Not at Albright - Tilted Forum Project Discussion Community

j8ear · 09-19-2003, 06:26 PM

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
Thursday , September 18, 2003
By Julia Gorin
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
"If anyone here is a spy, please raise your hand."--Secretary of State Madeleine Albright, when it was discovered that lax security left the State Department crawling with spies posing as journalists.

"I must say the Foreign Minister was very nice....We had not spoken to each other. He did tell me, however, that I looked younger this year."--Former Secretary of State Madeleine Albright in July 2000, on Foreign Minister Paek Nam-sun of North Korea.

"Feeling maternal is a natural instinct. And I actually think the blend [between hard and soft] worked pretty well. I have to say I love being a woman and I use everything I have. So if I was with a foreign minister, I'd use charm when I could, disarm him a little bit with that, and then let him know what I thought."--Former Secretary of State Madeleine Albright in an interview with Canada's The Globe and Mail in April, 2002.

She has a 512-page autobiography now. She wasn't too modest or creative to title it "Madam Secretary," what her sycophants titled her. And she credits her womanhood for Condoleezza Rice's (search) ascendance.

The book is likely aimed at filling the void of accomplishment of her era, just as the speeches and interviews she gives are, wherein she criticizes abler leaders. In a Time Magazine interview this week, every one of her answers naturally has a criticism of Bush's Iraq policy--despite the fact that Americans still aren't sure what happened in Kosovo. (search) As her old mentor Dean Peter Krogh (search) at Georgetown's School of Foreign Service said when she was in office, one cannot "recall a time when our foreign policy was in less competent hands."

Albright was catapulted to power by a combination of talent for influencing people and a rock-hard determination to not let "the boys win out," as she called it. The latter in particular resonated with women, who habitually credit Albright for having penetrated a man's world amid intimidating obstacles. Unfortunately, women often mistake this kind of ambition in a woman for a virtue, their logic being: "There are enough men in positions of power screwing up the world; it's time to give a woman a chance!"

In April of last year, Albright told Canada's The Globe and Mail that she considers being a woman an advantage in foreign affairs: "I think women are better listeners and we can relate better on a personal basis, which ultimately makes a big difference in high-level, international relations."

While campaigning for Walter Mondale (search) in 1984, she "clung to the hope that hordes of angry female voters would make the decisive difference by casting their votes for the Ferraro-Mondale ticket," as Washington Post reporter Michael Dobbs wrote in his 1999 biography of the first woman secretary. "It was the soccer mom (search) theory of American politics 10 years before it became fashionable."

For all the obsessive touting she does of her gender, still unable to get over herself as the first female secretary of state even after flunking the job, this is one Woman who should have aimed lower in life.

Albright has been called "tough" on issues, an "outspoken woman who tells it like it is." Unfortunately, she had a knack for being tough on the wrong issues and a flair for telling it like it isn't. Even after it wasn't. In her time, the woman gave a whole new meaning to the term counter-intelligence.

Albright served as congressional liaison for former National Security Adviser Zbigniew Brzezinski (search), her boss in the Carter White House. As Dobbs describes, while Brzezinski "welcomed her advice on how to deal with Congress, her foreign policy views were of little interest to him or to anyone else....Anyone trying to pick future secretaries of state from the NSC staff would likely have put Madeleine at the bottom of the list...she had no particular area of expertise."

Nor could Brzezinski, recalling her days as a student in his graduate seminar on comparative communism at Columbia University, describe her as a "special" student. "If she stood out," Dobbs writes, "it was because of her East European background" and her father's connection to Brzezinski through the academic circuit. "All of that created more contact than would otherwise have been the case," Brzezinski admitted.

About Albright's unremarkable 413-page dissertation, Dobbs writes: "Her dissertation has little distinction from the thousands of other worthy tomes filed away and forgotten in the stacks of Columbia University. Replete with dozens of pages of footnotes and a lengthy bibliography, it is a model of academic gruntwork, with few flashes of originality or brilliance."

Yet the fanfare for her from the women's movement-- from its panderers in the press, and from the sector of the public that buys into it-- was immediate and long-lasting. It all stands in stark contrast to the comparatively mute reception that the current administration's diverse appointments got. One is left waiting for the Democrats to do their usual fixating on color and gender, and credit the Bush administration at least for appointing to his cabinet a Hispanic, two blacks, three women (one of whom is an Asian that replaced a Hispanic) and an Arab--and to senior officialdom a black woman, a Hispanic and a Jew.

For the most part, the Diversity Party has been dismissive. Because the only diversity that counts is diversity for diversity's sake. Bush's appointments are less interesting because his choices are actually qualified. And if a member of a protected class is actually qualified, he loses his protection.

The Democratic Party's fixation on race and gender explains why black Supreme Court justices can't be conservative, why Hispanic parents should not want their kids to learn English, and why members of both hues should all think alike. It explains how you get Gray Davis supporters shouting "He's a for'ner!" about an immigrant candidate, and how you get the Democratic governor responding that if you can't pronounce the word "California," you shouldn't be governor. It's also how you get the Democratic Party of Minnesota discouraging black Minnesota Supreme Court Associate Justice Alan Paige (search) from running to fill the late Paul Wellstone's (search) Senate seat in last November's elections.

"What did being a woman mean to your term as Secretary of State?" the Time interview asks Albright.

While such questions are not beneath Albright to indulge, they're not relevant. It's the difference between a platform of inclusion and a platform of substance, which is inclusive by happenstance of the country's physical makeup.

That's why when you employ a merit-based system, you get Condoleezza Rice. And when you employ affirmative action (search), you get Madeleine Albright.

Julia Gorin is the author of the newly released "The Buddy Chronicles," available through Bruiserbooks.com, and a contributing editor to JewishWorldReview.com.
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

I saw Albright last night on the NewsHour with Jim Lehrer and wondered to myself, what the heck is she doing there? She's history, not news. I never got quite as venomous of a take on her as this author, but never found her all that particularly effective either.

What do you folks think? Julia Gorin has quite an obvious position on alot of things, and this editorial touches on alot of different topics.

To present all the facts, I did find this published here:
http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,97735,00.html

-b

The_Dude · 09-19-2003, 06:29 PM

i think she has accoplished a lot of great things in the past. i've always admired her.

seretogis · 09-19-2003, 07:16 PM

Quote:

Originally posted by The_Dude
i think she has accoplished a lot of great things in the past. i've always admired her.

Such as?

The_Dude · 09-19-2003, 07:31 PM

Quote:

Originally posted by seretogis
Such as?

being secretary of state

seretogis · 09-19-2003, 08:16 PM

Quote:

Originally posted by The_Dude
being secretary of state

Acquiring a title, alone, should not be something that is worthy of your admiration. Do you admire GWB for being President? I bet not.

The_Dude · 09-19-2003, 08:22 PM

Quote:

Originally posted by seretogis
Acquiring a title, alone, should not be something that is worthy of your admiration. Do you admire GWB for being President? I bet not.

No, definately not!

But, she was the 1st woman secretary of state in US history (and only god knows when we'll have another one if the republicans control the white house

).

she's a precedent setter.

Macheath · 09-19-2003, 08:39 PM

This trashing is stupid and Gorin seems like an idiot. Being Secretary of State ain't like winning the Superbowl, it's a job of mixed fortunes.

Madeline Albright:

pro - Kosovo

con - Korean negotiations

Colin Powell:

pro - China spy plane standoff

con - Security Council approval on Iraq

Henry Kissinger:

pro - recognition of China

con - Bombing of Cambodia

Just because she didn't get her own photo op landing on an aircraft carrier doesn't make her a failure. Unless, that is, Julia Gorin would like to incontrovertibly prove her incompetence in a 400 page peer reviewed international relations thesis. Or she could just keep on blah, blah, blahing about feminism and diversity.

And if you want to know whether Albright has anything useful to contribute to the Iraq debate...judge for yourself:

http://www.foreignaffairs.org/200309...r-bluster.html

j8ear · 09-19-2003, 10:10 PM

Quote:

Originally posted by The_Dude
she's a precedent setter.

I hope not. Seems like if she were another female SecState would never again even be considered.

She used 'what she had' to get the job done? That's just peculiar. Do what you must, but always keep it close to the vest and don't gloat about your shortcomings.

When some espouses something to this effect, they loose significant credibility with me on all fronts:

"There are only two powers now in the world. One is America, which is tyrannical and oppressive. The other is a warrior who has not yet been awakened from his slumber and that warrior is Islam."

from macheath's link here: http://www.foreignaffairs.org/200309...r-bluster.html

Yikes. I specifically concentrated on the tyrannical and oppresive portion.

Quote:

Originally posted by Macheath
Or she could just keep on blah, blah, blahing about feminism and diversity.

I found this paragraph of blah, blah, blahing rather interesting:
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
The Democratic Party's fixation on race and gender explains why black Supreme Court justices can't be conservative, why Hispanic parents should not want their kids to learn English, and why members of both hues should all think alike. It explains how you get Gray Davis supporters shouting "He's a for'ner!" about an immigrant candidate, and how you get the Democratic governor responding that if you can't pronounce the word "California," you shouldn't be governor. It's also how you get the Democratic Party of Minnesota discouraging black Minnesota Supreme Court Associate Justice Alan Paige (search) from running to fill the late Paul Wellstone's (search) Senate seat in last November's elections.
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
This snipet too:
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
Bush Administration... for appointing to his cabinet a Hispanic, two blacks, three women (one of whom is an Asian that replaced a Hispanic) and an Arab--and to senior officialdom a black woman, a Hispanic and a Jew.
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
Although im bothered that this only mentions race. Well two religions too...but both are races as well.

Macheath · 09-19-2003, 10:46 PM

Quote:

Originally posted by j8ear

When some espouses something to this effect, they loose significant credibility with me on all fronts:

"There are only two powers now in the world. One is America, which is tyrannical and oppressive. The other is a warrior who has not yet been awakened from his slumber and that warrior is Islam."

from macheath's link here: http://www.foreignaffairs.org/200309...r-bluster.html

Yikes. I specifically concentrated on the tyrannical and oppresive portion.

Damn, read it again; CLOSELY this time. Not even in the wildest interpretation did she espouse such a position:

Quoted, in CONTEXT this time, sheesh.

Quote:

Every nation, in every region, now has a decision to make. Either you are with us, or you are with the terrorists.

There are only two powers now in the world. One is America, which is tyrannical and oppressive. The other is a warrior who has not yet been awakened from his slumber and that warrior is Islam.

Make no mistake about it: the choice for sure is between two visions of the world.

Few readers will fail to identify the first quotation cited above: it was uttered by President George W. Bush, speaking soon after the September 11, 2001, terrorist attacks. Few readers, similarly, will be surprised to learn that the second quote came from a Sunni Muslim cleric in Baghdad, Imam Mouaid al-Ubaidi. The third quote, however, may be a bit harder to identify: it was spoken by French Foreign Minister Dominique de Villepin, describing the different world views now held by Washington and Paris.

j8ear · 09-20-2003, 06:34 AM

schooled...

09-19-2003, 06:26 PM	#1 (permalink)
j8ear Gentlemen Farmer Location: Middle of nowhere, Jersey	Not at Albright ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ Thursday , September 18, 2003 By Julia Gorin ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ "If anyone here is a spy, please raise your hand."--Secretary of State Madeleine Albright, when it was discovered that lax security left the State Department crawling with spies posing as journalists. "I must say the Foreign Minister was very nice....We had not spoken to each other. He did tell me, however, that I looked younger this year."--Former Secretary of State Madeleine Albright in July 2000, on Foreign Minister Paek Nam-sun of North Korea. "Feeling maternal is a natural instinct. And I actually think the blend [between hard and soft] worked pretty well. I have to say I love being a woman and I use everything I have. So if I was with a foreign minister, I'd use charm when I could, disarm him a little bit with that, and then let him know what I thought."--Former Secretary of State Madeleine Albright in an interview with Canada's The Globe and Mail in April, 2002. She has a 512-page autobiography now. She wasn't too modest or creative to title it "Madam Secretary," what her sycophants titled her. And she credits her womanhood for Condoleezza Rice's (search) ascendance. The book is likely aimed at filling the void of accomplishment of her era, just as the speeches and interviews she gives are, wherein she criticizes abler leaders. In a Time Magazine interview this week, every one of her answers naturally has a criticism of Bush's Iraq policy--despite the fact that Americans still aren't sure what happened in Kosovo. (search) As her old mentor Dean Peter Krogh (search) at Georgetown's School of Foreign Service said when she was in office, one cannot "recall a time when our foreign policy was in less competent hands." Albright was catapulted to power by a combination of talent for influencing people and a rock-hard determination to not let "the boys win out," as she called it. The latter in particular resonated with women, who habitually credit Albright for having penetrated a man's world amid intimidating obstacles. Unfortunately, women often mistake this kind of ambition in a woman for a virtue, their logic being: "There are enough men in positions of power screwing up the world; it's time to give a woman a chance!" In April of last year, Albright told Canada's The Globe and Mail that she considers being a woman an advantage in foreign affairs: "I think women are better listeners and we can relate better on a personal basis, which ultimately makes a big difference in high-level, international relations." While campaigning for Walter Mondale (search) in 1984, she "clung to the hope that hordes of angry female voters would make the decisive difference by casting their votes for the Ferraro-Mondale ticket," as Washington Post reporter Michael Dobbs wrote in his 1999 biography of the first woman secretary. "It was the soccer mom (search) theory of American politics 10 years before it became fashionable." For all the obsessive touting she does of her gender, still unable to get over herself as the first female secretary of state even after flunking the job, this is one Woman who should have aimed lower in life. Albright has been called "tough" on issues, an "outspoken woman who tells it like it is." Unfortunately, she had a knack for being tough on the wrong issues and a flair for telling it like it isn't. Even after it wasn't. In her time, the woman gave a whole new meaning to the term counter-intelligence. Albright served as congressional liaison for former National Security Adviser Zbigniew Brzezinski (search), her boss in the Carter White House. As Dobbs describes, while Brzezinski "welcomed her advice on how to deal with Congress, her foreign policy views were of little interest to him or to anyone else....Anyone trying to pick future secretaries of state from the NSC staff would likely have put Madeleine at the bottom of the list...she had no particular area of expertise." Nor could Brzezinski, recalling her days as a student in his graduate seminar on comparative communism at Columbia University, describe her as a "special" student. "If she stood out," Dobbs writes, "it was because of her East European background" and her father's connection to Brzezinski through the academic circuit. "All of that created more contact than would otherwise have been the case," Brzezinski admitted. About Albright's unremarkable 413-page dissertation, Dobbs writes: "Her dissertation has little distinction from the thousands of other worthy tomes filed away and forgotten in the stacks of Columbia University. Replete with dozens of pages of footnotes and a lengthy bibliography, it is a model of academic gruntwork, with few flashes of originality or brilliance." Yet the fanfare for her from the women's movement-- from its panderers in the press, and from the sector of the public that buys into it-- was immediate and long-lasting. It all stands in stark contrast to the comparatively mute reception that the current administration's diverse appointments got. One is left waiting for the Democrats to do their usual fixating on color and gender, and credit the Bush administration at least for appointing to his cabinet a Hispanic, two blacks, three women (one of whom is an Asian that replaced a Hispanic) and an Arab--and to senior officialdom a black woman, a Hispanic and a Jew. For the most part, the Diversity Party has been dismissive. Because the only diversity that counts is diversity for diversity's sake. Bush's appointments are less interesting because his choices are actually qualified. And if a member of a protected class is actually qualified, he loses his protection. The Democratic Party's fixation on race and gender explains why black Supreme Court justices can't be conservative, why Hispanic parents should not want their kids to learn English, and why members of both hues should all think alike. It explains how you get Gray Davis supporters shouting "He's a for'ner!" about an immigrant candidate, and how you get the Democratic governor responding that if you can't pronounce the word "California," you shouldn't be governor. It's also how you get the Democratic Party of Minnesota discouraging black Minnesota Supreme Court Associate Justice Alan Paige (search) from running to fill the late Paul Wellstone's (search) Senate seat in last November's elections. "What did being a woman mean to your term as Secretary of State?" the Time interview asks Albright. While such questions are not beneath Albright to indulge, they're not relevant. It's the difference between a platform of inclusion and a platform of substance, which is inclusive by happenstance of the country's physical makeup. That's why when you employ a merit-based system, you get Condoleezza Rice. And when you employ affirmative action (search), you get Madeleine Albright. Julia Gorin is the author of the newly released "The Buddy Chronicles," available through Bruiserbooks.com, and a contributing editor to JewishWorldReview.com. ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ I saw Albright last night on the NewsHour with Jim Lehrer and wondered to myself, what the heck is she doing there? She's history, not news. I never got quite as venomous of a take on her as this author, but never found her all that particularly effective either. What do you folks think? Julia Gorin has quite an obvious position on alot of things, and this editorial touches on alot of different topics. To present all the facts, I did find this published here: http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,97735,00.html -b

09-19-2003, 06:29 PM	#2 (permalink)
The_Dude The GrandDaddy of them all! Location: Austin, TX	i think she has accoplished a lot of great things in the past. i've always admired her. __________________ "Luck is what happens when preparation meets opportunity." - Darrel K Royal

09-19-2003, 08:39 PM	#7 (permalink)
Macheath Junkie Location: Sydney, Australia	This trashing is stupid and Gorin seems like an idiot. Being Secretary of State ain't like winning the Superbowl, it's a job of mixed fortunes. Madeline Albright: pro - Kosovo con - Korean negotiations Colin Powell: pro - China spy plane standoff con - Security Council approval on Iraq Henry Kissinger: pro - recognition of China con - Bombing of Cambodia Just because she didn't get her own photo op landing on an aircraft carrier doesn't make her a failure. Unless, that is, Julia Gorin would like to incontrovertibly prove her incompetence in a 400 page peer reviewed international relations thesis. Or she could just keep on blah, blah, blahing about feminism and diversity. And if you want to know whether Albright has anything useful to contribute to the Iraq debate...judge for yourself: http://www.foreignaffairs.org/200309...r-bluster.html Last edited by Macheath; 09-19-2003 at 08:44 PM..

09-20-2003, 06:34 AM	#10 (permalink)
j8ear Gentlemen Farmer Location: Middle of nowhere, Jersey	schooled... __________________ It's alot easier to ask for forgiveness then it is to ask for permission.