Condolezza Rice worked for TexacoChevron

[gotmilk]

Before she helped Bubba shape foreign policy..

Discuss

 

[The_Eviscerator]

Before she helped Bubba shape foreign policy..

Discuss

Who cares? So the fact she had a well paying job in the oil industry means something? I don't understand why we want all our politicians to be complete financial fuck ups, as if holding down a job is evil.

 

[PIGEON-RAT]

i've heard that she has an oil tanker named after her, but i never bothered to find out whether that's true or not

 

[PIGEON-RAT]

i've heard that she has an oil tanker named after her, but i never bothered to find out whether that's true or not

http://multinationalmonitor.org/mm2001/01june/june01names.html

 

[gotmilk]

Who cares? So the fact she had a well paying job in the oil industry means something? I don't understand why we want all our politicians to be complete financial fuck ups, as if holding down a job is evil.

What does holding a job have to do with working at TexacoChevron before Shrub picked her? Last time I checked, oil barons are not exactly on the pulse of foreign affairs?

What next? Should Ken Lay be hired to be Secretary of State?

 

[atlantabiolab]

What does holding a job have to do with working at TexacoChevron before Shrub picked her? Last time I checked, oil barons are not exactly on the pulse of foreign affairs?

What next? Should Ken Lay be hired to be Secretary of State?

You have not even attempted to demonstrate why she is not competent in her position. You merely insinuate, as all leftists, that oil company employees are the cancer of the earth. All the while you sit in a home, behind a computer that is being powered by that which you hate.

 

[The_Eviscerator]

You have not even attempted to demonstrate why she is not competent in her position. You merely insinuate, as all leftists, that oil company employees are the cancer of the earth. All the while you sit in a home, behind a computer that is being powered by that which you hate.

Exactly, I would think oil barons would have their finger firmly on the pulse of foreign affairs. Any change in the geopoltical landscape effects oil prices dramatically. I find it hilarious that the same people that bitch about oil usually drive Escalades or Expeditions.

 

[PIGEON-RAT]

You have not even attempted to demonstrate why she is not competent in her position. You merely insinuate, as all leftists, that oil company employees are the cancer of the earth. All the while you sit in a home, behind a computer that is being powered by that which you hate.

lol. man abl always has the best ways to shut people down.

 

[Apöllo]

Perhaps, GotMilk is simply trying to point out that there might have been other people that would have had more experience in foreign affairs that could have filled that position. Maybe she could have worked for the energy dept instead?

Either way, its easy to see how a connection could be made between Bush's oil people and current events.

 

[big4rt]

I think the people appointed at the top should have some history of not only success but responsibility. Not given responsibility, but earned and proved they could handle it. Besides, that woman is so damn intelligent it's sexy. She can do no wrong in my book.

 

[gotmilk]

lol. man abl always has the best ways to shut people down.

Not really....he just has a bad habit of not thinking stuff thru and not seeing different sides.

Who is better at shaping foreign policy? A former oil executive who is extremely well educated....or possibly a high ranking military officer who has experience with foreign relations?

If you noticed...my original post stated "discuss". AB would rather just place labels on people rather than "discussing".

Prior to working for the President, Condolezza was an executive at TexacoChevron. Should she be involved in shaping foreign policy?

Discuss:

 

[gotmilk]

You have not even attempted to demonstrate why she is not competent in her position.

How about discussing Condolezza instead of your typical crap of placing people in your warped segments of leftist and right-wing political agendas.

Should she be shaping foreign policy?

I say no. While well educated, I believe foreign policy should be shaped by current and retired military members. If working as a executive, whether it be at TexacoChevron, Kmart, Microsoft, or any other company, enables you to be qualified to shape the way we deal with other countries, I think we are screwed in the future.

For example, who should Kerry hire if he wins? Martha Stewart? How about Jeffrey Katzenberg?

I find it ironic how many of Bush's staff members were executives at oil and gas companies prior to being hired by Bush.

Does being well educated like Ms. Rice mean you are qualified to shape foreign policy?

 

[ChefWide]

President Cornhole was also governor of Texas prior to getting appointed President.

 

[John C Calhoun]

The only reason he hired her is because he likes to sip a little bit of cocoa behind Lauras back.

 

[gotmilk]

President Cornhole was also governor of Texas prior to getting appointed President.

What does that have to do with the thread?

It must be hard to appoint staff members and actually find people who are experienced in their cabinet positions. Should business executives with no prior cabinet experience be hired to help shape foreign policy?

Will we reach a point where the United States has full time positions for jobs like Secretary of State, Defense, etc?

Does being well educated and being an experienced business executive qualify you to help shape foreign policy like Ms. Rice has been allowed to do?

Should her position be turned into a full time appointed position where we do not have a revolving staff everytime we have a change in President?

 

[ChefWide]

What does that have to do with the thread?

Sorry, I will try not to let it happen again.

My sarcastic coment was meant to shed light on the fact that DR. Rice's past relationships within the petro-chemical corporate establishment is OLD FUCKING NEWS.

 

[gotmilk]

My sarcastic coment was meant to shed light on the fact that DR. Rice's past relationships within the petro-chemical corporate establishment is OLD FUCKING NEWS.

Absolutely true..but in light of recent events and the backlash foreign countries are showing....how does the Office of the President, whether it be Bush or President's of the future...ensure they are surrounded by the right personel.

While people like AB want to label people left or right wing...I am a Democrat who voted for Bush because I did not want Al Snore in office. I hate Bush but I assumed he would surround himself with a competant staff.

Should people like Condolezza Rice be in positions like she is based on her credentials but lack of experience with foreign affairs?

Even more scary....who could Kerry hire should he win?

 

[atlantabiolab]

While people like AB want to label people left or right wing...I am a Democrat who voted for Bush because I did not want Al Snore in office. I hate Bush but I assumed he would surround himself with a competant staff.

I could give a shit who you voted for. I have read your previous posts, and just as you label me right wing, I understand that you support ideologies of socialism. I don't care about the person behind the idea, it is the ideas that I disagree with.

Should people like Condolezza Rice be in positions like she is based on her credentials but lack of experience with foreign affairs?

What credentials does provide a person the right to such positions? Should we only hire career politicians to be politicians? What were they prior to their position in government? Should we only have college graduates of Foreign Affairs, who have no real world experience, in such positions?

Do you think that high level employees of oil corporations have NO experience in foreign affairs, given the nature of this industry?

 

[MrOlympia2004]

Lucky for Rice she was not born 175 years ago otherwise the Bushes would have her doing all kinds of nasty stuff. Wait a minute GW already is.

 

[gotmilk]

I have read your previous posts, and just as you label me right wing

I have never labeled you right wing because I hate it when people place labels on varying opinions. Not once AB.

What credentials does provide a person the right to such positions? Should we only hire career politicians to be politicians? What were they prior to their position in government? Should we only have college graduates of Foreign Affairs, who have no real world experience, in such positions?

Do you think that high level employees of oil corporations have NO experience in foreign affairs, given the nature of this industry?

Career politicians might not be a bad idea as long as those with agendas are weeded out. Foreign affairs should be contrived by those with foreign experience...military leadership...or previous political appointments that provided previous experience. A guy like Colin Powell or a David Hackworth might be a better choice than Dr. Rice in my opinion.

Should we only have college graduates of Foreign Affairs? Actually..it would work. In the same manner that some of our best military leaders graduated from military academies where they were groomed for their future. Would that be so bad? They graduate...they intern...they work specifically on foreign policy for multiple Presidents. A contiguous effort to maintain a constant policy.

Do I think high level employees of oil corporations have NO experience in foreign affairs? Of course they have a basic knowledge, but does running an oil company allow you the access to military and strategic planning? Hell No.

Since when does being a company executive of a business with foreign subsidiaries make one competent to help develop foreign policy? Sorry...oil may be a needed asset...but oil barons are not always brilliant leaders.

Case in point: George Bush
Case number two: Saddam Hussein


You make some great points AB...but not everything is left-wing vs right-wing

 

[atlantabiolab]

The Worst and the Dullest

by William Anderson
[Posted January 26, 2000]

John F. Kennedy has many enduring legacies. Aside from his personal corruption, he embroiled the United States in the Vietnam War, something that still has repercussions more than three decades later. And he presided over the beginnings of unprecedented expansion of the powers of the national government under the guise of the "New Frontier."

Despite the many disasters of his regime, JFK continues to receive praise and adulation from this country's intellectuals and journalists. He and his wife cut glamorous figures at home and abroad, which explains why the superficial media types still worship at his shrine.

However, he was a truly shallow character in both intellect and personality, which one would think should have translated into being a subject of disdain by intellectuals. That is clearly not the case.

American intellectuals still revere Kennedy, despite the fact that he was not one of them. But however intellectually superficial JFK might have been, he knew how to play up to the vanities and the lust for power of those who are considered to be the most intelligent among us. Kennedy appointed intellectuals and those revered by intellectuals to positions in the cabinet and as personal advisors.

Robert McNamara, formerly of Harvard University and Ford Motor Company, took over policies of national defense. Devout Keynesian Walter Heller of the University of Minnesota became JFK's chief economic advisor, while Arthur M. Schlesinger, Jr., of Harvard (who is still the "distorian" of that era) served as a special assistant to both Kennedy and President Lyndon Johnson after JFK's assassination. Meanwhile, socialist John Kenneth Galbraith, also of Harvard, became U.S. Ambassador to India.

These and others, named by the adoring media as "the best and the brightest," took the reins of government and arrogantly began the process of expanding the powers of government. When they were through, they had laid the foundations of numerous disasters. There was the Vietnam War, which resulted in more than two million deaths in Southeast Asia and strife at home. The application of Heller's "New Economics" led to the ruinous inflation of the 1970s, collapse of the U.S. gold standard, the oil crises, and general social chaos.

Like Franklin Roosevelt's Ivy League educated "Brain Trust," the advisors to Kennedy (and later, Lyndon Johnson) were products of America's most elite institutions. According to U.S. intellectuals and their media supporters, these "qualifications" were proof that these policymakers were endowed with whatever capabilities were required to make decisions for Americans who, apparently, were believed to be incapable of making themselves even though throughout most of the history of this country they had been doing just that.

The failure of the "best and the brightest" was hardly isolated to the Kennedy and Johnson administrations. From J.B. Colbert of the regime of Louis XIV to New Dealer G. Rexford Tugwell, some of the most intelligent people within a society have inflicted some of the worst disasters. This should come as no surprise. As economist Thomas Sowell has so aptly pointed out, experts at best, while having much general information on a certain subject, are usually unequipped with the needed knowledge to deal with specific events.

Thus, the economic commissars of the old Soviet Union, while having a formal education in neoclassical economics (they really did, no kidding), were unable to plan an entire economy. Their massive failures speak for themselves.

The personal scrutiny that many in government have faced in the last couple of decades, and especially in the last two presidential administrations, has been protested by those who claim that having one's life under a microscope will "keep good people out of government." While one can sympathize with government appointees who find themselves the subjects of obvious politically-motivated witch hunts, the idea that our well-being depends upon well-qualified people in government is simply not true.

In fact, the reverse is true, to a large extent. Society in general is made better off when highly-talented and entrepreneurial people pursue opportunities not in government but rather in business and other private occupations. What might have happened, for example, had those people who developed personal computers become government bureaucrats instead? Imagine Steven Jobs as a government regulator or a pencil pusher, not as the developer of the famed Macintosh computer.

However intelligent and creative Mr. Jobs might be, there can be no doubt that society would not have benefitted much, if at all, had he simply been another regulator from an agency such as the Occupational Safety and Health Administration checking the shape of toilet seats. Even had Mr. Jobs been a high-profile political appointee as a member of the cabinet or an undersecretary or something, most likely his contribution as a government employee would not have equalled what he accomplished as an entrepreneur and an inventor.

It is a truism that those who accomplish the most for society while working in government do so by rolling back the powers of the state, not expanding them. Alfred Kahn, who is a liberal mainstream economist from Cornell University, nonetheless pushed for airline deregulation in 1978 and helped lay the groundwork for elimination of the Interstate Commerce Commission, all while working in the Jimmy Carter Administration. Trucking and railroads also saw important changes--and reductions--in their regulatory structures. The modern retail economy, along with the vital Just In Time inventory control, would not have been possible had the old transportation regulatory structures stayed in place.

In short, it is not the intelligence of the person in government that determines his or her social usefulness. Rather, it is whether or not the government workers understand their own limitations and are constrained in their exercise of power. The "Whiz Kids" who served under McNamara at the Pentagon clearly believed their elite intelligence made them invincible. Nearly 60,000 American soldiers died in the jungles of Southeast Asia as a result of McNamara's arrogance.

For all of the accolades given to "public service," the greatest service given to humanity does not come from those in government. While we should never condone unjust witch hunts of people in government, let us not delude ourselves into thinking that our prosperity and security depends upon the "best and the brightest" working as "GS-11's."

------------

William Anderson teaches economics at North Greenville College.

 

[gotmilk]

I love this statement...it's so true.

For all of the accolades given to "public service," the greatest service given to humanity does not come from those in government

 

[The_Eviscerator]

lol. man abl always has the best ways to shut people down.

Abl owns people daily. The funny thing is that they continue to try to argue and they just get more and more owned in the process.

 

[Apöllo]

Abl owns people daily. The funny thing is that they continue to try to argue and they just get more and more owned in the process.

OMG, get a room already.

 

[big4rt]

How about discussing Condolezza instead of your typical crap of placing people in your warped segments of leftist and right-wing political agendas.

Should she be shaping foreign policy?

I say no. While well educated, I believe foreign policy should be shaped by current and retired military members. If working as a executive, whether it be at TexacoChevron, Kmart, Microsoft, or any other company, enables you to be qualified to shape the way we deal with other countries, I think we are screwed in the future.

For example, who should Kerry hire if he wins? Martha Stewart? How about Jeffrey Katzenberg?

I find it ironic how many of Bush's staff members were executives at oil and gas companies prior to being hired by Bush.

Does being well educated like Ms. Rice mean you are qualified to shape foreign policy?

I don't know if I'm way off here or what, but I thought she is the president's advisor on national security. I'm not a genious either, but I thought congress shapes foreign policy with the aid of the president. If what you say is true about experience, then you need to include Dick Cheney in your assessment, brother. Can you say Halliburton????? Chaaaah-Chiiiiinnnnggggg!!!! $$$$$$

 

[gotmilk]

I don't know if I'm way off here or what, but I thought she is the president's advisor on national security. I'm not a genious either, but I thought congress shapes foreign policy with the aid of the president. If what you say is true about experience, then you need to include Dick Cheney in your assessment, brother. Can you say Halliburton????? Chaaaah-Chiiiiinnnnggggg!!!! $$$$$$

You're close...but I just wanted to see what people's opinions were of Condolezza in light of the recent events.

Comparing Chaney and Dr. Rice is an apples and oranges comparison. Chaney has his dirty hands in a lot of fleece jobs. Dr. Rice does not.

As National Security Advisor, she has access to meetings that shape our foreign policy...access to the Pentagon...access to Congressional leaders.

She is extremely intelligent and has a good track record of leadership...but does that curtail to being qualified to shape foreign policy?

Go back to atlantabiolab's post above.....a perfect example of how a bumbling President is still given accolades when in reality he was a clusterfuck.

I loved this statement because it backs what I was trying to state....some of the best and brightest people are still not qualified to do certain jobs..

The failure of the "best and the brightest" was hardly isolated to the Kennedy and Johnson administrations. From J.B. Colbert of the regime of Louis XIV to New Dealer G. Rexford Tugwell, some of the most intelligent people within a society have inflicted some of the worst disasters. This should come as no surprise. As economist Thomas Sowell has so aptly pointed out, experts at best, while having much general information on a certain subject, are usually unequipped with the needed knowledge to deal with specific events