The Black Informant | African American Commentary, News and Community Building

powell….military….pension…done, he’s said as much as he could….i thought he said a lot….if you could truly read between ,,,,,,,(rice has to walk the line and she likes it.)

“powell….military….pension…done”

How does that fit into the definition of a “house servant”?

So far you are proving my point in regards to folks who enjoy the rhetoric versus those who want the truth.

using the definition you chose Powell comes close. I’ll say he did not do it GLADLY, and behind closed doors tried to asert his POV but was basically check at every turn by Rumsfeld. And at the end of the day, in the public eye, he supported whatever decsion of the President. Which is not a bad thing in and of itself but looses points for not resigning when it was clear to everyone that his POV was not taken seriously.

POV- Point of view?

If you are talking about the President’s decision to go to war based on the intelligence, that is something to this very day Powell does support even after resigning. Beyond that, I was not privy to any disagreements between Powell and Rumsfeld.

In any event, how does that qualify Powell as a “house servant”? The bottom line here is that the President (regardless of who it is) does get the last word. Anybody under him either has to get with the program or move on.

When we as blacks use the term “house servant” (or “house nigger”) we are making a direct connection between those who did “sell themselves and their race” out and Rice/Powell. So again, how does the “house servant” tag fit here?

John,

You have been banned from this site.

Wow!! Why all the hostility on this issue? Anyway, I just wanted to say that your point here Duane is definately a good one although I don’t totally agree. But Duane, I must add that as I often read your column, it sometimes seems that you are predisposed to your own opinion on the issues and automatically reject anything to the contrary. This can cause many to lose their cool at times. I love your column, but please keep this in mind.

Thanks D for your readership and input.

Could you please help me out with this one? At what point (what posting) have I rejected an opposing point of view? I do disagree with points of view from issue to issue, but I always allow you the reader to express your viewpoint (which so few do on this site) and provide you with the link to the article in discussion so that you as an individual can make up your own mind.

As for John, he hardly lost his cool. He has been calling me racial epithets for a very long time on a wide range of issues without directly discussing the issue itself. I don’t mind if he or anyone else disagrees with me. All I ask if for some mutual respect. John is the only person (so far) that I had to ban from commenting on this site. Everyone else has been on the up and up.

Again for the record, disagreements are always welcomed on this site. As I spend hours researching the points I make here, I kindly ask that others who disagree with me would at least respect this forum by bringing facts to the table. This site is about getting to the truth of the issues. I or you do not have the time for the back and forth arguments based on unsubstantiated claims and name-calling that you will find on other sites .

Thanks again for your input. I will keep what you said in mind and hopefully in the future if you see it, you will let me know.

Beyond providing the link to articles written by authors I may/may not agree with and having a comment function where you the reader can express your views, I really don’t know what else to do.

Thanks Duane for the opportunity to share my view. I totally resepct both Condoleezaa Rice and Colin Powell, and I know without a doubt that they both have some very outstanding view points on worldly issues. I must say however, that it isn’t realistic to think that many of the viewpoints or statements that they have made were a true reflection of what they really thought. Its no secret that when you are a member of a party, the words and ideas that you express are shared views. In most cases on this level of government, not only shared, but views that have been created specifically to send out a certain message, usually that of the parties leader. No high level executive is giving his or her own personal opinions, that is just not high level government procedure. I just disagree when you say that they are sought after by world leaders for THEIR opinions . I think they may be sought after because of their perception of being HIGH LEVEL OFFICIALS of a LEADING NATION. Im sure that NO one in most ARAB states would even consider seeking out COLIN POWELL or CONDOLEZZAA RICE for their opinion or thoughts for that matter. If that wasn’t the case, I am sure that by now we would have seen one of the two, negotiating in the IRAQ situation. While it is never good to under estimate the value and the skills of our leadership, it is also not fair to realize that they are pawns on a political game board and most of the time they aren’t actually making the the moves, they are being directed, they arent calling the shots, they are executing the very drawn out and well defined set of plays, and they are most certainly not giving their own views or opinions, in most cases, they are merely reading a script that has been well written and very well rehearsed.. thank you

Thanks Cairo for taking the time to share your opinion. I responded to some of what you said below:

I must say however, that it isn’t realistic to think that many of the viewpoints or statements that they have made were a true reflection of what they really thought.

This may be true and I would not doubt it but unless you, me, or anybody else is privy to closed-door disagreements, all we are tossing around is our own assumptions. All we can go by is what these individuals say in public (interviews, press conferences, etc.)

I just disagree when you say that they are sought after by world leaders for THEIR opinions . I think they may be sought after because of their perception of being HIGH LEVEL OFFICIALS of a LEADING NATION. Im sure that NO one in most ARAB states would even consider seeking out COLIN POWELL or CONDOLEZZAA RICE for their opinion or thoughts for that matter.

Let me paste a little bit just on Condi’s experience:

=====

At Stanford University, Rice was an Assistant Professor, Political Science (1981–1987), Associate Professor (1987-1993), Professor of Political Science (1993-July 2000), (see [7]), Senior Fellow of the Institute for International Studies, and a Senior Fellow (by courtesy) of the Hoover Institution. She was a specialist on the former Soviet Union and gave lectures on the subject for the Berkeley-Stanford joint program led by U.C. Berkeley’s George Breslauer in the mid-1980s. She also was an avid reader of Leo Tolstoy and Dostoyevsky, and once told a friend she leaned toward the latter in her world view. She was quietly cerebral, friendly but decorous, and popular among students. They often saw her exercising in the gym. From 1993 to 1999 she served as the Stanford Provost, the chief budget and academic officer of the university. Yet, she managed to maintain friendly contact with various student associations, such as the Venezuelan Student Organization. After departing to enter government service, she returned to Stanford in June 2002 to deliver the commencement address.

Rice is a Fellow of the American Academy of Arts and Sciences and has been awarded honorary doctorates from Morehouse College in 1991, the University of Alabama in 1994, the University of Notre Dame in 1995, the Mississippi College School of Law in 2003, the University of Louisville and Michigan State University in 2004.

Rice has written or collaborated on several books, including Germany Unified and Europe Transformed (1995), The Gorbachev Era (1986), and Uncertain Allegiance: The Soviet Union and the Czechoslovak Army (1984).

Rice has served on the board of directors for the Chevron Corporation, the Charles Schwab Corporation, the William and Flora Hewlett Foundation, Transamerica Corporation, Hewlett Packard, The Carnegie Corporation, The Carnegie Endowment for International Peace, The Rand Corporation, and KQED, public broadcasting for San Francisco.

She was also on the Board of Trustees of the University of Notre Dame, the International Advisory Council of J.P. Morgan, and the San Francisco Symphony Board of Governors.

Chevron honored Rice by naming an oil tanker Condoleezza Rice after her, but controversy led to its being renamed Altair Voyager [8],[9], and [10]

She also headed Chevron’s committee on public policy until she resigned on January 15, 2001, to become National Security Advisor to President George W. Bush.

Rice has also been active in community affairs. She was a founding board member of the Center for a New Generation, an educational support fund for schools in East Palo Alto, California and East Menlo Park, California, and was Vice President of the Boys and Girls Clubs of America of the San Francisco Bay Area.

In addition, her past board service has encompassed such organizations as the National Council for Soviet and East European Studies, and the Mid-Peninsula Urban Coalition.

In 1986, while an international affairs fellow of the Council on Foreign Relations, Rice served as Special Assistant to the Director of the Joint Chiefs of Staff.

From 1989 through March 1991 (the period of the fall of Berlin Wall and the final days of the Soviet Union), she served in the George H. W. Bush Administration as Director, and then Senior Director, of Soviet and East European Affairs in the National Security Council, and a Special Assistant to the President for National Security Affairs. In this position, Rice helped develop Bush’s and Secretary of State James Baker’s policies in favor of German reunification. She so impressed Bush that he introduced her to Soviet leader Mikhail Gorbachev as the one who “tells me everything I know about the Soviet Union.”[11]

In 1989 she served as director for Soviet and East European Affairs at the National Security Council and reported directly to National Security Adviser Brent Scowcroft. In 1990 she became George H. W. Bush’s principal advisor on the Soviet Union. In 1997, she sat on the Federal Advisory Committee on Gender-Integrated Training in the Military.

During George W. Bush’s election campaign in 2000, Rice took a one-year leave of absence from Stanford University to help work as his foreign policy advisor.

=====

Now as far as the Arab states go, I think it is pretty obvious as to why they would not seek out her input on anything–

She is a woman. Women and politics usually don’t mix with middle-eastern countries. As far as the other countries go, I think what I just posted speaks for itself

I would post some of Powell’s experience here, but with a little research, I think you will be able to find that information yourself if interested.

If that wasn’t the case, I am sure that by now we would have seen one of the two, negotiating in the IRAQ situation.

Actually, Rice has been put in charge of the post war operations:

===

Rice will manage Iraq’s ‘new phase’

By Judy Keen, USA TODAY

WASHINGTON — President Bush is giving his national security adviser, Condoleezza Rice, the authority to manage postwar Iraq and the rebuilding of Afghanistan. (more…)

====

As for the remainder of what you said, I again will make the comment that unless you or I are privy to any disagreements between Bush and anyone else in his cabinet, all we are left with are unsubstantiated rumors. All we are left with are the comments she has made herself (same goes for Powell).

On any managerial team (be it government or not), there are always going to be disagreements. Members from time to time have to go along with the program in order to maintain the continuity of the team. Again, this goes on everyday from the stockroom, to the corner office, the big office, white house, you name it. Both Condi and Powell already had a huge strike against them according to many in the black community simply because they are Republicans. To be “Black” and to actually agree with a Republican president (especially on such a sensitive topic as the war in the middle east), these individuals have been largely disowned by the black community. Both of these individuals are on record of disagreeing with the president on some issues, but all and all they agree on many issues–and black America doesn’t like that.

So much for diversity!

Disagreeing with someone on political grounds is one thing. But to tar and feather someone as a sellout, Uncle Tom, house nigger, whatever just on political disagreement is way out of line in my opinion. This is why I am challenging readers to provide evidence that Powell or Rice are “house niggers” (and again, think about what a real house nigger was from a historical standpoint).

Cairo, thanks again for you comment and readership. I am working on something right now that I will post on Monday that will further explain what I am talking about here.

thank you for the healthy forum that you have here. Healthy because it helps us grow. This is my first time visiting your page, but not the last.. GOOD LUCK

Every once and a while you hit the nail right on the head. You’re right on point about Lee, which is kinda sad. What happened to the man? When did he turn into a kook?

Second point: your “Commentary Page” should be your front page. It’s exciting and unique and offers more choices. In fact, I might steal the design..

ricland

first let me state that i support powell and rice and am happy to see blacks in power who are not closely related to democrats or churches…saying that i will share my fiances opinion that Rice could be considered a house servant by your definition because of her defense of the presidents misuse of wire taps through such statements like he did not break a law. while i dont always like to agree with her i can see the argument that her quick defense can be assumed to be like a house sevant taking defence of her master…

i will share my fiances opinion that Rice could be considered a house servant by your definition because of her defense of the presidents misuse of wire taps through such statements like he did not break a law.

Thanks for your input.

What is amazing here is that BEFORE the actual hearings to determine weather or not Bush broke the law, somehow you have arrived at the conclusion that he did in fact broke the law.

A simple word of advice, don’t allow the talking heads out there (including me) draw convincing conclusions out there for you without all the facts.

Bill Clinton, Jimmy Carter did the same exact thing and it wasn’t considered “breaking the law”. If Bush did in fact break the law, let the LEGAL process determine that, not other people’s opinion based on partial facts.

while i dont always like to agree with her i can see the argument that her quick defense can be assumed to be like a house sevant taking defence of her master

Let me ask you something, why use the word “house servant”? Do you use the same description when whites within the presidential cabinet agree with the president?

Condi was both National Security Advisor and is currently Secretary of State. Why is it hard for you to accept the fact that maybe (based on the very nature of her position) she is more privy to the legalities of wiretapping than most of us who rely on what the news tells us? To use the word “quickly” here is very misleading because based on her past and present roles in this administration, don’t you think she would have already know the legalities from the start? It only appeared “quickly” to you because you (like many of us) just heard about this whole situation.

Thanks Edgar for your input

Condi is the Secretary of State – not a judge – nor a paneled jury chosen to select what is breaking the law. There are 3 branches of government for that very reason – legislative to make the laws, executive to carry them out and judicial to interpret the laws. last i checked – the secretary of state was not under the judicial branch of government – therefore her declarative statement that george bush did not break the law met your definition of a house servant.

“One that gladly does the bidding of his/her superiors or establishment even if it is humiliating or demoralizing to ones self image.”

Dr. Rice knew better in light of her education, and scholarly works. To rush to the president’s aid on a matter such as this trivializes everything she stands for and has accomplished. I can’t speak to what Bill Clinton and Jimmy Carter supposedly did. But I don’t remember anyone coming out for them saying that they did not break the law. Quietly that’s something I would expect my mother to say – no not my baby she didn’t break the law . . .

Condi is the Secretary of State – not a judge – nor a paneled jury chosen to select what is breaking the law.

It is not Condi who “allegedly” broke the law, but Bush. Bush can be impeached. If Condi is found to be guilty, legal charges can be brought against her as well. BTW, most of the wiretapping that we know about took place while she was with the NSA.

The role of the NSA is

…responsible for the collection and analysis of foreign communications and for the security of US government communications against similar agencies elsewhere.

This would put her smack dab in the mix of all of this. By the very nature of her position in the NSA (department head), she would have been at least familiar with the wiretapping program. If that is the case, isn’t also safe to assume that she was familiar to what is legal vs. illegal? Again, where is your authority to determine that Bush did in fact broke the law when the results of internal inquiries have not been made public? Again, you are assuming that Bush broke the law.

But I don’t remember anyone coming out for them saying that they did not break the law

Actually many people were pointing in that direction starting with 60 minutes and some of the Sunday morning talk shows (with Clinton). There was also a big dust up when Carter did it as well. Clinton, like Bush is the president of the United States (leader of the free world). That alone is unlimited power including the power to bury key impeachable actions (Warren Berger comes to mind–the guy that stole key documents from a secure area by stuffing them in his pants–documents that could contain information to bring charges against Clinton) Did the media make a big deal about that? Not really. Berger got a slap on the wrist.

Again, I ask you the same questions:

#Do you use the same description when whites within the presidential cabinet agree with the president?

This Meassage is for Mr. Spike Lee. I have always been a big fan of Spike Lee. Spike has always been an idol to me. This is my comment on Spike Lee- Spike continue doing what you do. I think if it wasn’t for Spike Lee a lot of African American’s wouldn’t have had the oppertunity to shine in the movie industry. I love Spike Lee’s work and everything he’s about. Spike has thought me how to be proud and how to stand up as a black man. I just want to thank him for his contribution as not only a black filmmaker, but his understanding of what it’s like to be black living in America. If I had the oppertunity to at lease meet Spike Lee, I would love to tell him that he is my ispiration and that he is the reason I am who I am. I never let anybody talk down on Spike. I started watching spike’s films at an early age. I decovered black talent and was instantly inspired. I wonder if Spike Lee ever quite making films, will we ever know of such a great black man. Thank you spike for everything you ever gave us. I looking forward to meeting you one day. Thank you again- Alonzo Richardson- Your biggest fan