The Respectfully Republican Conversation

Great article by Condi Rice...I have always liked her...and gee, look what she says about history not being written yet...wow! LMAO!

Shirley, how can that be about Europe not having minority representation? Aren't they perfect? Because "I lived/live there and I know and how about my friend visited there and he said...yada, yada, yada! " I love it when it comes back on ya'! (not you Shirley, but the few who are in the know...again LMAO!

Rice praises U.S. electoral process but defends Bush's foreign policy

Official in town to mark milestone for Baker Institute

By JEANNIE KEVER
Copyright 2008 Houston Chronicle

Nov. 13, 2008, 11:11PM

MELISSA PHILLIP CHRONICLE

Alluding to Barack Obama's call for change, Rice said, "Today's headlines and history's judgment are not always the same."

 Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice told a crowd in Houston on Thursday night that this year's presidential election sent the world a powerful reminder of all that is good about the United States.

"Change is a good thing," Rice said. "I think the time comes when it is time for new people and new ideas."

That change will send her home to California, and Rice said she is ready.

But she also defended the often-maligned foreign policy over which she has presided, suggesting that President-elect Barack Obama's insistence that the country must change course rests on a too-early reading of history.

"Today's headlines and history's judgment are not always the same," Rice said. "We are at the beginning, not the end."

Rice spoke at a celebration marking the 15th anniversary of the James A. Baker III Institute for Public Policy, a think-tank on the Rice University campus named for former Secretary of State James A. Baker III, with whom she served in the presidential administration of George H.W. Bush. She was a Soviet specialist at the National Security Agency when Baker was secretary of state in the late 1980s and early 1990s, as the Berlin Wall fell.

But Thursday night, she made only brief mention of the defining events of her service for President George W. Bush, first as national security adviser and, since 2005, as the nation's top diplomat in a world defined not by the Cold War but by Sept. 11.

She offered no advice for her successor, beyond a call to democratic values.

"America must never be neutral about what is best," she said. "Democracy is the only system that can ... allow human beings to reach their potential in dignity."

Instead, she suggested two domestic issues that she said could diminish the most powerful American myth - that this is a nation where anyone can succeed.

"What America is loved for is the endless sense of the possible that we represent," she said.

Obama's election offered powerful proof of that, she said. "In a world where being different is still a license to kill, that is an important message," she said.

But she said the lack of immigration reform and a faltering public education system places America's international leadership at risk.

"America cannot continue to be a place where people live in the shadows, contributing to our economy but afraid to go to the emergency room," Rice said.

Americans have lost their openness to newcomers, she said, and she said that too many American children have lost the drive for an education.

A poorly educated citizenry will inevitably diminish the United States' capacity for international leadership, she said.

"We will not be able to lead if we are not confident that our people are able to compete," she said. "It breaks my heart as an educator, but as secretary of state it terrifies me."

Rice was provost at Stanford University before moving to Washington almost eight years ago, and she was mentioned as a possible Republican vice-presidential nominee before Sen. John McCain picked Alaska Gov. Sarah Palin as his running mate. Rice has not said what she will do after Bush leaves office in January.

jeannie.kever@chron.com

No...I think it has more to do with you being a PITA and people tired of being tagged by <------------------ the fan club and maybe, just maybe having MOVED BEYOND and finding new ventures.

Okay, I'll pop in to say "hi".  I've been lurking on this thread, as well as the <-------------- thread, trying to stay out of trouble.  But, rest assured, I'm here in the background, taking it all in.

otter 

Ok guys here is an interesting youtube video......WARNING!!!!! There is some bad language.........please don't view if the "f" word really bothers you and you don't want to hear it but I think this is very important........of course Shirley won't have any problem with the cussing.......(ha)   http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=3bqvqbcULoM  Shokk

So Moody if you want some controversy I would suggest you go post over there............they will entertain you...........you can start say by stating "I think gay people are sinners in the eyes of God"...........I don't trust people whose skin color is different then mine..........why can't creation be taught in the public school system?..........Abortion is murder..........any of those topics should get you as much entertainment as you want...........Shokk

Shirley, its somewhat difficult to post because I have to stay ahead of the moderators who are constantly terminating my ID's, its a little game they like playing with me.

The truth about me is that I am neither a Dem nor a Repub, but we needed changed in our government big time, and hopefully we got it.  The Bush Administration and the current and last Congresses have failed us miserably.  Lets overlook that small little fact that the Bush government started a war, approved by Congress, and sent our soldiers there to be cannon fodder,and then did not take care of them upon return.  Lets overlook the fact that Bush refused to cut short his vacation when Katrina hit and thus nobody attempted to organze a Federal Rescue of the trapped civilians. 

Lets instead turn to our economy and the cesspool of greed and corruption we call Wallstreet, that has single-handedly brought the world to its knees. For years we have been told that wallstreet was the best place for our money, so much so that the current government wanted to give our social security to it.  And what has the street done with our money?  Gambled it away while at the same time making its insiders rich beyond our wildest dreams.   It didn't have to happen, but the Repubs and the Dems in Congress, with their hands out, refused to regulate the incredible risks being taken on those credit-swap instruments, ignored the risks taken by Fanny May and Freddie Mac.  Even now, we have given that corrupt Insurance Company, AIG, over 100 Billion and they are spending it on frills and vacations and get-togethers to the tune of millions. 

The current people in charge of our government are an incompetent  Joke and if they had not harmed so many so the world over it would almost be funny.  They have clearly done more to harm the people than any others in the history of the nation.  We needed a change.  Whether you agree with Democrats, whether you liked Obama, we were heading toward total ruin.  We may still get there but maybe, just maybe, Obama and some actually decent and competent people can stop us from going over the Precipice.  Just maybe.

And when we had an okay President in the white house, who for the most part brought us peace and prosperity, what did we do?  We impeached him over a lousy BJ.  Is it any wonder the rest of the world has so much contempt for us, or at least did until Obama?

LOL shokk you are right, that would be "entertaining".  More like a death wish.  Nevertheless, you made me and everyone in my office laugh!

Rocktobermom, I wasn't talking about entertaining THEM, I was talking about entertaining ME.

But actually, I was just joking around, I didnt mean it literally.  I know I can go over <-----------anytime I want if I am "so bored".  But I aint that bored LOL

I think the media has to take some responsibility for the negativity out there.

When grown adults whine and complain to moderators because they don't like the opinions offered by a particular poster, they are completely pathetic.  Sorry if you find my opinion insulting.  Does the shoe fit?

Blaest2 or 3 or 4 etc, (not meant to be condescending), I take no responsibility for complaining about your posts or anyone elses.  Simply put, it wasn't me and still isn't me.

Most of my family works for the Big Three and they should not get a bailout. They NEED to file for chapter 11 bankruptcy and get out from under their union contracts! It won't matter if they retool and start making smaller, more energy efficient cars - they won't be able to make a profit on them - they will still have the unions noose around their necks and yes Sherri they will be back with their hands out in the future - we cannot afford to bail out everyone - we should really not be bailing out anyone - let the good companies survive and the badly managed ones fall.

I have already started writing to my Senators and congressman - they will know who I am that is for sure!

As for the prop 8 in California - very sore losers - the people of California voted for it - they need to get over it! Looks like that is how the libs operate - don't take no for an answer - look at what is happening in Minnesota and Alaska. Can you imagine what would be happening right now if McCain had won? These people do not take defeat at all - ballots would suddenly be growing on trees!

Regarding Bush's foreign policy:

Radelet: Bush Policies Have Made a Difference in Africa

An Interview With Steven Radelet, Senior Fellow, Center for Global Development

Bernard Gwertzman, Consulting EditorCouncil on Foreign Relations
Friday, February 15, 2008; 5:21 PM

Steve Radelet, an expert on African developmental issues at the Center for Global Development, says President Bush's policies toward Africa have been largely beneficial to the continent. Radelet highlights increased aid to HIV/AIDS victims, and to programs dealing with tuberculosis and malaria. He describes the Millennium Challenge Corporation, a mixed government-industry approach to foreign aid, is "imaginative and creative" even though it has been slow to get off the ground. While he shares concern about Darfur and other African conflict zones, Radelet also says Americans need to consider the continent's impressive progress toward democracy over the past two decades.

President Bush will be traveling shortly to Africa on a trip where he will want to highlight some of the achievements of his administration. When he took office in 2001, did Africa figure much in his foreign policy?

It really didn't. He said very little about Africa. The administration's basic approach coming into office was that it was not going to get very engaged in what was called "nation-building." He had not said very much about debt relief and in the early days of the administration, what some senior officials said and did in relation to the HIV/AIDS crisis was actually not very helpful. So the expectations at the beginning of the administration were not very high at all. There were not too many new initiatives at that point.

 What changed?

Things began to change early on. There were some signs, even in 2001, that they were going to take debt relief more seriously. The World Bank pushed an initiative to move toward more grants [as opposed to loans]. After September 11, all sorts of things began to change on the foreign policy front. They began to be more interested in Africa for a variety of security and military reasons, but also in terms of fighting poverty. The first manifestation of that was the announcement of the Millennium Challenge Corporation in February 2002, which was clearly an attempt by the administration to launch a new initiative on foreign assistance that would be different from past foreign aid, and which would respond to some of the criticisms of the United States that it was not doing enough in that field.

Would you evaluate the Millennium Challenge today?

The Millennium Challenge Corporation (MCC) has evolved into what I think is an imaginative and creative new way to think about foreign assistance. It has done many things well, in terms of how it is thinking about foreign assistance, but it has also been quite slow in getting off the ground and dispersing money. What it has done well is recognizing that not all countries are the same and that we should deliver assistance differently to different countries. It separates out those that are better governed, countries that have made choices toward democracy, toward better governance, and toward better health and education policies. It gives those countries the responsibility to set their priorities and design the programs. This is a huge change and a huge step forward in how we think about foreign assistance, to actually give the recipient countries much more responsibility.

Who runs this? Is this part of the State Department?

This is an independent entity called the Millennium Challenge Corporation [MCC]. It's run by a chief executive officer, managed by a board of directors; the chair of the board is the secretary of state. Five board members are from the administration. Four others are independent, who are outside of the government. It is a government entity but it is outside the control of any agency.

They have been very good -- they've selected about twenty-three countries at this point, signed with what they call compacts with sixteen countries, nine of which are in Africa. Of those nine countries in Africa they have committed $3.8 billion over the next five years. It's a substantial sum of money for the countries involved. The countries have had the lead in saying what they want the funds to be used for. Most of them have focused on infrastructure and agriculture -- infrastructure being roads, ports, and water systems mostly, and then agriculture systems.

Which countries have benefited?

They've been very slow to disperse the funds so there haven't been huge benefits on the ground yet. The African countries that have qualified and have signed compacts include Benin, Cape Verde, Ghana, Lesotho, Madagascar, Mali, Morocco, Mozambique. Those are the African countries that have signed compacts for $3.8 billion, which are beginning to be implemented, but it's still very early in the day. So far, the MCC has only dispersed $150 million worldwide. So, their disbursementshave been slow. It still remains to be seen if the great promise of the MCC turns into reality in terms of real benefits for people on the ground.

Does it have bipartisan support?

It has very strong bipartisan support. On both sides of the aisle, the Republicans like it because of the responsibility factor that it takes countries with good governance and strong policies and holds them responsible. Democrats like that as well. Both sides like the idea of providing more funds as long as they are used responsibly. It has had strong bipartisan support into the next administration, no matter who is elected.

Another program that I know Bush has pushed has been PEPFAR. Can you explain that?

It stands for "The President's Emergency Plan For Aids Relief." It's actually been overall a very strong success. Some people believe it's actually the Bush administration's greatest foreign-policy success. Early in the administration there was not a lot of support for HIV programs but things began to move, not just in the administration but across the United States and around the world, to begin to view the AIDS crisis in Africa, not as a moral failing of the people involved but as a humanitarian issue. [Former] Conservative Senator Jesse Helms [R-NC] shifted his views quite publicly. The administration did as well, nudged along by people like Bono, who had been fighting this fight for a long time.

In January 2003 in his State of the Union address, Bush announced a new program which would provide $15 billion over five years, which was an increase of $10 billion over five years. They pledged to increase it to $15 billion over five years. They are actually running ahead of that amount because as they have made budget requests every year, Congress has actually increased it, so they have more than met their pledge in terms of funding. Most of the funding has gone toward fifteen focus countries that have very high HIV/AIDS prevalence rates. The funding goes directly to programs within countries but it also goes indirectly through some global funds to fight AIDS, tuberculosis, and malaria. Through the direct and indirect support, today more than one million people in Africa are on antiretroviral drugs, where their lives are quite literally being saved by these medicines. They are getting public-awareness programs going, they are supplying large amounts of condoms, which they don't like to publicize very much but they are.

There has, however, been some controversy about the program. Early on there was controversy about buying the drugs, whether generically or on patent. That's less of a controversy now because more generic drugs are available and the prices of nongeneric drugs have fallen. Of course, another point of controversy is the focus on abstinence-only programs, where many people in the administration wanted to put a high premium on abstinence-only programs while others say the evidence does not show them being particularly effective. That's been a controversy as well. Of course, just using condoms has been controversial. But even the administration's harshest critics give them credit with providing quite a large sum of money on this and getting the money out and making it effective on the ground.

Those are two major initiatives, there is also a malaria initiative, yes?

Yes, which is smaller and more recent. It's just getting off the ground in the last two years, but it also showing some great promise. Malaria is actually the largest killer in Africa and had been forgotten for many years. The Global Fund was actually responsible, among others, for putting malaria back on the global agenda. The Global Fund was set up in 2001. It's actually a foundation, based in Geneva, but it looks more like a multilateral. It takes funding both from governments and private organizations, which makes it very different, say from the World Bank. The United Statesis the largest donor. The British, French, and other governments also provide donations. Bill Gates is the largest private funder and there are several other private funders as well. The Global Fund has now become the second-largest funder in the world on HIV/AIDS and the largest on TB [tuberculosis] and malaria in just a few years.

So any new president, is obviously going to keep supporting this?

Yes, the Global Fund will continue to get very strong bipartisan support. In fact, folks on [Capitol] Hill continue to like it better than the bilateral approach in many ways because the Global Fund has been quite successful. It will continue, I think, to get strong support. It has a smaller budget and works in over one countries around the world. So it is a little bit stretched and has a much bigger remit than PEPFAR, so a question will be whether it continues to get the funding that it needs.

The broader PEPFAR program, I think, will also continue to receive strong support. It has had strong bipartisan support. My guess is that the name might change because it's called the President's Emergency Plan and it's a little strange to name a program directly after a president. It's partly an emergency but HIV/AIDS is going to be with us for a long time. The presidential candidates are all talking about increasing the funding for HIV/AIDS.

Let's move on to some of the more unpleasant areas. Most Americans right now when they think of Africa they think of Darfur.

Before getting into the unpleasant stuff completely, let me just comment on your point about how most Americans when they think of Africa they think of Darfur, Zimbabwe, or Sudan. It's true. We think about the bad news that comes out of Africa and there's plenty of it. But there is less of it than there was fifteen or twenty years ago and most Americans don't really recognize the progress that many African countries have made. Just one statistic. In 1989, there were only three countries in sub-Saharan Africa that were considered democracies by the international measures of democracy: Botswana, Mauritius, and Senegal. Today there are over twenty. These are measured by Freedom House and several other independent groups.

Let's talk about Sudan and Darfur.

It's obviously a very, very difficult situation. The options are difficult for the administration. [Former] Secretary of State Colin Powell finally came out and called this genocide, but there has been less follow-up in terms of concrete actions to push for a resolution there. The administration has not been as active as many people would have liked it to have been. It's difficult when we're stretched in so many places around the world. There hasn't been a clear strategy and a clear concerted effort to move forward.

They've paid less attention to some of the crises than they could have and should have, I think, because of the more senior foreign-policy people have been distracted by foreign-policy events in other parts of the world. There are ways they could have done better and still can do better. Hopefully this trip will bring attention to these kinds of issues and will help solidify support for these kinds of foreign-assistance programs going forward.

So would you give them a B or a B+?

I would give them a B, on their stuff on Africa. They deserve credit for the MCC and the HIV/AIDS program, but for the MCC, they get some deductions for being slow to get programs implemented and because they haven't paid as much attention to some issues as they could have.

Last but no least CHANGE!  So far he is appointing people from the Clinton White House. If you recall, it was not his policies that made the economy better in the 90s - it was the tech and dot.com boom/bubble. He was just very lucky.

As for the prop 8 in California - very sore losers - the people of California voted for it - they need to get over it! Looks like that is how the libs operate - don't take no for an answer - look at what is happening in Minnesota and Alaska. Can you imagine what would be happening right now if McCain had won? These people do not take defeat at all - ballots would suddenly be growing on trees!

I don't necessarily disagree with the ban, but then I'm not Gay.  The question really is are we an enlightened enough society to allow for the fact that some people are different and should still be allowed to have love and family's of their own choosing.  And should the majority be able to tyronize the minority by saying No when they are not the ones who have to go without.

The private group will be much better without a pathetic ma n who wants to bully women, a man whose sole purpose on this thread is to argue.... a person who refuses to abide by rules ... if Blaest played by the rules, he would not keep changing his name and we could ignore him.

Now see blaest, I was sorta "going to bat for you" and you just come in with nothing but "everyones picking on me" comments.  Now everyone gonna get all mad at you and then get mad at me for THINKING you might to be someone who just needs a friend, but lacks in people skills. 

This "poor pitiful me" routine you got going is just not working for ya.