>> advise on security matters and help keep the NSA out of my files
What about her past makes you think she would have this position? I'd argue if the options are "Help protect your data from the NSA" or "Hand over your data to the NSA" that she would be much more in favor of giving your data to the NSA.
Rice authorized National Security Agency to spy on UN Security Council in run-up to war, former officials say [0]
>> Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice defended Bush's actions, telling "Fox News Sunday" the president had authorized the National Security Agency "to collect information on a limited number of people with connections to al Qaeda."
>> ...
>> Asked why the president authorized skipping the FISA court, Rice said the war on terrorism was a "different type of war" that gives the commander in chief "additional authorities." [1]
>> Wolf Blitzer Interview with Condoleezza Rice on Domestic Wiretap Controversy [2]
Morals are essential. But we are judging them without knowing facts. We know neither why Drew, one of our own, had to make the hire, nor what kind of choices she was really faced with in the past. The position of Diplomat is a very tricky one in politics. In fact many opposition leaders get hired into it (including Hillary) because a Diplomat HAS TO parrot the decisions of the administration.
As soon as Drew is ready to shake hands with a person, directly or indirectly linked to mass war deaths, he ceases to be one of our own. For me, at least, this is the case.
Typically you have to wait a few minutes before the reply link appears. Gives you time to consider before responding in what might be a emotional response.
The part you quote is different than your claim. You say she authorized the NSA spying on the UN Security Council. Your quote says the President authorized spying on a limited number of people with connections to a known terrorist organization. You may not see the difference there but I do.
But I fail to see how her actions in the Bush administration leads to her somehow allowing the NSA to spy into everybody's Dropbox account simply because she's a member of the board.
I'll ask a question more relevant to the topic at hand. Rice is and has been the member of several boards of various companies, are you suggesting that she did so solely for the purpose of extracting information to hand over to her NSA masters?
Or could this just be a partisan complaint that is in the fringes of conspiracy theory?
- Because by joining the board she has a fiduciary duty to protect the interests of the company, especially when those conflict with others including her personal interest.
- Because if CEO had to hire someone to help them do that, a former secretary of state would be one of the best choices (albeit Hillary might be a bit busy).
The NSA grew under the Obama administration. Does that mean he needs to be crucified as well? There is no evidence whatsoever that Rice currently has a sinister agenda that goes against anything or anyone. Why crucify one of YC's best and his company for of hiring someone who knows and can get results?
What about her past makes you think she would have this position? I'd argue if the options are "Help protect your data from the NSA" or "Hand over your data to the NSA" that she would be much more in favor of giving your data to the NSA.