Zoellick named as new Deputy Secretary of State

[conjur]

http://www.abc.net.au/news/new...ms/200501/s1278560.htm

United States President George W Bush has named US Trade Representative Robert Zoellick to become deputy to incoming Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice and more changes are likely in US diplomacy.

"Condi Rice and Bob Zoellick will form one of the really strong and capable foreign policy teams our country has ever had," the President said at the White House, with Dr Rice and Mr Zoellick at his side.

BWA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA !!!! OMG!! BWA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA!!!

LMAOPIMP!!!!!

Oh geez!! BWA HA HA HA HA HA HA !!!

oh....whew....wow...ok...I'm ok now.

Dr Rice, 50, will replace departing Secretary of State Colin Powell.

Mr Zoellick, 51, will take the place of Deputy Secretary of State Richard Armitage, who resigned after Mr Powell said he would quit.

Both new nominations need a Senate confirmation.

The two new State Department chiefs worked closely together at the National Security Council when the elder George Bush was president.

Dr Rice has been the National Security Adviser for the past four years, while Mr Zoellick became US Trade Representative at the same time.

The Secretary of State normally stays in the diplomatic spotlight but the number two plays an important role in the State Department team, often carrying out delicate missions such as Mr Armitage did in seeking to ease nuclear tensions between India and Pakistan.

Dr Rice's appointment has been seen as Mr Bush wanting a US diplomacy more in line with White House thinking.

Dr Rice is expected to announce her choice for other top State Department posts at her confirmation hearing, which starts January 18. The announcements could also come shortly after she is sworn in.

The number three diplomat, US under-secretary of state for political affairs Marc Grossman, is leaving, as are assistant secretary for European and Eurasian affairs Elizabeth Jones and under-secretary for economic affairs Alan Larson.

Yay! Another PNAC fvcktard heading up policy.

 

[Genx87]

Ill bite.

So who would you suggest?

That old worthless bag of bones Maddy Albright?

You may laugh now but we can certainly cry at the performance she gave during her years in the White House.

 

[conjur]

Honestly, Sen. Biden or Sen. Kerry. I think either of them would make an ideal Sec'y of State. But, that would never happen as Bush would NEVER consider someone other than 100% loyalist to his bizarre agenda. Why do you think he chose a PNAC wonk?

 

[Genx87]

Honestly, Sen. Biden or Sen. Kerry. I think either of them would make an ideal Sec'y of State. But, that would never happen as Bush would NEVER consider someone other than 100% loyalist to his bizarre agenda. Why do you think he chose a PNAC wonk?

Now why would Bush appoint his former opponent into a position of power in his cabinet? Biden? Isnt he the partisan hack who ran his mouth off a few times on the 9-11 commission?

As for the PNAC wonk. I think writing an article for the organization hardly makes him a "wonk". If he was for instance part of the staff then maybe you have a case.

As for PNAC you lefties like to think it is a grand conspiracy. I have read parts of their statements and it sure sounds a bunch like something Kennedy would say, John not that fat tub Teddy.

I suppose since we like conspiracy theories about the PNAC controlling the white house to take out Saddams Iraq. Maybe we can do the same about Milosevic? Sure looks like the PNAC was pulling the Clinton puppets strings when it came to the former yugoslavia.

PNAC asking Clinton to remove Milosevik and save Muslims /gasp!

 

[conjur]

What you fail to understand, Genx87, is that PNAC neocons are behind Bush's foreign policy. They are the ones running the DoD, the DIA, the OSP, and now moving into the State Dept. They want a spread of democracy, by force if necessary. It's people like Wolfowitz and Feith who are responsible for the falsified intelligence to justify invading Iraq.

 

[Genx87]

What you fail to understand, Genx87, is that PNAC neocons are behind Bush's foreign policy. They are the ones running the DoD, the DIA, the OSP, and now moving into the State Dept. They want a spread of democracy, by force if necessary. It's people like Wolfowitz and Feith who are responsible for the falsified intelligence to justify invading Iraq.

Of course they are, that is why they asked Clinton, and Clinton obliged and took out Milosovek.

I take it you never liked John F Kennedy either?

 

[conjur]

The point is sailing high over your head. Figures.

 

[rickn]

ph3ar them North Koreans!

 

[Genx87]

The point is sailing high over your head. Figures

I see your point but think it is just more silly leftie conspiracy theory rubbish. And you havent really proven a case that it runs the white house, CIA, NSA, or DOD.
But maybe you can answer my question about John F Kennedy?

 

[conjur]

I never said it runs the White House, the CIA, or the NSA. Kennedy has nothing to do with this thread.

Read the links at the politics page in my sig. The truth is out there. You just don't want to see it.

 

[Pliablemoose]

I guess I'm amazed that folks expect Bush to select someone who doesn't support his policies to be in his cabinet.

Heard a rumor Wolfowitz might be retiring...

 

[Genx87]

never said it runs the White House, the CIA, or the NSA. Kennedy has nothing to do with this thread.

Read the links at the politics page in my sig. The truth is out there. You just don't want to see it.

Playing the dancing game I see? This is close enough

is that PNAC neocons are behind Bush's foreign policy. They are the ones running the DoD, the DIA, the OSP, and now moving into the State Dept.

close enough

Kennedy is a valid point because when you compare the mission statement of what the PNAC is, they sound an awful lot like what Kennedy actually did.

So I am curious if you didnt like Kennedy or thought he was some PNAC type whack job? It lends to the credibility of your fears about a vast conspiracy for a group to take over this nation and do such terrible things as spread democracy and take out warlords like Saddam and Milosovek. Something that has been part of our national policy since the end of WWII through democrat and republican presidents alike.

 

[conjur]

Originally posted by: Genx87

never said it runs the White House, the CIA, or the NSA. Kennedy has nothing to do with this thread.

Read the links at the politics page in my sig. The truth is out there. You just don't want to see it.

Playing the dancing game I see? This is close enough

Nope, not dancing at all. Those articles go into great detail in how the PNAC neocons at DIA and OSP brought in Chalabi and his INC and falsified and exagerrated intelligence and removed wording showing doubt about other intelligence and then stovepiped that fraudulent data up the chain.

is that PNAC neocons are behind Bush's foreign policy. They are the ones running the DoD, the DIA, the OSP, and now moving into the State Dept.

close enough

Kennedy is a valid point because when you compare the mission statement of what the PNAC is, they sound an awful lot like what Kennedy actually did.

So I am curious if you didnt like Kennedy or thought he was some PNAC type whack job? It lends to the credibility of your fears about a vast conspiracy for a group to take over this nation and do such terrible things as spread democracy and take out warlords like Saddam and Milosovek. Something that has been part of our national policy since the end of WWII through democrat and republican presidents alike.

Kennedy didn't condone the spread of democracy by force in a pre-emptive manner, did he?

 

[Genx87]

Kennedy didn't condone the spread of democracy by force in a pre-emptive manner, did he?

Did you forget Vietnam? Perhaps the Bay of Pigs?

Lets not forget he expanded the military by 2 divisions in his first 2 years. Usually when you expand the active military it isnt for defensive measures.

 

[conjur]

Originally posted by: Genx87

Kennedy didn't condone the spread of democracy by force in a pre-emptive manner, did he?

Did you forget Vietnam? Perhaps the Bay of Pigs?

Lets not forget he expanded the military by 2 divisions in his first 2 years. Usually when you expand the active military it isnt for defensive measures.

I'm sorry. Vietnam was a pre-emptive war for no good reason? An invasion of South Vietnam had nothing to do with it?

And, re: Cuba, that was a real, emerging, imminent threat. Russian missiles right off the US border? That's a grave and imminent threat. Not some mideast tyrant running a dismantled army who couldn't lob a dirtclod beyond his borders.

 

[Genx87]

I'm sorry. Vietnam was a pre-emptive war for no good reason? An invasion of South Vietnam had nothing to do with it?

What threat did N Vietnam pose to the United States?

And, re: Cuba, that was a real, emerging, imminent threat. Russian missiles right off the US border? That's a grave and imminent threat. Not some mideast tyrant running a dismantled army who couldn't lob a dirtclod beyond his borders.

Watchout you are starting to sound like those whackjob neocons with all that imminent threat talk!

btw is that why the Bay of Pigs happened 18 months before the Cuban missile crisis? You dont think that pre-emptive democracy installation attempt had anything to do with those missiles being placed on Cuban soil do you? Also it blows your theory that the bay of pigs was to keep missiles off Cuban soil.

 

[conjur]

Originally posted by: Genx87

I'm sorry. Vietnam was a pre-emptive war for no good reason? An invasion of South Vietnam had nothing to do with it?

What threat did N Vietnam pose to the United States?

What threat did North Korea pose in the 1950s? What threat did Iraq pose in 1991? You're barking up the wrong tree and you know it.

And, re: Cuba, that was a real, emerging, imminent threat. Russian missiles right off the US border? That's a grave and imminent threat. Not some mideast tyrant running a dismantled army who couldn't lob a dirtclod beyond his borders.

Watchout you are starting to sound like those whackjob neocons with all that imminent threat talk!

btw is that why the Bay of Pigs happened 18 months before the Cuban missile crisis? You dont think that pre-emptive democracy installation attempt had anything to do with those missiles being placed on Cuban soil do you? Also it blows your theory that the bay of pigs was to keep missiles off Cuban soil.

You might want to find out what was going on before Kennedy took office. Specifically, the actions that were undertaken during Eisenhower's administration

 

[Genx87]

What threat did North Korea pose in the 1950s? What threat did Iraq pose in 1991? You're barking up the wrong tree and you know it.

You are the one bringing it up as a justification for Kennedy to invade South Vietnam. You should really examine the hypocrisy in your own words.

You might want to find out what was going on before Kennedy took office. Specifically, the actions that were undertaken during Eisenhower's administration

So what you are saying is it is ok for a Democrat to pre-emptively invade countries and spread democracy by force, but not a Republican? When a Republican does it then a vast conspiracy by a group of scholars that has to be running the govt in secret and we are all doomed. It sure looks like the PNAC and Kennedy had a lot in common. Unsurprising how you will deface the PNAC but defend Kennedy.

edit: btw nice to see you didnt address your timeline issue and instead tried to change subjects and push the problem of the bay of pigs onto the previous administration. Unsurprising that administration was republican. Anyway to pass the buck I see?

 

[conjur]

Originally posted by: Genx87

What threat did North Korea pose in the 1950s? What threat did Iraq pose in 1991? You're barking up the wrong tree and you know it.

You are the one bringing it up as a justification for Kennedy to invade South Vietnam. You should really examine the hypocrisy in your own words.

Stop playing dumb. It's beneath you. You know the difference between Korea/Vietnam and the Iraq invasion of 2003.

You might want to find out what was going on before Kennedy took office. Specifically, the actions that were undertaken during Eisenhower's administration

So what you are saying is it is ok for a Democrat to pre-emptively invade countries and spread democracy by force, but not a Republican? When a Republican does it then a vast conspiracy by a group of scholars that has to be running the govt in secret and we are all doomed. It sure looks like the PNAC and Kennedy had a lot in common. Unsurprising how you will deface the PNAC but defend Kennedy.

Again, playing dumb is beneath you. I've explained the difference. It's not my fault you don't understand.

 

[Genx87]

Stop playing dumb. It's beneath you. You know the difference between Korea/Vietnam and the Iraq invasion of 2003.

Ahh yes when presented with something the tangles your logic you resort to the name calling.

Again, playing dumb is beneath you. I've explained the difference. It's not my fault you don't understand.

Yes we know, PNAC = evil right winged conspiracy to run this country into the ground. Kennedy didnt really do anything stated in this thread. It was a product of another evil republican administration that forced him to do it.

If you cant even see the hypocrisy I suggest standing back,taking a deep breath, and re-evaluating your stance on either Kennedy or PNAC.

 

[conjur]

There is NO hypocrisy on my stance. There is only obfuscation and denial in your own. You don't understand the difference between defending a country from an invading nation and launching a pre-emptive invasion and occupation.

 

[Genx87]

There is NO hypocrisy on my stance. There is only obfuscation and denial in your own. You don't understand the difference between defending a country from an invading nation and launching a pre-emptive invasion and occupation.

What was the bay of pigs then? Who was invading who?
Was the North invading South Vietnam? They may have been supplying the Vietcong, but they werent sending troops until 1964.

Your hypocrisy is the PNAC wants to use American power to further democracy around the world and use force if necessary. Kennedy did the exact same thing.

You view Kennedys actions as good.
You view PNACs vision as wrong.

btw I have to ask if you feel the 1991 ousting of Saddam from Kuwait was justified?

 

[conjur]

Kennedy was defending the US from an imminent threat (missiles 100 miles off-shore). The CIA, under Eisenhower, was doing all sorts of things to trigger a rebellion against Castro. Castro's overthrow threatened the bottom-line of US businesses that had control of key industries in Cuba (hmm...Republicans worried about businesses' finances in relation to foreign relations?)

The CIA's plans for the overthrow were all but complete by the time Kennedy took office. However, Kennedy was concerned about the size of the US's involvement. Its size would mean covering up the US involvement would be almost impossible. Also, the rebel fighters were Cuban exiles, not American troops. The US did not provide reinforcements and the exiles were quickly overtaken by Castro's army.

Also, Kruschev had been raising the rhetoric of placing missiles in Cuba to "protect Cuba from the US" (yeah, right).

Now, how does that compare to the 2003 invasion of Iraq? I'd love to hear your justification.


As for your question about Saddam in 1991, at the time, I thought it was the right thing as he had invaded Kuwait. However, knowing what we know now, we know the US faked satellite photos and pretty much gave Saddam a green light to invade Kuwait.

 

[Genx87]

Kennedy was defending the US from an imminent threat (missiles 100 miles off-shore). The CIA, under Eisenhower, was doing all sorts of things to trigger a rebellion against Castro. Castro's overthrow threatened the bottom-line of US businesses that had control of key industries in Cuba (hmm...Republicans worried about businesses' finances in relation to foreign relations?)

An imminent threat 18 months before it happened?!?!?!? Do you see the problem here?

The CIA's plans for the overthrow were all but complete by the time Kennedy took office. However, Kennedy was concerned about the size of the US's involvement. Its size would mean covering up the US involvement would be almost impossible. Also, the rebel fighters were Cuban exiles, not American troops. The US did not provide reinforcements and the exiles were quickly overtaken by Castro's army.

While that may be true, Kennedy gave the green light. And the equipment and training was provided for by the United States.

Also, Kruschev had been raising the rhetoric of placing missiles in Cuba to "protect Cuba from the US" (yeah, right).

Well with an invasion of Cuban exiles funded by the US was it really rhetoric?

Now, how does that compare to the 2003 invasion of Iraq? I'd love to hear your justification.

My justification? This isnt about me. This is about your views on the PNAC and Kennedy. Both of which were\are about spreading Democracy through power. Something this country has been doing for the past 60 years since the end of WWII.

As for your question about Saddam in 1991, at the time, I thought it was the right thing as he had invaded Kuwait. However, knowing what we know now, we know the US faked satellite photos and pretty much gave Saddam a green light to invade Kuwait.

So when you said this You don't understand the difference between defending a country from an invading nation and launching a pre-emptive invasion and occupation.
. You werent really using it as a justification for Kennedy to send troops and equipment to Vietnam?

 

[conjur]

Originally posted by: Genx87

Kennedy was defending the US from an imminent threat (missiles 100 miles off-shore). The CIA, under Eisenhower, was doing all sorts of things to trigger a rebellion against Castro. Castro's overthrow threatened the bottom-line of US businesses that had control of key industries in Cuba (hmm...Republicans worried about businesses' finances in relation to foreign relations?)

An imminent threat 18 months before it happened?!?!?!? Do you see the problem here?

Considering Kruschev's comments about sending rockets to Cuba, I'm surprised *you* don't see the imminent threat yet you think Saddam was a threat to the US? bwa HA!!

The CIA's plans for the overthrow were all but complete by the time Kennedy took office. However, Kennedy was concerned about the size of the US's involvement. Its size would mean covering up the US involvement would be almost impossible. Also, the rebel fighters were Cuban exiles, not American troops. The US did not provide reinforcements and the exiles were quickly overtaken by Castro's army.

While that may be true, Kennedy gave the green light. And the equipment and training was provided for by the United States.

And death squads were trained in Central America by the U.S. And arms were sold to Iran to fund that training. Your point?

Also, Kruschev had been raising the rhetoric of placing missiles in Cuba to "protect Cuba from the US" (yeah, right).

Well with an invasion of Cuban exiles funded by the US was it really rhetoric?

Probably not. Hence, the need for the US to take action. Where was the threat from Saddam?

Now, how does that compare to the 2003 invasion of Iraq? I'd love to hear your justification.

My justification? This isnt about me. This is about your views on the PNAC and Kennedy. Both of which were\are about spreading Democracy through power. Something this country has been doing for the past 60 years since the end of WWII.

As for your question about Saddam in 1991, at the time, I thought it was the right thing as he had invaded Kuwait. However, knowing what we know now, we know the US faked satellite photos and pretty much gave Saddam a green light to invade Kuwait.

So when you said this You don't understand the difference between defending a country from an invading nation and launching a pre-emptive invasion and occupation.
. You werent really using it as a justification for Kennedy to send troops and equipment to Vietnam?

Yes, your justification. That's the point of this thread. Another PNAC neocon being put into a high position in the administration. It's these bastards that are responsible for the unjust invasion of Iraq. How do you justify it?