice-for-president@ yahoogroups. com [mailto:rice- for-president@ yahoogroups. com] On Behalf Of Peter Dow
Sent: Saturday, August 30, 2008 7:20 PM
To: rice-for-president@ yahoogroups. com
Subject: [rice-for-president ] Condoleezza Rice's views on abortion

Frank,

I have not sought to spoof those who value the lives of the unborn. I have sought to spoof Sarah Palin as somewhat retarded, which, next to Condi, she is, in my opinion.

This is a Rice for President Yahoo Group - and unsurprisingly I intended also the group to support Condi for VP in 2008 though that opportunity has gone now.

This group is not intended to support any old GOP ticket, no matter what retard the GOP picks to run on the ticket. My support for McCain, like my support for President Bush is conditional on them having the good advice of Condi to depend on.

I don't see McCain having that advice as Condi is not on his ticket nor yet in his administration - so I am free to support Rice in my way, right now, spoofing Palin, same as you are free to support Rice in your way in your group.

I am not making light of Down's syndrome. What a cheek. I am making political satirical comment against Sarah Palin who gets way too much respect from stupid people, in my opinion.

The right-to-choose issue is not people in general choosing to abort someone else's pregnancy against their will.

The issue is women who wish to choose to abort THEIR OWN unwanted pregnancy.

You seem to wish to criminalize and to punish women and/or their doctors?

You seem to want to control women and enslave then against their will? Deny them control of their own bodies?

I wish to defend women against people who intend to make criminals out of them for having an abortion.

Members of this group have never been allowed by me the group owner to post here about picking on innocent people - that was part of the rules you got when you joined the group.

So don't pick on innocent people using this group.

Don't pick on disabled people. I don't and no-one else has tried to here, thank goodness.

Don't pick on innocent women wanting abortions or innocent gays, and people used to try to pick on gays here until I banned that kind of thing. Now picking on women who want abortions has reared its ugly head I am sorry to say.

Do that somewhere else if you must. I am not providing a platform for anti-abortion, criminalize- women views, so don't bang on about such views here.

If you want to criminalize women for having abortions, committing adultery and so on and if you want to cut their heads off in public then join the fucking Taliban - an organisation of medieval retards. Maybe someone has already set up a Taliban Yahoo group?

Don't justify criminalizing women or gays here because you will get banned. Simple as that, unless you resign first of course.

This is Condoleezza Rice giving her own views on abortion -

http://uk.youtube. com/watch? v=65r_eKaeWl0

I do not think Condi would express herself as I do. Certainly she would not swear. I have never heard her be satirical. It is not her style.

I would hope Condi would see that I am defending people in my own way and that Condi would allow me that, but I do not know, never having had Condi speak or write to me personally on anything.

- Peter Dow

Owner, Rice for President Yahoo Group

Frank DiSalle <fd10801@gmail. com> wrote:

Sorry, Peter

But spoofing people who value the lives of the unborn, is no way to
win hearts and minds ...

Making light of of Down Syndrome? Even more repulsive ...

Let me suggest to you that no one has rights with out limit -- no one ...

Let me remind that the end result of a pregnancy is, was, and always
will be , a child ...

Not a Tonka Toy

Not a drawbridge

Not a funnel

But a human child ...

No one, man or woman , has a right to prevent it from being born...

I guess this is where we part company ...

I will wait a short while to see if you even have a response , and to
see if it is in any way superior to the one you supplied the
previously departing couple ...

Than I will finally decide ...

You must ask yourself one question : Would Condi approve of this parody

Frank DiSalle

Waiting for Condi since 2002

#1895

From: Peter Dow <peterdow@...>
Date: Tue Sep 2, 2008 2:05 pm
Subject: If McCain gets ill? Palin Rebellion Troika: Lugar, Rice, Biden.

bty944017

John McCain is 72 so what if President McCain gets ill or dies in office as President and the constitution says that Sarah Palin

is the acting or new President?

Or what if President John McCain's health suffers while in office and he irrationally decides to nuke the Russians or Chinese or someone who can really fight back with nukes of their own?

Then the confirmation of the nuclear weapons strike order has to be seconded by VP Sarah Palin or McCain's Defence Secretary (we don't know who that Defence Secretary is yet but let's just assume it is someone with as much experience and independence from McCain as Palin - that is to say someone who will never question McCain�s nuke-em order).

These are alarming prospects but deal with them folks because that's what McCain's pick for VP - Sarah Palin - is threatening.

The Governator 2: The Terminator returns but this time it is female. Governor Sarah Palin.

So who are we going to trust to keep the world safe and head off a nuclear war and global Armageddon?

At some point the Congress will have to pass an emergency impeachment and removal from office of McCain and Palin. Hopefully before it is too late.

The timing of initiating of that impeachment action will be a matter of the most exquisite political judgment that I think politically concerned Americans need to nominate now those who should be entrusted with the burden of leadership in this matter.

Obviously, the Democrats will trust Obama but Republicans would not agree. We need a team around which everyone can unite if needs be.

So I would like to propose an informal political troika - a group of three persons acting as an emergency political council.

This troika would simply observe the health and performance of McCain in office and they would be entrusted to judge when McCain was in extremis

and when therefore to give a political lead to Congress to initiate and complete an emergency impeachment and removal of McCain-Palin and to install their successors under the constitution.

The Troika

New image for Rice for President Yahoo Group front page - replacing a McCain-Rice image. Jan 11, 2007 The experience to be Vice President. Secretary Rice stands with Sen. Richard Lugar, Ranking Member and Sen. Joe Biden, Chair of the Senate Foreign Relations Committee, now the Dem nominee for VP.

Further I would like to nominate three people to be the first members of the Palin Rebellion Troika (PRT) - Senator Richard Luger, the Ranking Member of the Senate Foreign Affairs committe, Condoleezza Rice, President Bush's US Secretary of State, and Senator Joe Biden, the Chair of the Senate Foreign Affairs committee and the Democratic nominee for Vice President.

These are three people who have the experience and judgement to serve as either president or vice-president. I would trust my life and the fate of the world in their hands, but I could never trust Sarah Palin, no way, no how, no Sir.

Now if you have a different three people in mind then name them but remember it needs to be a team which would enthuse rapid bipartisan co-operation in Congress for emergency action.

How would this troika announce its political leadership to impeach President McCain and Vice President Palin?

Well perhaps both Senator Luger and Senator Biden could quote Condoleezza Rice calling for the impeachment of President McCain due to failing health.

Hopefully, the media, Congress, the American nation and the world would fall into line and support the impeachment and the succession to the presidency under the constitution.

Or of course, the Americans could elect Obama - Biden 2008.

#1896

From: Peter Dow <peterdow@...>
Date: Tue Sep 2, 2008 4:22 pm
Subject: Daylife.com's dazzling collection of Condoleezza Rice photos. Wow!

bty944017

New group link -

Daylife.com Condoleezza Rice photos
A dazzling array of page after of page of Condi in the news photos. Stunning and entrancing. I had to use all my will power to stop browsing the photos there for one minute simply in order to post this link. Heaven.
http://www.daylife.com/topic/Condoleezza_Rice/photos/all/1

Like WOW!

I've added this link to the folder -

We love Condi Rice.
Had enough of dry politics for now? Then here's the folder for links of love and laughter - poems, pictures, valentines, music, songs and comedy sketch videos all about our beloved Condi. Smile with Condi and the world smiles with you!

- Peter

#1898

From: "krove04" <krove04@...>
Date: Wed Sep 3, 2008 1:48 am
Subject: Re: If McCain gets ill? Palin Rebellion Troika: Lugar, Rice, Biden.

krove04

Palin was a risk. Lieberman was a risk. Rice was a risk.

unlike the last two though, Palin is an irresponsible risk. if mccain
is looking to "shake things up" instead of picking safe, i'd rather he
go with our girl condi or joeliebs.

the notion that rice will bring down mccain because of her bush ties
is overrated. she will attract independents and excite republicans,
even those right-wing religious nuts who doesn't like her "moderately"
pro-choice stance. but maybe she turned mccain down? too bad, because
the white house is hers for the taking in 2012. it's too bad that an
underqualified african-american is now a lock to become president, not
condi. i'm sorry, but rice is 5 times more qualified than obama to be
president.

2nd choice would be joe lieberman, the guy who mccain really like for
VP. it's too bad the religious right wing were threatening to revolt
if he didn't choose a pro-lifer, as if that's the most important thing
in this election. but i don't recall democrats threatening kerry when
the idea of pro-life mccain running on the dem ticket was floated in 2004.

barack will win and he'll have an 8 year presidency. i hope by then
the stupid pro-lifers will be marginalized in the republican party.

#1899

From: Peter Dow <peterdow@...>
Date: Wed Sep 3, 2008 12:49 pm
Subject: Update: McCain's VP pick Governor Sarah Palin. Satirical videos on YouTube

bty944017

The Daily Show video clip is now available on the Daily Show website here -

Daily Show Governor Sarah Palin picked by John McCain for VP
Video on the Daily Show website. Daily Show with Jon Stewart and Samantha Bee, Senior Female and Women's Issues Correspondent. Indecision 2008. Senator John McCain's pick for Vice President is Governor Sarah Palin.
http://www.thedailyshow.com/video/index.jhtml?videoId=183521&title=John-McCain-Chooses-a-Running-Mate

The version on YouTube is no longer available there due to a copyright claim,

- Peter

Peter Dow <peterdow@...> wrote:

New Group links -

Reckless Judgment Threatens AMERICA (UPDATED-Watch in High Quality)
Video on YouTube. News analysis and satirical comment about McCain's pick Governor Sarah Palin for Vice President
http://uk.youtube.com/watch?v=xYFkR8zYiBw

These new links added to the newly renamed folder -

McCain - Palin sucks. McCain - Rice wins
A New York poll says McCain - Rice wins the presidency BY A LANDSLIDE!

- Peter Dow,

Owner, Rice for President Yahoo Group

http://groups.yahoo.com/group/rice-for-president

#1901

From: Peter Dow <peterdow@...>
Date: Wed Sep 3, 2008 3:06 pm
Subject: Join Dump Sarah Palin Yahoo Group today

bty944017

Reckless Judgment Threatens AMERICA
http://uk.youtube.com/watch?v=xYFkR8zYiBw

dumppalin � Dump Sarah Palin

Senator John McCain, the Republican nominee for President of the United States of America in 2008, has picked Governor Sarah Palin to be his running mate for Vice President.

Watch these videos and ask yourself if the Republican Party should now be insisting that McCain dumps Palin forthwith and selects someone with rather more experience?

Daily Show Governor Sarah Palin picked by John McCain for VP
http://www.thedailyshow.com/video/index.jhtml?videoId=183521&title=John-McCain-Chooses-a-Running-Mate

A little light on experience, no? Not a position to learn on the fly. WHAT was he thinking?

The Republican Party needs to tell John McCain to dump his first pick for Vice President Governor Sarah Palin and choose another more experienced person, such as the US Secretary of State, Condoleezza Rice or Senator Richard Lugar.

Obama has got an experienced VP nominee - Senator Joe Biden. Now McCain needs one too.

The following subscribe box to join pops up a box on Yahoo that requires you to press "Send". It gives a spurious warning so if you are at all worried about that just use this link to join - http://groups.yahoo.com/group/dumppalin/join

Subscribe to dumppalin

it all amounts to the same thing.

- Peter Dow,

Owner, Dump Sarah Palin Yahoo Group

http://groups.yahoo.com/group/dumppalin/

#1903

From: Peter Dow <peterdow@...>
Date: Thu Sep 4, 2008 1:32 pm
Subject: Davyd, old boy, old buddy - I am moderating your posts in Rice for President

bty944017

Davyd,

It is not appropriate for you to post support for Palin - 2012 in this Rice - 2012 group.

Now OK maybe you were joking. Like maybe John McCain was joking when he appointed Sarah Palin to run for VP.

But, yes, I did watch Sarah Palin's speech and I thought the best bit was when she said she didn't think the presidency was a job to be learned on the job, or something.

Because the same applies to the Vice-Presidency - not a job to be learned on the job, you need to bring a lot of experience to it, experience Palin doesn't have.

But what for intellectuals is a joke and an inspiration for satirical comment, for the GOP base, is absolutely serious. And after the reception for Palin last night, clearly the GOP is serious about running with McCain - Palin.

So be it.

Which does make Palin a possible contender for the presidency in 2012.

Which makes your comment supporting Palin - 2012 not just a joke but a post in direct opposition to the purpose of this group.

I didn't allow people to support McCain, Giuliani, Thompson, Romney etc. over Condi in this group before McCain got the nomination, and I am not going to allow support for Palin over Condi for president in 2012 either, least ways until the 2012 nomination is decided.

So your expression here of support for Palin - 2012 is a violation of this group's rules. Now, you are the first person so to violate that rule with regard to Palin and you are a long time member of Rice for President, so I will simply put you on moderation of your posts for a while.

Davyd, you or anyone can still post in favour of McCain 2008 here but any support of Palin specifically or mention of Palin - 2012 will get that post stopped.

The battle for 2012 has begun.

- Peter Dow,

Owner, Rice for President Yahoo Group

Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice speaks at a news conference ...

Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice, left, walks to a news conference with Under Secretary Economic, Energy and Agricultural Affairs Reuben Jeffery Wednesday, Sept. 3, 2008, at the State Department in Washington.(AP Photo/Kevin Wolf) (AP Photo/Kevin Wolf)

CDHoit <cdhoit@...> wrote:

I say, old boy, what have you been smoking lately? I have a better alternative: Join Palin for President in 2012: palin4POTUS-subscribe@yahoogroups.com � Meanwhile let�s get McCain-Palin elected THIS YEAR.

Davyd

From: rice-for-president@yahoogroups.com [mailto:rice-for-president@yahoogroups.com] On Behalf Of Peter Dow
Sent: Wednesday, September 03, 2008 10:06 AM
To: Rice for President
Subject: [rice-for-president] Join Dump Sarah Palin Yahoo Group today

Senator John McCain, the Republican nominee for President of the United States of America in 2008, has picked Governor Sarah Palin to be his running mate for Vice President.

#1905

From: Peter Dow <peterdow@...>
Date: Fri Sep 5, 2008 12:03 am
Subject: Sarah Palin's journey of personal discovery. The GOPdin Line. (Satirical video)

bty944017

Sarah Palin's journey of personal discovery. The GOPdin Line. Satirical video.
Video. John McCain's running mate, Sarah Palin, addressed the Republican National Convention on September 3rd, 2008. This video satirises the inexperience of Sarah Palin for the important job of Vice President of the United States of America. Video of Sarah Palin speaking tthe RNC. Subtitle - Sarah Palin, Republicans love you because you are one hot Governator ... but an autocue can't tell you how to be Vice President. Palin - "My fellow citizens, the American presidency is not supposed to be a journey of personal discovery." - and neither is the Vice Presidency Sarah!
http://uk.youtube.com/watch?v=-ub7sOt_i-0

John McCain's running mate, Sarah Palin, addressed the Republican National Convention on September 3rd, 2008. This video satirises the inexperience of Sarah Palin for the important job of Vice President of the United States of America.

The Mississippi River
Minneapolis - St Paul
September 2008

Palin - "Oil and gas prices went up dramatically and filled up the State treasury, I sent a large share of that revenue back where it belongs"

Sarah Palin, Republicans love you because you are one hot Governator

Palin - "and there is much to like and admire in our opponents but listening to him speak"
Palin - "they are the ones who are good for more than talk"

... but an autocue can't tell you how to be Vice President.

Palin - "My fellow citizens, the American presidency is not supposed to be a journey of personal discovery."

- and neither is the Vice Presidency Sarah!

The GOP-din Line

THE WIND BLOWS FREE
BUT SARAH PALIN WILL COST YOU

Starring John McCain as the GOP nominee

and Sarah Palin as McCain's pick for VP nominee

Sarah Palin's journey of personal discovery

Dump Sarah Palin Yahoo Group
http://groups.yahoo.com/group/dumppalin/

Produced by Peter Dow
Rice for President Yahoo Group
http://groups.yahoo.com/group/Rice-for-President/

The video of the 19th century style sail ship or tall ship was taken from the opening credits of the Onedin Line, a popular BBC television drama series that ran from 1971 to 1980.

The music used in those opening credits was also used here and is music from the ballet Spartacus by Aram Khachaturian, from suite No. 2 Adagio of Spartacus and Phrygia.

Discuss on the For Freedom Forums
http://scot.bravehost.com/youtubecomment.htm

(60+) Condi videos by this author -
Peter Dow For Condi (YouTube group)
http://uk.youtube.com/groups_videos?name=dowforcondi

All YouTube videos by this author. Peter Dow TV -
http://uk.youtube.com/groups_videos?name=peterdowtv

#1906

From: Peter Dow <peterdow@...>
Date: Wed Sep 10, 2008 8:46 pm
Subject: Palin for the difference that lipstick makes! (MccCain-Lipstick Pitbull & pig photoshop)

bty944017