Rice refers to dictator as "Good Friend"

Sam · #11 (**permalink**) 04-04-2007, 11:24 PM

I think it sounds like you Dom . I do not think it is you because I do not think you are afraid to post. It does not matter. I will answer unregistereds if I think they are serious.

Dom1 · #12 (**permalink**) 04-04-2007, 11:28 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Sam

Well it is interesting you agree with our current unregistered poster. I posted this not because of Pelosi but because I think it mirrors our beginning with Saddam. "Nunya" brought Pelosi into it. If I wanted to compare to pelosi I would have put it on the pelosi thread. I think rice should visit every dictator in the world but I hope she would not refer to them as a "Good Friend".

I didn't agree with the poster. Read below, it is highlighted. I specifically said that they were wrong on this because the article could not have been written in response ot Pelosi's visit because it was written a year ago.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Dom1

The article said that Condoleeza Rice called him a good friend, but then when they quoted her it does not show she said that. Her language seems to be language that diplomats use when meeting with foreign leaders. Truth is, nobody knows what they talk about, and this article is a year old, so nunya is wrong there, it wasn't written in response to Pelosi's visit to Syria. But I think it was posted on this forum in response to her visit.

The bold shows where I not only did not agree, but that I disagreed.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Sam

Here is a paragraph from the Washington Post link and it was on all the cable the news stations.

So reporters were alerted to stand by at the Obiang meeting. Rice appeared with our pal Obiang, even called him "a good friend," then said she would take "one question" from reporters. Of course that question would be about Iran, giving Rice the opening to take a whack at Tehran.
And Obiang certainly went home happy.

I looked at your link and none of this was on there. The source you linked didn't quote Rice calling him a good friend. Again, it is diplomat talk and not even the Washington Post knows what is being discussed at these meetings.

Maybe you are referring to another link other than the one you posted. It has her quoted as saying, "I am very pleased to welcome the president. Thank you very much for your presence here." Not that it matters anyway as that is the way diplomats, even adverserial ones, would speak when confronted with each other.

Sam · #13 (**permalink**) 04-04-2007, 11:38 PM

The Washington Post link quotes her. I copied the paragraph and it shows the quotes. The White House would be on them immediately for a retraction if they were wrong. They are under tight scrutiny with everything they print.

Okay You are right ...you did not actually agree with Nunya. You thought I posted this because of Pelosi in Syria. No I posted with thoughts of our beginning relationship with Saddam. Hmmm I think Good friend is a bit much when White House policy is so rigid on dialogue! So some bad guys we do not talk to even when the ISG says it would help... and some we call a good friend. You have an interesting take on Bush/Cheney foreign policy.

Hey Nunya...is this you? http://www.knuckup.com/httpdocs/index.php

crowonapost · #14 (**permalink**) 04-04-2007, 11:42 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Dom1

I didn't agree with the poster. Read below, it is highlighted. I specifically said that they were wrong on this because the article could not have been written in response ot Pelosi's visit because it was written a year ago.

The bold shows where I not only did not agree, but that I disagreed.

I looked at your link and none of this was on there. The source you linked didn't quote Rice calling him a good friend. Again, it is diplomat talk and not even the Washington Post knows what is being discussed at these meetings.

Maybe you are referring to another link other than the one you posted. It has her quoted as saying, "I am very pleased to welcome the president. Thank you very much for your presence here." Not that it matters anyway as that is the way diplomats, even adverserial ones, would speak when confronted with each other.

Dude I read the same thing Sam did. Highlight the end of the sentence that plainly posits a rational reading of Sams response to the Pelosi 'thing'

I'll put it in bold for ya, But I think it was posted on this forum in response to her visit.

What ever ya dork.

Sam · #15 (**permalink**) 04-04-2007, 11:45 PM

He kind of intertwined the responce...oh well

Still Dizzy · #16 (**permalink**) 04-05-2007, 03:45 AM

If a "Human Rights Official" has bad things to say about you, you are probably a pretty good SOB.

Dom1 · #17 (**permalink**) 04-05-2007, 07:00 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by crowonapost

Dude I read the same thing Sam did. Highlight the end of the sentence that plainly posits a rational reading of Sams response to the Pelosi 'thing'

I'll put it in bold for ya, But I think it was posted on this forum in response to her visit.

What ever ya dork.

Nunya gave a reason why the authors of the article wrote the article . . . I am saying something totally different. As one of our fellow posters would say . . . Lookagain.

Dom1 · #18 (**permalink**) 04-05-2007, 07:06 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Sam

The Washington Post link quotes her. I copied the paragraph and it shows the quotes. The White House would be on them immediately for a retraction if they were wrong. They are under tight scrutiny with everything they print.

Okay You are right ...you did not actually agree with Nunya. You thought I posted this because of Pelosi in Syria. No I posted with thoughts of our beginning relationship with Saddam. Hmmm I think Good friend is a bit much when White House policy is so rigid on dialogue! So some bad guys we do not talk to even when the ISG says it would help... and some we call a good friend. You have an interesting take on Bush/Cheney foreign policy.

Hey Nunya...is this you? http://www.knuckup.com/httpdocs/index.php

Sam, do you really think that diplomats talk to each other the way we do on this forum. If you do then you indeed have a very naive view of how they interact with each other.

Like I said, the link you provided says none of this. The paragraph you copied is not in the link.

Here is the link you gave.

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn...701368_pf.html

Here is what you say comes from this article.

Rice refers to dictator as "Good Friend"

It isn't there Sam. Like I said, maybe you did get it somewhere, but it isn't on any link you provided and the link you provided gave quotes from Rice and I already posted what those were. They weren't anything that anyone could be upset with, unless they are just wanting to look for something to attack the other party with.

TheHarshTruth · #19 (**permalink**) 04-05-2007, 07:25 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Dom1

Sam, do you really think that diplomats talk to each other the way we do on this forum. If you do then you indeed have a very naive view of how they interact with each other.

Like I said, the link you provided says none of this. The paragraph you copied is not in the link.

Here is the link you gave.

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn...701368_pf.html

Here is what you say comes from this article.

Rice refers to dictator as "Good Friend"

It isn't there Sam. Like I said, maybe you did get it somewhere, but it isn't on any link you provided and the link you provided gave quotes from Rice and I already posted what those were. They weren't anything that anyone could be upset with, unless they are just wanting to look for something to attack the other party with.

Let me help here Dom. From the U.S.State Department minutes you can clearly read she calls him a "good friend":

Quote:

Remarks With Equatorial Guinean President Teodoro Obiang Nguema Mbasogo Before Their Meeting

Secretary Condoleezza Rice
Washington, DC
April 12, 2006(10:00 a.m. EST)
SECRETARY RICE: Good morning. Welcome. I'm very pleased to welcome the President of Equatorial Guinea, President Obiang. We will have a full set of discussions about our bilateral relationship, about some innovative social programs that USAID is involved with and about the range of regional issues that we both confront. So thank you very much for your presence here. You are a good friend and we welcome you.

PRESIDENT OBIANG: (Via interpreter) I thank you so much. We have extremely good relations with the United States. Our country has had good relations with the United States for a very long time and my visit here is simply in order to consolidate and also to establish further ties of cooperation with your country. Yesterday, in fact, we signed a very important agreement with USAID, an agreement for the development of Equatorial Guinea which will be helped with financing from the United States for social programs in our country so that our people may enjoy greater prosperity and are able to combat poverty.

Therefore, we are extremely pleased and hopeful that this relationship will continue to grow in friendship and cooperation, and I thank you very much.

SECRETARY RICE: One question. Yes, sir.

QUESTION: Madame Secretary, Iran has begun its enrichment of uranium. Is it time to take stronger action against Tehran and have they crossed a red line and should the UN Security Council now impose financial or other sanctions? Should there be an emergency meeting?

SECRETARY RICE: Let me remind everyone that the international community made a very clear statement through the presidential statement that was adopted by the Security Council and that that statement required Iran to live up to the obligations that were to be imposed upon it by the IAEA from its February board meeting. That meant that Iran was to suspend its enrichment activities and it was to return to negotiations, and this was a clear indication that the world is very concerned about the course of nuclear developments in Iran. This is not a question of Iran's right to civil nuclear power. This is a question of that the world does not believe that Iran should have the capability and the technology that could lead to a nuclear weapon. Iran has a long period trying to reestablish confidence with the international system given its behavior.

Now, this latest announcement yesterday by the Iranian regime is just a step that is going to further isolate Iran. It demonstrates that Iran is not adhering to the international community's requirements. And I do think that the Security Council will need to take into consideration this move by Iran and that it will be time when it reconvenes on this case for strong steps to make certain that we maintain the credibility of the international community on this issue.

Iran has been offered many opportunities to negotiate in good faith -- by the Europeans, by the Russians. They've never taken those opportunities. They are -- we've had a presidential statement that made numerous -- that reinforced those requirements. The Iranians did not react to that. And so yes, when we -- we're consulting now and when the Security Council reconvenes, I think it will be time for action.

QUESTION: Madame Secretary, we have experts saying that as ominous as this may be, there's a lot, very, very much more, that Iran has to accomplish in order to pose a nuclear threat. They haven't got the equipment. They have -- there are all sorts -- they don't have the same -- they don't have a reactor. Is it -- should Americans be alarmed or alert, or what?

SECRETARY RICE: We are going to be steady in our diplomatic track here because we believe that a concerted and coherent diplomatic policy that the world is behind will convince the Iranians that they have to come back into compliance with what the international community is demanding of them. But there are demands on the table and the Iranians need to accede to those demands. This is also, as I said, an issue for the Security Council that issued this presidential statement and so we're consulting with our allies about what the next steps need to be. But there's no doubt in my mind that if the Iranians continue down this course there has to be some course of action by the Security Council.

Thank you very much.
2006/367

http://www.state.gov/secretary/rm/2006/64434.htm

Perhaps she's looking for a husband that she'll get along with?

Dom1 · #20 (**permalink**) 04-05-2007, 08:38 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by TheHarshTruth

Let me help here Dom. From the U.S.State Department minutes you can clearly read she calls him a "good friend":
http://www.state.gov/secretary/rm/2006/64434.htm

Perhaps she's looking for a husband that she'll get along with?

I never claimed that it wasn't said, what I claimed was that it wasn't in that link and I wanted to see what and how she actually said it and the article provided neither.

That being said, it was talk between diplomats. Just like I am sure almost every American diplomat who ever had kind words to say in the media about Arafat were lying through their teeth.

It is a non-issue, but if it makes you feel better then run with it.

I just noticed that the Washington Post quotes are slightly different than the State Department transcript provided. They say basically the same thing but doesn't the newspaper have a responsibility to get the quotes exactly right when they put her words in quotes?