Since a majority of college faculty are liberals, doesn't this move reflect
poorly on them?I have been told by numerous liberals that they are
tolerant and accepting of all points of view. By the way the faculty is acting
at Rutgers it would appear that they are not tolerant nor do they even like the
idea of opposing ideals being expressed on their campus.
The hypocrisy of the ultra-left Rutgers faculty is overwhelming. One of their
primary tenants is to advocate tolerance... while they themselves display almost
none. "We welcome anyone's point of view, as long as it agrees
precisely with our own."Their excuse that Ms Rice was pro-Iraqi
war is laughable, since Hillary Clinton also advocated starting the war with
Iraq. It's a fact the faculty seems to have conveniently forgotten... since
they would swoon all over themselves in getting Hillary to come and speak. Condoleezza Rice was one of the best and most distinguished Secretaries
of State our country has had in decades. Rutgers should consider itself
fortunate in getting her to come and address the faculty and students. Instead
the faculty is giving the students a first-hand lesson on going out into the
world after graduation as intolerant bigots. Bigotry against anyone who
doesn't agree with yourself is shameful. Professor Haim Baruh
is right about this stance by their faculty (paraphrased) giving Rutgers a black
eye to the rest of the world. If, for no other reason, I now wouldn't
consider sending any of my children to Rutgers.
RedShirtMIT - It's silly to think that liberals are always "tolerant
and accepting of all points of view."Were our Liberal founding
fathers tolerant of Conservative Monarchists efforts to hold this nation back?
Was the Liberal Abe Lincoln tolerant of racist, slave-holding states rightist
who tried to tear this nation apart? Was the great Progressive Teddy Roosevelt
tolerant of the big oligarchic Capitalists who maintained monopolies and
oligopolies that stifled all competition?The answers are no, of
course not, and NO WAY.Why should Liberals in any way be
"tolerant" of Reactionaries and Conservatives who have done such harm to
this nation?Why should a legitimate institution of higher learning
want a member of the Bush administration to speak?Did you forget
about the WMD affair? The Bush administration fooled the American people into
thinking the Iraqis had WMD's ready to cause this nation massive harm, and
they did so to legitimize attacking a nation that did not attack us first . . .
thus leading to years of war, over four THOUSAND dead Americans, over a hundred
thousand dead Iraqis, and over a trillion dollars wasted.Why should
anyone or tolerate or accept that kind of behavior?
Free speech is only for liberals! All others need not apply!
I guess the concept of a University being open to all sorts of viewpoints only
applies to those viewpoints that are liberal.
@ Gary O. Without a doubt, Hillary would be received with open arms at Rutgers
even though she voted FOR both wars! We went to war for the same reason we did
with Japan and Germany: to free people from murdering tyrants and the little
fact that we were attacked. Hypocrisy is rampant among liberals!
Two things strike me One the underlying assumption that the professors are
liberal Two that some how using this incident to paint all liberals the
ssme somehow show how much more enlightened and open to other views you are. This liberal would really like the chance to her Ms Rice talk and would
like even more the chance to sit down and talk with her one on one. Of all the
bush administration i find her the most interesting. Even though I disagreed
with Bush on many issues I think he would be interesting to talk to one on one
away from all the political posturing and rhetoric but again that is just me.
So has anyone here stopped to think about the fact it's a "liberal"
university that nvited Rice in the first place?
Mountanman - You're right. "Without a doubt, Hillary would be received
with open arms at Rutgers even though she voted FOR both wars!" Finally we
agree on something!Hillary would be welcome at Rutgers. Why not?She, like the rest of us was deceived into believing the Iraqis were
preparing to attack us with WMDs.That claim originated with the Bush
administration. The CIA is part of the executive branch, and it told our Chief
Executive EXACTLY what he wanted to hear. The entire administration told GW
(the Decider) Bush exactly what he wanted to hear.The Bush
administration seemed to be under the delusion that if they repeated a falsehood
often enough, it would become true. (Conservative politicians operate the same
way now.)In any case, the Bush administration lacked principles
across the board and took us from being a prosperous, peaceful nation, with
strong allies to a nation despised by former allies, mired in two wars, and on
the brink of financial ruin after having completely destabilized the Middle
East. What is Condie Rice going to say to new grads anyway? . . . You too can devastate America if you apply yourselves?
Hi GaryO,You might want to look into what Hillary Clinton had to say
about the WMD intel during an interview on Larry King Live. She clearly admitted
(in 2004) that the intel was consistent through both the Clinton administration
and the Bush administration and was held by several U.S. allies as well.You wouldn't try to blame the Bush administration for intel
acquired during the Clinton administration, would you?
Hawkeye79 - GW Bush apologists might as well give up.The facts speak
for themselves, and the facts are screaming that the Bush White House was
unprincipled, reckless, lucrative for the military-industrial complex, and out
of touch with reality.Yes, I know, the intel provide by the Bush
administration justified invading Iraq (just like GW wanted to do anyway) but
the intel was FALSE.
Hawkeye79 - intel gathered during the Clinton administration had very little to
do with realities during the Bush administration.Why would the Bush
administration base the iraq invasion on such old, outdated information? . . .
unless it suited GW's desire to get Saddam . . . at all COSTS (to the
American people and entire world).Face it Hawkeye, the Bush
administration followed a rash course . . . A course based on polls that showed
how a President who took "decisive" action would look good, at least
temporarily, in the eyes of the nation.The Republican GW Bush
administration was incredibly irresponsible, as Modern "Conservative"
leaders are prone to be.When people around the world started
clamoring for war crime charges to be levied against the Bush administration, I
disagreed, because I thought the whole affair would be too burdensome to the
American people . . . But now, I have reconsidered.Perhaps an
international war crimes trial with GW and company as defendants is just what
this nation's "Conservatives" really need to see so they can
realize how "Conservative" their political leaders really are.
GaryO: "The Bush administration seemed to be under the delusion that if they
repeated a falsehood often enough, it would become true."Like
the attack on our embassy in Benghazi was really just a reaction to an obscure
Mountanman's comment is paramount and often ignored:Iraq is free.
While their previous regime has forced its own people to fight us at threat of
losing their and their family's lives, we'v egone in and opened our
own selves to danger and injury to preserve them. Iraqi people have since
endangered and at time seven sacrificed their own lives, of their own
initiative, to preserve that freedom. And never forget the "Arab
spring" that arose after.The Iraqi war bore honor and its end
result is admirable.As for questioning a liberal institution in
inviting her to speak in the first place; remember that she was the first
African-American female secretary of state. If she were a white man, they
wouldn't have ever considered it.