Is Orwellian Newspeak.

How can anyone use this expression while drones locate, and bombs are dropped in front of our eyes (for those who can see).

The best political memoirs are the searingly honest ones where the author looks back at their years in office with introspection, reflection and even occasional contrition. A bit of dumping on one's former colleagues is always good, as well.

The most boring and arid memoirs are those where the author simply offers a boilerplate defence of everything that they did. By all indications (including this interview) Condoleeza Rice is that kind of person and this will be that kind of book.

A couple things. I think Dr. Rice's concern over "leading from behind" is a bit unwarranted. This phrase is really just semantics, a bit of political re-wording for an American public that understandably was wary of getting involved in yet another war. In the end the US came through for NATO, and that's what mattered. Secondly, I don't think American recognition of the transitional national government in itself was as significant as the fact that many other governments around the world chose to recognize it. The US threw away much of its moral legitimacy during the buildup to the Iraq war, so the world wouldn't have taken kindly to further American unilateralism.

Lastly, I also think her hostility towards UNESCO is unwarranted. If she wants to take a more nuanced position over the issue of Palestinian statehood that's fine, but "putting the U.N. on notice that they will lose American support if they go down this road" is really a bit much.

I will buy her book.She is a clever woman, and I like what she talk. A long time, I didn't hear anything about her.

After eight years at what passed for the nerve center of the Bush administration and three years of reflection, Dr Rice still seems quite vague, or vaguish. She doesn't understand or believe in leading from behind which makes it a happy chance that she wasn't appointed SecDef; she claims, using an undefined "we" that "We did manage to negotiate an immunity clause that was acceptable to the Iraqis and acceptable to the Pentagon,' confirming the widely held understanding that there were three sort of independent parties to the discussed negotiation -- the United States, Iraq and separately, the US department of defense.

This revelation came in support of her idea that there was no negotiation between the current administration and the government of Iraq about how long the US military should stay in Iraq. There were, of course, just such negotiations and all interested parties knew about them. While not an interested party, the former secretary of state evidently is an opinionated one.

From the party faithful. She was a central character in the administration that sacrificed our national values and our economy. She led us from the front to where we are now. She's got nothing on Obama, though unbelievable that may seem. Rice should take a look out the window of her ivory tower and gain some perspective. Not one of our better statesmen.

Before our invasion, Condi rarely paid attention to Israel and Palestine conflict. Bush Administration is known for shunning away from the conflict and stated, often and openly, that the efforts spent on solving that conflict would be wasted since few American Presidents ever got result. Bush paid attention to Israel and Palestine only after Iraq, after invasion, became a difficult headache. It is fair to say that Condi had made no contributions to that conflict.

Her prima facie reaction toward UNESCO is a touch of bravado. The only thing she mustered out is "let them see how well UNESCO can do without US". The pompousness only makes her remark puerile and ill-suits a highly-regarded scholar.

So, does she expect UNESCO to either collapse or cave in to our threat?

We contribute 20% of UNESCO budget. All UNESCO can do now is to downsize. Condi may be right that UNESCO would crawl back toward us later on, but what kind of victory would that be?

I doubt UNESCO would regale Condi with easy, obscene pliability.

even if we succeed in bankrupting UNESCO and prove no international organization can exist without us, what are the benefit and the long-term implications to the US?

If UNESCO survives without us, would other UN organizations start to accept Palsetine's application?

Should we examine why the policy of our denying Plaestine's membership in an international organization at all costs is important and vital to our national interests?

Instead of cogitating on the impact and courses we could take under varying scenarios, Condi brayed tough lines like high-school kids. I am not angered by Condi's comment, but am so disappointed I now dread reading her book.

"Compassionate Conservatives"

"Preemptive Invasions"

Warnings about smoking guns being mushroom clouds

Her leadership as NSA or SecState

etc etc etc

CR: Well, you know, actually, if the U.N. wants to go down this road, let them see how well they do without U.S. support. I don't have any sympathy for UNESCO or anybody else that decides they are going to jump over what has long been the way we're going to get to a Palestinian state, which is negotiations between Israelis and Palestinians.

Oh lala, of course U.S. is not going to withdraw it has been far too useful as a tool. We all know it will just get vetoed by the U.S. in Sec. council. In the end it does not matter, but it was a symbolic victory for Palestine.

It was a democratic decision and guess who is complaining... talk about oxymoron! Let's just be done with democracy and evolve to Democratic Dictatorship (Lets call it LOVE, PEACE and I BOMB YOU WHEN I DONT GET MY WAY)!!!!!!!!!!

I mean when I am not happy that my candidate fails to get elected I also don't want to pay nil.

I have to say, the interview is moderate and mostly unobjectionable.

However, the self-congratulation by the Secretary of State of the Bush Administration's stance on human rights is astonishing. Um, yeah, except for the war crimes... waterboarding, Abu Ghraib, etc. I mean really, this is the administration that sanctioned torture of prisoners. It will take the U.S. decades to recover from the abuses we conducted during Secretary Rice's watch.

I am puzzled by this one, too:
I do think the administration would have been better off not to start with the settlement freeze, which no Israeli prime minister can do and which put the Palestinians in a position of having to be less Palestinian than the United States, had they not gone along with that.

It is very clear in the Geneva Conventions that an occupying power CANNOT engage in population transfers to remove the inhabitants or transfer their own people into the occupied territory. This is a crystal-clear violation of international law. If no Israeli prime minister can freeze settlements, there will clearly never be an Israeli-Palestinian agreement. I am not very sympathetic to the Palestinians, who had a chance under Arafat to build a viable state and instead threw it away with the second Intifada, but really--can Israel and our own government not understand why Israeli settlements in what Palestinians consider their territory are a problem?

I think Condoleeza Rice is an intelligent and thoughtful person, but she was singularly feckless as a Secretary of State, and has very little room to criticize. I do not recall significant progress with Iran, North Korea, human rights, the Mideast or anywhere else on her watch.

All nations are members of the UN and its agencies, which are American creations, to pursue the best of both American and world agendas. Almost all the problems we have and have had there have involved our slavish backing of Israeli aggression, particularly the 300,000 land grabbing settlers
Leaving the UN at the behest of the Israeli lobby shows who is the boss in Washington. Condi et al are oblivious to the costs we bear for this and these agencies will not disappear: Unlike the US the rest of the world is not beholden to the settlers or AIPAC. Exit US and in will come others whom we regard as enemies.

For a great "super power" to subvert its prime interest, and go against the entire world (UK and Canada backing is very unpopular with their electorates) only confirms Israeli domination of key US foreign policy agendas. Best exemplified by the 60 Zeig Heils, of which 30 were with Hosanas in excelsis, our entire patriotic Congress gave Der Fuhrer Nuttyyahoo. For what? For demanding unconditional support for more lebensraum and apartheid. And insulting our President.

So much for being the leader of the free world.

Sic transit gloria

Nothing. Seems to me Rice was always an afterthought and never part of the substantive talks that would have long range impact on the middle-east. Did the Bush / Cheney ‘New World Order’ improve the world? No. My prediction is Iraq will align with Iran and Syria to fight Israel.

You right-wing war mongers don't care that America is bankrupt with the Iraq occupation. America is broke, both financially and morally. Obama has followed the same failed pro-Israel policy of Bush and the NEOCONS. We can no longer project power with our National Debt which will cause cut backs in our military and foreign aid. Israel needs to make peace and relinquish its hold on Palestine and the West Bank occupation.

Cheney is like Hitler, nothing but a War Hawk that never fought. Don't underestimate the Cheney/Israel Neocons to want war. The problem is our Generals are bogged down for years of a quagmire and our army is not able to win. The Taxpayers said enough after the Neocons They also never expected a fierce and effective gorilla war.

They all have mental deformations.

Nothing. Seems to me Rice was always an afterthought and never part of the substantive talks that would have long range impact on the middle-east. Did the Bush / Cheney ‘New World Order’ improve the world? No. My prediction is Iraq will align with Iran and Syria to fight Israel.

You right-wing war mongers don't care that America is bankrupt with the Iraq occupation. America is broke, both financially and morally. Obama has followed the same failed pro-Israel policy of Bush and the NEOCONS. We can no longer project power with our National Debt which will cause cut backs in our military and foreign aid. Israel needs to make peace and relinquish its hold on Palestine and the West Bank occupation.

Cheney is like Hitler, nothing but a War Hawk that never fought. Don't underestimate the Cheney/Israel Neocons to want war. The problem is our Generals are bogged down for years of a quagmire and our army is not able to win. The Taxpayers said enough after the Neocons They also never expected a fierce and effective gorilla war.

They all have mental deformations.

Nothing. Seems to me Rice was always an afterthought and never part of the substantive talks that would have long range impact on the middle-east. Did the Bush / Cheney ‘New World Order’ improve the world? No. My prediction is Iraq will align with Iran and Syria to fight Israel.

You right-wing war mongers don't care that America is bankrupt with the Iraq occupation. America is broke, both financially and morally. Obama has followed the same failed pro-Israel policy of Bush and the NEOCONS. We can no longer project power with our National Debt which will cause cut backs in our military and foreign aid. Israel needs to make peace and relinquish its hold on Palestine and the West Bank occupation.

Cheney is like Hitler, nothing but a War Hawk that never fought. Don't underestimate the Cheney/Israel Neocons to want war. The problem is our Generals are bogged down for years of a quagmire and our army is not able to win. The Taxpayers said enough after the Neocons They also never expected a fierce and effective gorilla war.

They all have mental deformations.

'I don't have any sympathy for UNESCO or anybody else that decides they are going to jump over what has long been the way we're going to get to a Palestinian state'

$80 million shortfall in a budget in a world of 7 billion people just shows the US is not such a big a deal as it thinks it is. She also does not answer the question - what happens when the US withdraws from the International Atomic Energy Agency and the World Intellectual Property Organization?

A decision as which ruin is a cultural site does not matter much but will the US decide not to have a voice on intellectual property protection or nuclear proliferation? Perhaps they should remember back to 1950 when the Soviets boycotted the UN and allowed a UN force to intervene in the Korean war.

This revelation came in support of her idea that there was no negotiation between the current administration and the government of Iraq about how long the US military should stay in Iraq