Politics | 03/25/2009 2:45 pm
Condoleezza Rice Joins Bush in Rejecting Obama Criticism (Video)
NBC
The Bush administration appears split on Barack Obama.
Dick Cheney, of course, knows where he stands: He thinks the new president is hurting our national security. His old boss, George W. Bush, may or may not disagree, but he’s keeping mum — the former president said this month that he won’t publicly criticize the new commander in chief. And Condoleezza Rice is siding with Dubya.
Appearing on "The Tonight Show" last night, Ms. Rice told Jay Leno she has no interest in slinging mud at Obama. In fact, she’s obviously quite confident in his administration’s abilities. Or thinks highly of the group, at least.
And I agree with the president. We owe them our loyalty and our silence while they do it. Because I know what it’s like to have people chirping at you when they perhaps don’t know what’s going on inside. These are quality people. I know them. They love the country. And they won’t make the same decisions, perhaps, that we did. But I believe they’ll do what they think is best for the country and I’ll give my advice privately and keep it to myself.
We take it Cheney won’t be calling Rice for help in the near future.
Watch:
- Interview With an Angel: Anne Rice Catches Up With wOw
- Caption This!
- Mr. wOw: Falling in Love Again With 'Marlene'
- Liz Smith Confesses – Her Night of 'Broken Embraces'
- Should Americans with the higher health-risk profile of obesity pay higher premiums for health insurance?
- Whoopi Goldberg Gets Realistic About Health Care
- Announcing the Winner of Our 'Caption This' Contest
- Breadwinners in Burqas, by Gayle Tzemach Lemmon
- Liz Smith: Let's Get Educated
- Joan Juliet Buck Solves the Health-Care Issue
- Mr. wOw: Falling in Love Again With 'Marlene'
- Whoopi Goldberg Gets Realistic About Health Care
- Liz Smith Confesses – Her Night of 'Broken Embraces'
- Interview With an Angel: Anne Rice Catches Up With wOw
- Caption This!
- Liz Smith: Let's Get Educated
- Announcing the Winner of Our 'Caption This' Contest
- Joan Juliet Buck Solves the Health-Care Issue
- Should Americans with the higher health-risk profile of obesity pay higher premiums for health insurance?
- Breadwinners in Burqas, by Gayle Tzemach Lemmon
- Caption This!
- Whoopi Goldberg Gets Realistic About Health Care
- Should Americans with the higher health-risk profile of obesity pay higher premiums for health insurance?
- Mr. wOw: Falling in Love Again With 'Marlene'
- Interview With an Angel: Anne Rice Catches Up With wOw
- Liz Smith: Let's Get Educated
- Announcing the Winner of Our 'Caption This' Contest
- Joan Juliet Buck Solves the Health-Care Issue
- Breadwinners in Burqas, by Gayle Tzemach Lemmon
- Liz Smith Confesses – Her Night of 'Broken Embraces'
wOw Features
Reader Voices
Caption This!
Dear Margo: When Dad/Gramps Just Ain't Interested
54 Reader Comments (so far…) Sign In or Register to comment
I always thought Condi was the classiest person in politics since the Reagan administration, besides the fact that she’s brilliant. Can’t wait to get her books.
What sense does that make….Bush is not the new President? He has talked about Bush during the campaign and even now he may mention him occasionally and that is within his rights when he has to deal with the inherited stuff left by Bush. Totally different to making remarks about a brand new President.
Oh, I see. Bush and Condi follow the implied rules of protocol and respectfully decline to comment on Obama and they are doing the "right thing" but Obama trashing and insulting Bush every chance he gets is fine—he doesn’t have to do the "right" thing. It is rather unseemly for Obama to engage in this behavior—he isn’t campaigning anymore and should show Bush more respect, especially now that he is President himself, he should show the office and whoever occupied it the reverence it deserves. Not only did the Bushes not criticize the presidents that followed them into office, they didn’t criticize their predecessors either. In fact, GW showed the Clintons an enormous amount of respect—much more than they deserved.
Perhaps Condi and Bush see the "forest without the trees." And, they are sitting back watching Obama’s socialist background unfold. It may be as simple as that. I read something recently from a poster on another site that I visit every day and found this comment of particular interest in light of the "change" going forth today:
"The Leninists have succeeded because they have incredible patience, extending across generations. Lenin’s original plan was to undermine the West by taking over education and entertainment, because they typically control what the next generation thinks. In this, he has been enormously successful, even though his actual empire has fallen into ruin.
I don’t think Obama’s "plan" is limited to such trivia as nationalizing the financial industry. I think he wants (in his heart of hearts) to destroy the free market. He basically has no interest in rescuing anybody. He may also be hoping that some sort of socialist utopia will rise from the ashes, but that comes second. You have to destroy before you can rebuild."
Patience and a vision for America….unlike any President before him. "Hope and Change" might mean something entirely different to Obama and perhaps George Bush and Condi Rice are reserving their comments for a reason.
In addition:
Perhaps George Bush and Condi Rice feel that Obama’s vision for America is not limited to merely the banks and the medical industry. And, it looks like he’s building up his own branch of law enforcement and "military" to enforce his Plan against dissent.
Other indicators to watch for, the quashing of dissent via the media, including the blogosphere.
I am not surprised that Bush and Rice are reserving comment at this time. They know what socialism looks like. Perhaps they are waiting for Americans to react against these changes in the guise of "hope and change."
So, "anyone can talk about any President whey they have been in power for years"—but apparently you can’t make comments when the President is "new"—you make up arbitrary rules and apply them where you like—too bad no one followed those "rules" when GW’s Presidency was "new".
It’s all about class and integrity—there used to be unspoken rules that ex-presidents followed—sort of like a courtesy. Carter ended that practice and smashed it to bits. Look, anyone, even ex-pres can say anything they like—it’s more about class, honor and integrity. Like I said, GW NEVER criticized Clinton while he (GW) was president. Never. He never blamed Clinton for any of the problems he inherited, even the "tech bubble" recession, which was Clinton’s fault. Clinton blamed HW Bush for some of the problems he (Clinton) had to deal with when he was "new" to the office. Obama is doing the same thing—why doesn’t he show some real leadership and stop passing the buck. Obama and Clinton have no class and show clearly that they do not know how to be "presidential". What can you possibly come up with to excuse their behavior? Both Bushes are head and shoulders above these two in the integrity department.
He is not passing any buck but when you were left a complete mess by the previous President you have very right to speak up and make it clear it’s not your making it has been inherited. Of course they have no class to you and I understand that because I assume you are hard core Rep and the Bush family is solid gold to you. You had your fav family in power for the past 8 years and now they are gone and not before time I may add and we have now have ours in power and more than happy with them.
If he is blaming Bush for his present circumstances, yes, he is "passing the buck". I thought he wanted to be President, solve all our problems—then stop whining and complaining and criticizing Bush and take responsibility. Instead of blaming Clinton for the tech bubble and lack of due diligence pre-9/11—Bush made decisions to solve problems. Without proper data and information, assumptions are meaningless and reveal a lack of critical thought, but I notice you rely on that "tactic" often.