She has been unable to bring about even minor peace talks between any warring factions anywhere in the world; she backs up and stands behind all of the lies and misinformatoin spread by Bush and Cheney and their cronies in the oil business; she was unable to dissuade the oil rich hunt family from signing lucrative greed contracts with the kurds and she absolutely has failed to convince anyone in Iraq to form a meaningful government with the goal of bringing peace to that nation.
should she be required to pay back the millions of dollars the taxpayers have given her?
2007-11-11 02:30:51 · 7 answers · asked by Anonymous in Politics & Government ➔ Law & Ethics
uhuhuhuh .......yes!
2007-11-13 03:49:28 · answer #1 · answered by Anonymous · 2⤊ 0⤋
Al of Bush's appointments have been incompetent..heck bush himself has proven to be incompetent of making integrity filled decisions for the betterment of america.
Hes only done whats best for him and his group of people.
Its a terrible shame that there is not any true checks and balances here.
Not when you have republicans just as evil just as greedy as bush.
RICE has done nothing but shown herself another pawn of bush with a lopsided view of what diplomacy is about.
All this war mongering, sabre rattling isnt diplomacy...
Its nothing more than international bullying.
What is Rice's biggest accomplishment?
Besides her denial for years that there was no pre intel on l Queda intending to use airplanes as missiles left from the Clinton adminstration...
then years after, went and changed her answer to pass the buck to others.
Its terrible and shameful that congresss has failed the american people by not using its checks and balances authority...
I say we whipe out 90% of all politicians currently serving and start a new.
For people that at least have some sense of integrity.
Oh wait--wouldnt that just mean more politicians equally as greedy and opportunistic will only fill the empty shoes.
Guess America is SOOL
2007-11-11 10:43:18 · answer #2 · answered by writersbIock2006 5 · 3⤊ 1⤋
She is a black woman working for a lunatic (Bush) so going in she has at best an impossible job and will not be taken seriously no matter what she says because she is only the administrations mouthpiece and with their reputation, would you take her seriously?
On the flip side, she has to be a bit touched as well willingly working for the dark side.
2007-11-11 10:43:51 · answer #3 · answered by groingo 4 · 3⤊ 0⤋
"should she be required to pay back the millions of dollars the taxpayers have given her?"
No more so than the incompetent ninny that held the position under clinton, madeleine albright. She said in Jan 2001, that the United States would continue to press Iraq to destroy all its weapons of mass destruction as a condition of lifting economic sanctions.
But wait, I thought the libs had proven Iraq didn't have weapons of mass destruction, why would clinton's sec. of state say they did?
2007-11-11 10:41:18 · answer #4 · answered by Anonymous · 0⤊ 2⤋
When you can stop quoting the garbage from Moveon.org you might get some intelligent answers. What you have posted is a mangled, twisted, bunch of disinformation that is meant to be easily digested by mental midgets that have a 60 second attention span.
Go troll somewhere else.
2007-11-11 10:38:22 · answer #5 · answered by Anonymous · 0⤊ 2⤋
No, I am certain there has been enough incompetence to go around in that particular office. In this case, it is a loyalty thing. Bush is very loyal to his people and he appointed Condoleza even after she completely botched the job in National Security.
2007-11-11 10:35:14 · answer #6 · answered by fangtaiyang 7 · 2⤊ 1⤋
She is a black woman trying to do peace talks with muslims...its a bad combination to start with and failure even before it started.
I would think its almost done on purpose or else a Muslim sec of state would get more respect and a better choice.
2007-11-11 10:33:32 · answer #7 · answered by Edge Caliber 6 · 3⤊ 1⤋