This video of Condoleezza Rice debating a student at a recent Stanford reception has been floating around for several days now, but I just watched it, and it’s fascinating — how the cocktail chatter dies away and the room becomes silent as attention focuses on Rice, how she becomes arrogantly defensive, how she basically says, “when the president does it, that means it is not illegal.”
The Tin Man
Condi’s defense of torture sounds like Anselm’s ontological proof of the existence of God. And it’s just as torturous and just as unconvincing.
The world is not a place of easy choices? What about “if you’re not with us, you’re against us?”
I will give her props though for shooting down the Nazi argument, though.
Calling him “dear” and treating him like a child, though, costs her some points. I will forgive that, though, because technically he IS a child, a college kid, and college kids need to put in their place from time to time.
Despite fear of violating Godwin’s Law myself, the Red Cross said Theresienstadt was just a holiday spa with barbed wire, so the imprimatur passed on Guantanamo Bay is not persuasive.
All I can say, though, is that I’m glad this woman is no far, far away from political power. Scary.
Hold on. How am I only noticing NOW that she has 2 “Z”s in her name?!
Wow. I’ve been misreading and mispelling her for over 8 years….
As a Richard Nixon history buff (admittedly nerdy hobby) I think this is all I need to offer as a response to Ms. Rice.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ejvyDn1TPr8
From the David Frost interviews….
So what in a sense, you’re saying is that there are certain situations, and the Huston Plan or that part of it was one of them, where the president can decide that it’s in the best interests of the nation or something, and do something illegal.
NIXON: Well, when the president does it that means that it is not illegal.
FROST: By definition.
NIXON: Exactly. Exactly. If the president, for example, approves something because of the national security, or in this case because of a threat to internal peace and order of significant magnitude, then the president’s decision in that instance is one that enables those who carry it out, to carry it out without violating a law. Otherwise they’re in an impossible position.
FROST: So, that in other words, really you were saying in that answer, really, between the burglary and murder, again, there’s no subtle way to say that there was murder of a dissenter in this country because I don’t know any evidence to that effect at all. But, the point is: just the dividing line, is that in fact, the dividing line is the president’s judgment?
NIXON: Yes, and the dividing line and, just so that one does not get the impression, that a president can run amok in this country and get away with it, we have to have in mind that a president has to come up before the electorate. We also have to have in mind, that a president has to get appropriations from the Congress. We have to have in mind, for example, that as far as the CIA’s covert operations are concerned, as far as the FBI’s covert operations are concerned, through the years, they have been disclosed on a very, very limited basis to trusted members of Congress. I don’t know whether it can be done today or not.
In other words, L’état, c’est moi.