Comments (35)

Jake D. wrote on October 25, 2007 11:41 AM:

I've known plenty of paralegals who are more competent than the attorneys they worked for. I didn't know today was going to be all-Rice, all-the-time again. I love it!!!

Dave F. wrote on October 25, 2007 11:51 AM:

Jake D.: Defender of cronyism and incompetence!

brian wrote on October 25, 2007 11:56 AM:

Chaos, Fear, Murder ... bombs and bullets all day long ... Rape, Arson, Civilians slaughtered ...

Billions and Billions of dollars being stolen and wasted ...

Some paralegal is sitting at a desk in the middle of this, trying to find out if somebody may have made an accounting error ...

--- B I Z A R R E ---

ineedalife wrote on October 25, 2007 12:00 PM:

Iraq is just a resume generator for Republican cronies. Four directors in ten months for just one office.

And Rice isn't going to get back to Congress with details. Just a "sense" of how the program is managed. What an incompetent embarrassment.

Jake D. wrote on October 25, 2007 12:03 PM:

I'm actually only defending competent paralegals.

Anonymous wrote on October 25, 2007 12:05 PM:

I've spent the last few hours looking for an apologist troll with no dignity. Thanks TPMmuckraker!

chisholm wrote on October 25, 2007 12:07 PM:

Rice is an object lesson in failure and incompetency. It's best illustrated by the fact that on the morning of 9/11 she was headed to the COFR to give a speech on America's #1 enemy, China. (The ironic coda being that China is filling the American power vacuum all over the world.)

Bill in Chicago wrote on October 25, 2007 12:13 PM:

I'm sure she'll be fired and replaced by a notary public.

Anonymous wrote on October 25, 2007 12:13 PM:

"Rice said she was "not aware" of that."

""I should get back to you with a sense of how we manage these programs," she replied."

after 4 years and hundreds of billions of dollars, these are her answers? heckuva job, condi.

Dave F. wrote on October 25, 2007 12:15 PM:

"I'm actually only defending competent paralegals."

Funny thing is, your already defending this person, and we have no proof of their competence.

I guess, for right-wingers, that's probably not necessary. I mean, look who they voted for as their leader.

moondancer wrote on October 25, 2007 12:16 PM:

No surprises here. Bushco sent Hitler youth to Iraq to run the reconstruction as is well documented in a dozen books. It was probably the largest collection of incompetency in modern history. The State Dept(in Iraq) are all-stars of incompetence. In fact the train wreck at state is second only to the ruins that used to be DOJ.

Besides being a war criminal, Rice has revealed herself to be clueless as a leader. By the time she mercifully leaves office, State will look like Berlin 1945

sherlock wrote on October 25, 2007 12:21 PM:

In the course of all of her testimony before this Congress, I see someone who is absolutely, doggedly determined to avoid ever connecting the dots. She demonstrates a willful, almost methodical ignorance of every aspect of State Department function under her authority. It's as if she is taking orders from above to look the other way, rather than to properly manage her department. How can any individual with even the barest minimum sense of pride, dignity and decency perform their job in such a lousy, pitiful manner?

brian wrote on October 25, 2007 12:21 PM:

The task of the GOP shill is to defend the Bush regime and all Republicans no matter what they get caught doing.

You will note the GOP shill has no principles or beliefs - too cumbersome ! He has to be able to pivot rapidly to defend his party. Wasted money, public bathroom sex, cronyism, murdered civilians, torture : all are defended.

Defending the inexcusable - someone has to do it.

sherlock wrote on October 25, 2007 12:21 PM:

In the course of all of her testimony before this Congress, I see someone who is absolutely, doggedly determined to avoid ever connecting the dots. She demonstrates a willful, almost methodical ignorance of every aspect of State Department function under her authority. It's as if she is taking orders from above to look the other way, rather than to properly manage her department. How can any individual with even the barest minimum sense of pride, dignity and decency perform their job in such a lousy, pitiful manner?

you said it wrote on October 25, 2007 12:22 PM:

Jake D.: I've known plenty of paralegals who were more competent than the attorneys they worked for.

hiflyer wrote on October 25, 2007 12:49 PM:

Gee...a cabinet member who does not know what is going on in their department over the most crucial issues...gee...sure sounds familiar. Waxman has got to be going nuts over this total and deliberate lack of responsibility by these top members of the administration...the question is why isn't the rest of congress and the press not reacting far stronger than they are....it feels like another 'this is the way it works' story is all that will come out of it.

Dave F. wrote on October 25, 2007 12:49 PM:

I've know plenty of paralegals who are more competent than the two fools in charge of this whole debacle in Iraq (Bush/Cheney).

Maybe we should have them send in some resumes?

michael valentne wrote on October 25, 2007 12:52 PM:

Ms. Rice is the Queen Bee of the Republican Administration. She sets the tone for what the Department of State will do in the face of Congressional investigations just as Alberto did for the DoJ.

Why is it that the Democrats are not pursuing an impeachment?

Have they been caught up in our country's swing over to FASCISM too or are they going to pursue the constitutional remedies for this constitutional problem that the Bush Administration presents?

I've been a life long Democrat. My dad's mom was on the Democratic Town Committee in the 40's and 50's. I am a former union guy and it goes with out saying unions are for the Democrats.

I clerked a legislative committee as a Democrat and was a PAC chair for the Connecticut Jail Administration Employees, AFSCME local 1565.

I bleed blue state blood.

But if the effen Democrats don't get off the effen dime then the two party system will brake down.

The Republicans are on the way to minor party status. If the Democrats think that they can just roll it all up and it's "take it or leave it" I think they will be in for a surprise after the 08 elections. Can anyone say Democratic factions?

gregor wrote on October 25, 2007 12:55 PM:

Not to mock PAs, but the more overwhelming question, then, is this: Are Physician Assistants doing open heart surgery on our soldiers?

rita wrote on October 25, 2007 1:05 PM:

In the little part of the testimony that I watched, responding to questions from Rep. Hodes and Maloney, it seemed that one of Rice's responses is to throw the previous Secretary of State (i.e. Powell) under the bus by pointing out that some of these incidents took place before she became Sec. of State. And another response is that war is messy and bad things happen so get lost Congressional Oversight Committee. I suppose that these pass as good defenses for the indefensible.

Rita

paul wrote on October 25, 2007 1:10 PM:

"I will have to get back to you" on the subject I was called to testify about.

Don't you wish the Sergeant at Arms could simply keep witnesses around until they were able to give responsive answers?

Jake D. wrote on October 25, 2007 1:24 PM:

In your fantasy world, does the Sergeant at Arms also waive his blood-stained hands in front of the witness, yelling that she's a "war criminal"?

Bill Peterson wrote on October 25, 2007 1:44 PM:

Remember, this is "no one could have imagined" Rice we are talking about. She is only in her position because she is a "loyal Bushie", not because of any innate abilities.

She will always skirt any issue that could have any negative impact on her boss. Always. It should be "all Rice all the time" for all the days, until she either gets wise and actually cooperates, or else she leaves in disgrace as the AG did.

BP

Sandy Molloy wrote on October 25, 2007 1:54 PM:

Jake, why are you here arguing when there are fires raging near San Diego? Shouldn't you be rushing out there to help? Some folks think that talking about the fires is *much* more important than discussing politics on a political site. Folks, like, oh, a guy named Jake D. at http://www.tpmmuckraker.com/archives/004559.php and http://www.tpmmuckraker.com/archives/004558.php.

JMOHR wrote on October 25, 2007 1:54 PM:

Little puppet boy Jake has been on the line again. Yes, I have known very competent paralegals as well. However, having been a military officer, civil servant, senior counsel to a Fortune 500 Company and member of a law firm, I can honestly say that you are a true butt li---- for the administration. Let's face it, heading the department with a paralegal sends a clear message as to the priority place on this area by the administration. So quit defending that which is indefensible. You only show what a shill you are for this administration.

brantl wrote on October 25, 2007 1:57 PM:

"Jake D. wrote on October 25, 2007 1:24 PM:
In your fantasy world, does the Sergeant at Arms also waive his blood-stained hands in front of the witness, yelling that she's a "war criminal"?"
No, that happens in real life, when they ARE war criminals.

Jake D. wrote on October 25, 2007 1:58 PM:

Good, JMOHR. Use your aggressive feelings, boy. Let the hate flow through you. Your feeble skills are no match for the power of the Dark Side.

Pat wrote on October 25, 2007 2:05 PM:

I worked for DynCorp back in the 80s as a private contractor. I traveled all over the world on numerous jobs, and each and every job required that I submitted a statement of accomplishment and a statement of costs. I gave it to my boss, it was approved by the government coordinator and the base officials had to sign it off.

I had to list everything down Yes, I had to have a receipt for any tips to the Sky Cap. Then my government counterpart would scrutinize every single expense I claimed. There were hundreds of us, and we went on thousands of jobs.

So I don't understand why this has changed? When we fail to be accountable, we open the door for the lazy, the sloppy and most of all the dishonest.

I don't see how the taxpayer is being served with Dr. Rice's attitude toward government contracts.

moondancer wrote on October 25, 2007 2:28 PM:

It's really quite simple, Pat. I call it trickle down incompetency. When the head dunce declares himself above the law, and no longer answers to the people, that attitude percolates down to all layers.

Molly, NYC wrote on October 25, 2007 4:06 PM:

Y'know people, you don't actually have to feed the troll.
* * *
Anyway, remember all those qualification-free Young Republicans this administration hired for civilian jobs in the Green Zone? That wasn't just about valuing ideology over competence. It was about actively avoiding competence. Can you imagine, for example, how much trouble the GOP's palm-greasing contractors would have been in if they'd brought in some honest, grown-up, GAAP-conversant CPAs to handle the books?

This is more of the same. They don't have some poorly supported para investigating corruption because it's a low priority. They're doing it because a full and well-executed investigation of corruption (in Iraq or here) is the last thing in the world this Administration wants.

Gaines, NC wrote on October 25, 2007 4:21 PM:

Ease up a bit people. Unlike the opposition, we prefer to rely on facts, right? Well, sometimes a paralegal is a paralegal, sometimes not. Sometimes the designation/job description of "paralegal" is used when nothing else fits and the person doesn't have a law degree. I know of a number of law firm "paralegals" who are actually lobbyists and don't do much "paralegal" work. But they don't have law degrees so the firms can't hire them as "attorneys". And they are clearly not "secretaries".
So, responsible minds should be asking, "What was this particular paralegal's qualifications and job responsibilities?"
THEN, judge.

Alguien wrote on October 25, 2007 4:51 PM:

Let's compile what we gathered up to now:

From Gaines, NC!
"I know of a number of law firm "paralegals" who are actually lobbyists"

From Jake D.
"I've known plenty of paralegals who are more competent than the attorneys they worked for."

From that we could conclude that that:

a) Plenty of paralegals are very competent and a number of them are lobbyists...

b) The acting director of the OAT in Baghdad is a competent paralegal as well as a lobbyist that is trying to get more contracts for Halliburton, Bechtel, Blackwater etc. etc. while pretending to oversee the OAT to avoid real oversight from the government.

Gaines is right, instead of asking WHY do they have a paralegal, the question should be WHO is THIS paralegal and WHOM is he/she lobbying for?

Pozo wrote on October 25, 2007 5:22 PM:

Don't be mockin' paralegals, Rep. Tierney. They're excellent at keeping up the files in medical malpractice suits. Forensic accounting and international law? Not so much.

Joan wrote on October 25, 2007 7:46 PM:

Whoa, people. I happen to be a paralegal, and I happen to have once worked for our government. I now work in the pharmaceutical industry, and also have experience in a law firm. I have to say that at no time in my experience have I worked in an environment where a paralegal was put in charge of a department. And that was because of many reasons, but mostly because a paralegal is not responsible for legal advice given to a client by virtue of the fact that a paralegal has never taken the bar examination or been licensed by a state bar. This administration is probably thinking along the lines of a paralegal cannot be held liable, and who the hell is going to stop us at this point? Billions have been distributed where it needs to go. Mission accomplished.

JNagarya wrote on October 26, 2007 7:50 PM:

Dave F. wrote on October 25, 2007 11:51 AM:
Jake D.: Defender of cronyism and incompetence!

"Jake D.": Defender of treason, "ordinary" criminality, and corruption.

Corrupt is as corrupt does.

And it is the fact that there are paralegals quite competent to handle complex matters involving law, in view of the fact that they receive essentially the same eductation as lawyers. The differences between the two are fewer than the likenesses: paralegals, unlike lawyers, cannot file cases in court, cannot represent clients (except in a few administrative tribunals), and cannot give legal advice.

They are otherwise identical, excepting essentially for training in adversarial argumentation.

And Joan is correct -- except that in every legal malpractice case I've reviewed, the lawyer-defendant managed, with the abundant assistance of the lawyer-judge, to find a paralegal on whom to blame the malpractice -- thus effectively destroying the paralegal's career.