Condi Rice

That's what the FBI is wondering:

FBI agents investigating government watchdog Scott Bloch have subpoenaed any records that would reveal whether concerns about the 2004 elections prompted him to clear Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice of ethics violations.

Bloch, the U.S. special counsel who investigates federal employee whistleblower complaints, found no merit to allegations that Rice, then President Bush's national security adviser, timed some of her trips to boost Bush's 2004 reelection campaign.

The FBI is investigating whether Bloch obstructed justice by destroying computer files to hinder an outside inquiry into allegations that he retaliated against employees who opposed his policies. He's also suspected of making false statements to investigators.

Please let McCain pick her for VP. Please!

Jeralyn is reporting that this is exactly what Robert Novak was saying on FOX last night:

Bob Novak just said on Fox News that Condoleeza Rice might well be John McCain's running mate.

Is that to provide a hedge against both Obama and Hillary? Or another pundit's attempt to reduce the presidential contest to race and gender?

Now speaking of racism, this really stinks of it, along with sexism. So McCain would only pick Condi because she is a black woman and not because she is qualified? I hope this is another Novak wet dream, as I do have a little respect for John McCain and would hate to think he would insult women, blacks and the office of the vice-President by such a poorly calculated political move.

Seriously - isn't that what we have heard for years? They blame Clinton and Carter. So then riddle me this one:

Anxious not to repeat mistakes of past Middle East peace-making, Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice has turned to former presidents Bill Clinton and Jimmy Carter for tips ahead of her own conference this year.

Rice invited Carter, a vocal critic of Bush administration policies, to the State Department on Wednesday where the two discussed his Arab-Israeli peacemaking efforts in the 1970s, State Department spokesman Sean McCormack said on Friday.

Their talks were "good and cordial," he said. They focused on the Middle East and not Carter's recent criticism of President George W. Bush's policies in Iraq and elsewhere.

A Soviet specialist, Rice also telephoned another former Democratic president, Bill Clinton, who tried, and ultimately failed, in his eight years in office to bring the Israelis and Palestinians together.

I guess Democrats weren't too bad for the Middle East. I can't wait for the Republicans to cry foul on this one!

Nancy Pelosi goes to Syria and gets branded a traitor and gets accused of "bad behavior" and possibly "criminal activities". The media sure did eat up on this. Now fast forward to today and Condi Rice is heading over to Syria to meet with them:

Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice will meet Syria's foreign minister in the first high-level talks between the countries in years, a U.S. official said Thursday, and the chief American military spokesman in Iraq said Syria had moved to reduce "the flow of foreign fighters" across its border.

But a substantive meeting between the United States and Iran — another U.S. opponent in the Mideast — appeared less certain. The Iraqi government is pressing for Rice and her Iranian counterpart to meet during the gathering, saying Washington's conflict with the government in Tehran is only fueling Iraq's instability.

"We expect that there will be a discussion between Secretary of State Rice and the Syrian foreign minister about Iraqi security issues," said a senior State Department official, who spoke on condition of anonymity because the meeting was still being arranged.

Aravosis asks the important question about this:

So does Pelosi get credit for the breakthrough in relations, or is Condi a traitor too?

I believe the media needs to ask this question to everyone who attacked Pelosi for her trip. I would start at the White House. Don't forget to ask Cheney if Condi is now exhibiting "bad behavior".

And how is this supposed to work in a "compromise"?

President Bush will not support a war spending bill that punishes the Iraqi government for failing to meet benchmarks for progress, Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice said Sunday.

Rice's comments cast fresh doubt on a potential compromise between the Democratic-led Congress and the White House in getting money to U.S. troops.

Also, with a regional conference on Iraq set to begin Thursday in Egypt, Rice raised the possibility of a rare direct encounter between high-level U.S. and Iranian officials. Foreign Minister Manouchehr Mottaki is expected to lead his country's delegation.

"I will not rule out that we may encounter one another," Rice said. "But what do we need to do? It's quite obvious. Stop the flow of arms to foreign fighters. Stop the flow of foreign fighters across the borders."

Make no mistake about it, Bush wants no compromise. Bush plans on continuing to dictate the conditions of his funding bill. Ironic that our forefathers purposely granted the power of the purse to the Congress to prevent such a dictatorship. If that wasn't the case then Bush would not have to go to Congress for the money - he would have it.

I believe it is time to take a page from the old Republican play book. With Bush acting like a dictator, he is obviously trying to lessen the meaning of our democracy. A democratic nation is a free nation and we were attacked on 9/11 because "they hate our freedoms" (in the world according to Republicans). So why is Bush and his Republicans trying the treasonous act of supporting the mantra of our true enemy - al Qaeda? Maybe Rudy has an answer to that one.

A heads up. Keith will be giving a special comment on Countdown tonight:

Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice urged the Democratic-controlled Congress not to interfere in the conduct of the Iraq war and suggested President Bush would defy troop withdrawal legislation. "I can't imagine a circumstance in which it's a good thing that their flexibility is constrained by people sitting here in Washington, sitting in the Congress," Rice said. "The president is going to, as commander in chief, need to do what the country needs done," she said. http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2007/02/25/AR2007022500357.html

Sec. Rice, when asked about Democratic plans to revise the Iraq authorization, said this:

"It would be like saying that after Adolf Hitler was overthrown, we needed to change then, the resolution that allowed the United States to do that, so that we could deal with creating a stable environment in Europe after he was overthrown."

Keith's SPECIAL COMMENT on her remarks, tonight.

It has been a couple of weeks since we had one. We are over due. Thanks Keith!

But we can hold off on Bush. John Dean said there could very well be grounds for Congress to impeach members of the administration. Bob Fertik at Democrats.com wants to start with Gonzales, but I have my eyes on someone else.

Last year Bob Woodward gave us a chilling look into the administration. In his book, State of Denial, Woodward talks about the months leading up to 9/11 and what wasn't done. I blogged about this back in September:

On July 10, 2001, the book says, Mr. Tenet and his counterterrorism chief, J. Cofer Black, met with Ms. Rice at the White House to impress upon her the seriousness of the intelligence the agency was collecting about an impending attack. But both men came away from the meeting feeling that Ms. Rice had not taken the warnings seriously.

Condi quickly went into denial mode, but that didn't last long as this revelation came out a few weeks later:

Continue reading »