You are here: Journal
   
Get syndicated feeds from our Journal!  Add to Technorati Favorites

Vertical Banner 1

   Minimize

Vertical Banner 2

   Minimize

Enter Title

   Minimize

The Dead Hand Journal

Journal

   Minimize
11

Clinton-era Secretary of State Madeline Albright—you know, the lady who found North Korean psycho-in-chief Kim Jong Il to be "very much on top of his brief"—has favored us with another zinger.

Albright addressed an adoring crowd on 9 Jan at a Georgetown Barnes & Noble, where she was pushing her latest book. The title? Memo to the President Elect: How We Can Restore America's Reputation and Leadership.

Here's the money quote:

This is a purely practical point here, and I think there’s a lot of work to be done. And I think the judgment is that this is one of the worst presidencies we’ve had and people will wonder what it is that the role of the vice president is.

Um. Thanks, Mad.

In a 2003 Time Magazine interview, Albright offered this nugget: "[f]rankly, if there was a President Gore, we wouldn't be in this particular mess. But we are, and we cannot fail. I very much hope there will be a U.N. resolution that makes clear the U.S. has military command but that would set up a U.N. high representative to coordinate the political and humanitarian things the U.N. does very well."

Ah, yes. I can't decide which idea I find more fatuous: that a Secretary of State charged with looking after American interests in the international arena should cede those interests to the U.N... or that she actually believes the United Nations to be competent at something.

I know, I know... if you're still reading, then I'm preaching to the choir. If you're a Georgetown liberal, then you love Maddie and think I'm just so mean. Well, maybe I am... but I'm also telling the truth.

And the truth about Madeline Albright is that she's an incompetent moron.

Post Rating

Comments

argee
# argee
Friday, January 11, 2008 4:30 AM
Why are you so complimentary to this lady?
David Weisman
Monday, January 28, 2008 8:38 AM
I notice your whole post is an attack on her. You neither look at any evidence she may have provided for her claim (if none, that would be worth pointing out!) nor even evaluate the claim based on the evidence yourself.
jscroft
# jscroft
Monday, January 28, 2008 9:50 AM
Albright's claim regarding the Bush presidency is ridiculous on its face. The ONLY way to arrive at her conclusion—that the Bush presidency is the worst ever—is to accept a whole host of premises that are (a) annoyingly common even in the mainstream Left and (b) flat-out wrong.

Albright has nothing new to say. She makes no assertion that hasn't been made a million times before... and, had you been paying attention, you would have seen most of those addressed numerous times on TDH.

You're right about one thing, though... this post WAS a personal attack. Based on evidence. Which I provided... some, anyway. Or must our evaluation of Albright ignore both her monumental lapses of judgment with respect to North Korea AND her tiresome support of United Nations policies that directly contravene the interests of the nation whose interests she swore to defend?

Here's an exercise for you: name one of Albright's successes. Just one. Give us ONE reason to have anything but contempt for a Secretary of State who could not have been a more abysmal failure had she actually been in the pay of a hostile foreign power.

Better bring lunch.
David Weisman
Tuesday, January 29, 2008 4:27 AM
The way you talk about the only way she could have arrived at her conclusion makes it sound like you didn't read the way she did arrive at it before posting about it, which would be amusing, don't you think?

She wasn't so hot. I think she got Boutros Boutros-Ghali replaced largely because Dole found the name easy to remember and talked about it constantly. She did what she was told - about average as far as I know.
jscroft
# jscroft
Tuesday, January 29, 2008 4:56 AM
I'm going to assume that you mean "amusing" in that particular GOTCHA fashion we reserve for people who comment about books they haven't read, right?

Sure, why not. Of course, as long as we're being very clear about our premises, here's another one: your amusement must also be predicated on the oh-so-common liberal assumption that no thing could possibly be related to anything else... at least not if it sheds a negative light on a nutty liberal idea.

Thus, we must extol the virtues of urban planning while carefully avoiding the demonstrable fact that the problems it purports to solve were all caused by... urban planning! We must take great care to limit our CO2 emissions, despite the fact that it's been conclusively demonstrated that global warming causes a rise in CO2 levels, not the other way around.

And, of course, we couldn't possibly operate under the assumption that the ideas in Albright's most recent tome are the same ones she has consistently espoused throughout her entire, lackluster career. That WOULD be amusing, wouldn't it?
argee
# argee
Wednesday, January 30, 2008 5:40 AM
Here is David's full comment:

I would have to study urban planning before commenting on it. Until then, I won't insist he extol it. Why would I? Nah, on second thought it might be fun to watch. Extol you must, as you say.

Did you say it's been conclusively proven a rise in CO2 levels did not cause global warming? I'd like to know where. I saw some research indicating temperatures had often risen in past eras before CO2 started to rise. It didn't purport to prove CO2 didn't and wouldn't cause global warming, but only that global warming from other sources often started the initial CO2 increase. You must have seen some different research than I.

Well, it's reasonably likely that Madeline Albright espouses the same ideas she has expoused previously, though it doesn't always happen. Myself I prefer to read books before commenting on them. At any rate I will try to read most of your blog posts before commenting on them. In case it turns out the ideas are pretty much the same as you've been espousing through your blogging career, I hope you'll at least bring out some of the wit you used against Mr. Torgerson on occasion, so there need be none of the accusations of lackluster you level against the hapless Albright.
David Weisman
Wednesday, January 30, 2008 12:17 PM
http://theartofpeace.blogspot.com/2008/01/i-had-remarkable-dialog.html

My reply is a tiny bit long for your comment section, since you bring up so many subjects.

Post Comment

Only registered users may post comments.

Most Popular Articles

   Minimize
Cool Windows Resource Kit Utility: cleanspl.exe by Jason Williscroft (Tuesday, February 6, 2007)
v: 43842 | c: 5 Article Rating
They say things are big in Texas, but... by Robert Williscroft (Wednesday, March 7, 2007)
v: 27566 | c: 1 Article Rating
Sweet vindication – It really is climate cooling! by Robert Williscroft (Thursday, January 3, 2008)
v: 22345 | c: 11 Article Rating
E-Bomb: The Ultimate Terrorist Weapon by Robert Williscroft (Thursday, December 28, 2006)
v: 20915 | c: 5 Article Rating
Global Warming Deniers – Part 1 – Statistics needed by Robert Williscroft (Wednesday, February 7, 2007)
v: 16793 | c: 9 Article Rating

CLA

   Minimize
The Chicken Little Agenda: Debunking "Experts’" Lies

Block 1

   Minimize

Block 2

   Minimize