Condi Rice - Yes, all the bloodshed in Iraq was worth it. Now we can sell them weapons.

[Anti Federalist]

On 9/11:


Rice: They tried to kill the government and the authority of the United States. They went after the integrity of the state—that’s war. This isn’t just some criminal action. And so that’s why when you think about killing their field generals, it was very critical.


This is critical: it explains why the government is at war with us.

They really believe that.

They see war as nothing more than an attack on the "legitimate power monopoly of the state".

These fuckers don't give a shit about the human cost of war, or the human reasons for war, like "you invaded my country, murdered my family, poisoned my land, air and water and reduced me to grinding poverty".

Anybody that questions or degrades the integrity of the state is acting in a state of war.

That's why we have Marines being hauled off to prison for Fedbook postings and militia members being dragged off to prison on trumped up charges.

That's why po-dunk small towns all across the country are getting Fed bought tanks and automatic weapons and tied into the Fed surveillance grid.

That's why they are at war with us.

 

[specsaregood]

Another gem from the same interview:
Robinson: Last question: Clare Boothe Luce—diplomat, congresswoman, journalist, playwright—used to say that history would give even the greatest figures only one sentence. Lincoln issued the Emancipation Proclamation and freed the slaves. Churchill defeated Hitler. What is the one sentence for George W. Bush?
Rice: That freedom is an inalienable right of every man, woman, and child. And that we have to look to end tyranny

I think I finally figured it out. They have decided that the best way to get us all to shut up is to say shit so absurd as to render us speechless.

 

[bunklocoempire]

Another gem from the same interview:


Robinson: Last question: Clare Boothe Luce—diplomat, congresswoman, journalist, playwright—used to say that history would give even the greatest figures only one sentence. Lincoln issued the Emancipation Proclamation and freed the slaves. Churchill defeated Hitler. What is the one sentence for George W. Bush?

Rice: That freedom[/B] is an inalienable right of every man, woman, and child. And that we have to look to end tyranny

Well there ya go.

Be vague about freedom and use inalienable instead of unalienable -with tyranny tacked on the end.

Pretty slick. The ol' vague term, lie, truth ploy.

The act art of selling a lie honestly. lol

Evil broad is evil.

 

[donnay]

Another gem from the same interview:


Robinson: Last question: Clare Boothe Luce—diplomat, congresswoman, journalist, playwright—used to say that history would give even the greatest figures only one sentence. Lincoln issued the Emancipation Proclamation and freed the slaves. Churchill defeated Hitler. What is the one sentence for George W. Bush?

Rice: That freedom is an inalienable un-alien-able right of every man, woman, and child. And that we have to look to end tyranny

FIFY

According to Black’s Law Dictionary (8th Edition; A.D. 2004), the definition of “inalienable” is:

“Not transferable or assignable. . . . Also termed unalienable”.

Black‘s 8th does not even define “unalienable” and would thus have us believe that the words “inalienable” and “unalienable” are synonymous.

But if we go back to Black‘s 2nd (A.D. 1910) we’ll see that “inalienable” was defined as:

“Not subject to alienation; the characteristic of those things which cannot be bought or sold or transferred from one person to another such as rivers and public highways and certain personal rights; e.g., liberty.”

Black’s 2nd defines “unalienable” as:

“Incapable of being aliened, that is, sold and transferred.”

At first glance the two terms seem pretty much synonymous. However, while the word “inalienable” is “not subject to alienation,” the word “unalienable” is “incapable of being aliened”. I believe the distinction between these two terms is this:

“Unalienable” is “incapable” of being aliened by anyone, including the man who holds something “unalienable”. Thus, it is impossible for any individual to sell, transfer or otherwise dispose of an “unalienable Right”. it is impossible for you to take one of my “unalienable rights”. It is likewise impossible for me to even voluntarily surrender, sell or transfer one of my “unalienable rights”. Once I have something “unalienable,” it’s impossible for me to get rid of it. It would be easier to give up the color of my eyes or my heart than to give up that which is “unalienable”.

That which is “inalienable,” on the other hand, is merely “not subject to alienation”. Black’s 2nd does not declare that it’s absolutely impossible for that which is “inalienable” to be sold, transferred or assigned. Instead, I believe that “inalienable” merely means that “inalienable rights” are not subject to “alienation” by others. That is, no one can compel me to sell, abandon or transfer any of my “inalienable” rights. I am not “subject” to compelled “alienation” by others.

But that leaves open the question of whether I may am entitled to voluntarily and unilaterally sell, transfer, abandon or otherwise surrender that which is “inalienable”. Thus, while it is impossible for me to abandon, or for government to take, my “unalienable rights,” it is possible for me to voluntarily waive my “inalienable” rights. I strongly suspect that our gov-co presumes that our rights are at best “inalienable,” and that since we have not expressly claimed them, we could have and therefore must have waived them.

if we look at Bouvier’s Law Dictionary (A.D. 1856) we’ll see:

“INALIENABLE. A word denoting the condition of those things the property in which cannot be lawfully transferred from one person to another. Public highways and rivers are inalienable. There are also many rights which are inalienable, as the rights of liberty or of speech.”

“UNALIENABLE. Incapable of being transferred. Things which are not in commerce, as, public roads, are in their nature unalienable. Some things are unalienable in consequence of particular provisions of the law forbidding their sale or transfer; as, pensions granted by the government. The natural rights of life and liberty are unalienable.”

http://adask.wordpress.com/2009/07/15/unalienable-vs-inalienable/

 

[Brian4Liberty]

Condi Rice - Yes, all the bloodshed in Iraq was worth it. Now we can sell them weapons.

Translation - You gotta break a few hundred thousand eggs to make an omelet for the Military-Industrial-Financial-Corporate-Media-Government Complex.

 

[Lucille]

Condi Rice Is Expert At Obscuring Truth
http://www.lewrockwell.com/blog/lewrw/archives/118648.html

Condi Rice, like many people who are in high office or have been in high office, knows how to OBSCURE the truth. That is one of their prime means of getting people to accept their machinations. They do this by many rhetorical techniques. They mix lies with supposed facts, with bits of truth, with exaggerations, with fabrications, with outright lies, with misinterpretations, with omissions, with superficial observations, etc.
[...]
Condi will forever be joined to George Bush as a murderer and torturer. That's the "we" she speaks of rhetorically. Am I supposed to rejoice that one murderer has replaced another murderer with a puppet government at the cost of at least 100,000 dead Iraqis as collateral damage?
[...]
The woman has the gall to say "You want to talk about a humanitarian disaster" as if the U.S. had clean hands. The U.S. killed hundreds of thousands in Iraq prior to Bush's attack with its sanctions.
[...]
Reading and re-reading her answer, which was a spur of the moment verbal reply, we get excellent insight into her intellect. She came up with boiler plate Bush propaganda at the outset, as if she were pre-programmed. This didn't require any serious thought on her part or any real soul-searching. She knew she was going to say it was worth it. There would be no real re-assessment coming out of her lips. We've heard it all before. The second part is very interesting because of how her mind went to the real reason for the invasion, which is that the Iraq government became a militarily-supplied puppet of the U.S government. Here she reveals some truth. It's very, very difficult to speak and fabricate continually. There is always some revelation of what one is really thinking. Then at the very end she slips back into the propaganda mode by associating Iraq with Al-Qaeda, a connection that Bush propaganda always made but that was very tenuous. And she also seems to slur the entire Middle East in the bargain.

 

[pcosmar]

Evil broad is evil.

Truth in that. And certainly not just her.

Until you understand that we are facing off with EVIL,, not just incompetence,, not just stupidity.
But pure unfathomable Evil.. we will be misunderstanding our enemy.

 

[KingNothing]

"becoming for instance the fourth-largest purchaser of American military equipment in the Middle East"

Even assuming that the goal was to sell arms to Iraq, is it even remotely noteworthy that they're our fourth largest customer in the region?

I'd be surprised if they weren't at least fourth, and I'm a bit surprised they aren't #3.

 

[KingNothing]

Translation - You gotta break a few hundred thousand eggs to make an omelet for the Military-Industrial-Financial-Corporate-Media-Government Complex.

Yes, any cook will tell you that.

 

[KingNothing]

I think I finally figured it out. They have decided that the best way to get us all to shut up is to say shit so absurd as to render us speechless.

In a sense, she did perfectly summarize Bush and the neoconservative movement. They're committed to stopping hard tyranny where they believe it must end, cost be damned.

 

[kcchiefs6465]

In a sense, she did perfectly summarize Bush and the neoconservative movement. They're committed to stopping hard tyranny where they believe it must end, cost be damned.

Yes, stopping all tyranny but their own.

 

[acptulsa]

I think I finally figured it out. They have decided that the best way to get us all to shut up is to say shit so absurd as to render us speechless.

Very good.

Here's a classic: We have to spend another decade and billions more developing the next generation of fighter aircraft already because we sold our best new F-14s to a jackass who got himself overthrown a few short years later. That crap was music to Reagan's ears...

A little something for those who don't believe me: https://us4.ixquick.com/do/search

 

[KingNothing]

Yes, stopping all tyranny but their own.

They don't see Soft Tyranny as something bad. They see it as something necessary to prevent Hard Tyranny and/or the dissolution of society.

Her statement wasn't absurd. ...well, it was. But more than that, it was telling.

 

[KingRobbStark]

As long as they buy our weapons, it's totally cool.

 

[pcosmar]

In a sense, she did perfectly summarize Bush and the neoconservative movement. They're committed to stopping hard tyranny where they believe it must end, cost be damned.

Bullshit.

 

[KingNothing]

Bullshit.

Uhh... really? I mean, it's basically the neocon charter. They want to reshape the world by removing every hard tyranny that they can, replacing them with soft, "modern," pseudo-free nation-states like ours that will be completely subservient to America.

Or are you under the impression that they're actually evil, and not just cold, stupid and misguided?

 

[pcosmar]

Or are you under the impression that they're actually evil, and not just cold, stupid and misguided?

I thought I made that clear enough.

Truth in that. And certainly not just her.

Until you understand that we are facing off with EVIL,, not just incompetence,, not just stupidity.
But pure unfathomable Evil.. we will be misunderstanding our enemy.

They serve their Master.

 

[PaulConventionWV]

Well there ya go.

Be vague about freedom and use inalienable instead of unalienable -with tyranny tacked on the end.

Pretty slick. The ol' vague term, lie, truth ploy.

The act art of selling a lie honestly. lol

Evil broad is evil.

What's the difference between the two terms?

 

[KingNothing]

I thought I made that clear enough.


They serve their Master.

If their evil is "unfathomable" how do you know how evil they are?

 

[acptulsa]

If their evil is "unfathomable" how do you know how evil they are?

Because evil a few measly fathoms deep isn't unfathomable.

This is like asking, 'if you don't know if it weighs twelve tons or twenty tons, how do you know you don't want it lying on your chest?'