4 ms·

Clearly you are implying exactly Condoleezza Rice, but if you look at the other companies she is a board member/advisor for you find a diverse groups of compani

Clearly you are implying exactly Condoleezza Rice, but if you look at the other companies she is a board member/advisor for you find a diverse groups of companies. It makes sense for someone who wants to stay current with the latest in business to seek a diverse portfolio of companies to be a part of. One board member being formerly involved in politics doesn't strike me as valid the way you are comparing it to Theranos. https://www.crunchbase.com/person/condoleezza-rice/advisory-roles/edit https://www.crunchbase.com/person/condoleezza-rice/advisory-...

honkhonkpants 10y ago
"Formerly involved in politics" hardly scratches the surface of what Rice is. Rice got on national television and told America that Iraq had nuclear weapons. Rice was also instrumental in leading the CIA to torture of certain detainees. Rice should be on trial at the Hague, not collecting honoraria for sitting on corporate boards.
- jsweojtj 10y ago
  I find this kind of comment cropping up - can you find a source for your claim that Rice claimed Iraq had nuclear weapons?
  - honkhonkpants 10y ago
    My source is I saw it on live TV. "We know that he has the infrastructure, nuclear scientists to make a nuclear weapon. And we know that when the inspectors assessed this after the Gulf War, he was far, far closer to a crude nuclear device than anybody thought -- maybe six months from a crude nuclear device. The problem here is that there will always be some uncertainty about how quickly he can acquire nuclear weapons. But we don't want the smoking gun to be a mushroom cloud."
    - oldmanjay 10y ago
      When I started reading the quote, I thought it was going to back your argument up. It was a surprising disappointment when it did not.
    - kobeya 10y ago
      You do know that quote is factually accurate?
      - oneloop 10y ago
        There's this website where you type in things and it searches those things for you. The url is google.com, you should check it out. http://edition.cnn.com/2003/US/01/10/wbr.smoking.gun/ http://edition.cnn.com/2003/US/01/10/wbr.smoking.gun/
        kobeya 10y ago
        Claims made in the quote: * Iraq has the infrastructure [for a nuclear program] * Iraq has the nuclear scientists with the know-how * Iraq was "far, far closer to a crude nuclear device than anybody thought" after the 1st gulf war * Specifically, maybe six months from a crude device * There is uncertainty about how quickly Iraq could acquire nuclear weapons Sorry, but these are all facts. Saddam DID have a nuclear weapons program at the time of the 1st gulf war, and to the surprise of inspectors he was in fact very, very close to building a 1st-generation bomb. That's why there was an ongoing international inspection regime thereafter. Although the specific uranium enrichment plant was destroyed after the 1st gulf war, a lot of dual use equipment was kept around. Those nuclear scientists didn't go anywhere. And for reasons that to this day seem bizarre, given what played out, Iraq was playing "cat and mouse games" with the nuclear inspectors (quote from Hans Blix) and there was a great deal of uncertainty about the current status. Those are facts. Google them yourself. Did Iraq actually have weapons of mass destruction? No. Did the US and UK oversell the case for war? Yes. Did a great humanitarian tragedy happen as a result? Yes. But that didn't make Ms. Rice a lier when she said what specifically what was quoted above. We must pay careful attention to factual accuracy.
        oneloop 10y ago
        I didn't say they weren't facts, I was just pointing out that if you have a quote and want to know it's correct, you just google it. Don't you agree with that?
    - refurb 10y ago
      You realize that that quote doesn't actually support your claim?
    - deleted 10y ago
      [deleted]
- hueving 10y ago
  When did Rice claim that? Please choose a different forum the spout political lies.
  - hyperbovine 10y ago
    http://www.nytimes.com/2003/01/23/opinion/why-we-know-iraq-is-lying.html http://www.nytimes.com/2003/01/23/opinion/why-we-know-iraq-i...
    - hueving 10y ago
      Nuclear program != nuclear weapons. See Iran
      - ryanlol 10y ago
        Seems intellectually dishonest to accuse honkhonkpants of lying when Rice was claiming they could produce a nuke at any time.
        chirau 10y ago
        'Can produce' and 'has produced' are two very different things. Just because you can punch me, have already rolled up your sleeve and clenched a fist does not mean you have punched me, does it now?
      - deleted 10y ago
        [deleted]
      - hyperbovine 10y ago
        No, she leaves it up to the reader's imagination (note the evocative final sentence) to bridge the inch-wide gap between what she's willing to say, and want she wants to be able to say. Clearly the type of person you want on your board. And that's a very curious example you cite considering Iran was the place the neocons wanted to invade next under the same set of false pretenses.
      - ekianjo 10y ago
- Mango_Diesel 10y ago
  This is not related to the implication made that she is an equivalent to the board at Theranos. One one side you have people who are actively using their political influence to help a company avoid laws and regulations and operate an extremely careless, dangerous, fraudulent, etc. company in a very sensitive industry dealing with people's lives. On the other side is a former politician who appears to be diversifying her experiences by being a member of the board of several venture-backed tech companies, one of which is a pretty decent way to share files. The motivations and sinisterness of one of them stands in stark contrast to the other in the example made.
idlewords 10y ago
Rice is an architect of the Iraq War. It reflects horribly on Dropbox that they would have her on the board.
- tptacek 10y ago
  I have approximately the same take. But why do we think Drew Houston recruited Rice for his board? Is it the Stanford connection? Does Dropbox do a large amount of GSA business we haven't heard about? Surely it can't be because he supports Rice's performance as National Security Advisor. I think Rice is towards the bottom of a list of architects of the Iraq War, for what it's worth; only Powell is further removed from it. It probably goes Cheney, Rumsfeld, Bush, {Wolfowitz, Feith, Bolton, &c}, a bunch of other people, and then Rice and Powell. She's a critic --- not very credibly, but a critic nonetheless --- of the actual execution of the war. I wouldn't hire her, but my reaction to her involvement with Dropbox is less visceral than, I don't know, puzzlement?
  - ekianjo 10y ago
    That's all a matter of values. By hiring her, Dropbox gives the impression that they are endorsing her and what she did in the past, or that "her past does not matter". Which is a very sad call to make when you respect human life.
    - tptacek 10y ago
      I understand why people believe this, but strictly speaking, it isn't true. Employing someone isn't an endorsement for all their positions, and even more to the point, employing someone who was in the past affiliated with an organization isn't an endorsement of the whole organization. Again: I wouldn't hire her, and I'm more confused by her presence on the board than anything else.
      - idlewords 10y ago
        I think a board seat is rather different than employment. I am comfortable with political and "values" tests for company directors that I would consider inappropriate for an employee.

honkhonkpants 10y ago

"Formerly involved in politics" hardly scratches the surface of what Rice is. Rice got on national television and told America that Iraq had nuclear weapons. Rice was also instrumental in leading the CIA to torture of certain detainees. Rice should be on trial at the Hague, not collecting honoraria for sitting on corporate boards.

jsweojtj 10y ago
I find this kind of comment cropping up - can you find a source for your claim that Rice claimed Iraq had nuclear weapons?
- honkhonkpants 10y ago
  My source is I saw it on live TV. "We know that he has the infrastructure, nuclear scientists to make a nuclear weapon. And we know that when the inspectors assessed this after the Gulf War, he was far, far closer to a crude nuclear device than anybody thought -- maybe six months from a crude nuclear device. The problem here is that there will always be some uncertainty about how quickly he can acquire nuclear weapons. But we don't want the smoking gun to be a mushroom cloud."
  - oldmanjay 10y ago
    When I started reading the quote, I thought it was going to back your argument up. It was a surprising disappointment when it did not.
  - kobeya 10y ago
    You do know that quote is factually accurate?
    - oneloop 10y ago
      There's this website where you type in things and it searches those things for you. The url is google.com, you should check it out. http://edition.cnn.com/2003/US/01/10/wbr.smoking.gun/ http://edition.cnn.com/2003/US/01/10/wbr.smoking.gun/
      - kobeya 10y ago
        Claims made in the quote: * Iraq has the infrastructure [for a nuclear program] * Iraq has the nuclear scientists with the know-how * Iraq was "far, far closer to a crude nuclear device than anybody thought" after the 1st gulf war * Specifically, maybe six months from a crude device * There is uncertainty about how quickly Iraq could acquire nuclear weapons Sorry, but these are all facts. Saddam DID have a nuclear weapons program at the time of the 1st gulf war, and to the surprise of inspectors he was in fact very, very close to building a 1st-generation bomb. That's why there was an ongoing international inspection regime thereafter. Although the specific uranium enrichment plant was destroyed after the 1st gulf war, a lot of dual use equipment was kept around. Those nuclear scientists didn't go anywhere. And for reasons that to this day seem bizarre, given what played out, Iraq was playing "cat and mouse games" with the nuclear inspectors (quote from Hans Blix) and there was a great deal of uncertainty about the current status. Those are facts. Google them yourself. Did Iraq actually have weapons of mass destruction? No. Did the US and UK oversell the case for war? Yes. Did a great humanitarian tragedy happen as a result? Yes. But that didn't make Ms. Rice a lier when she said what specifically what was quoted above. We must pay careful attention to factual accuracy.
        oneloop 10y ago
        I didn't say they weren't facts, I was just pointing out that if you have a quote and want to know it's correct, you just google it. Don't you agree with that?
  - refurb 10y ago
    You realize that that quote doesn't actually support your claim?
  - deleted 10y ago
    [deleted]
hueving 10y ago
When did Rice claim that? Please choose a different forum the spout political lies.
- hyperbovine 10y ago
  http://www.nytimes.com/2003/01/23/opinion/why-we-know-iraq-is-lying.html http://www.nytimes.com/2003/01/23/opinion/why-we-know-iraq-i...
  - hueving 10y ago
    Nuclear program != nuclear weapons. See Iran
    - ryanlol 10y ago
      Seems intellectually dishonest to accuse honkhonkpants of lying when Rice was claiming they could produce a nuke at any time.
      - chirau 10y ago
        'Can produce' and 'has produced' are two very different things. Just because you can punch me, have already rolled up your sleeve and clenched a fist does not mean you have punched me, does it now?
    - deleted 10y ago
      [deleted]
    - hyperbovine 10y ago
      No, she leaves it up to the reader's imagination (note the evocative final sentence) to bridge the inch-wide gap between what she's willing to say, and want she wants to be able to say. Clearly the type of person you want on your board. And that's a very curious example you cite considering Iran was the place the neocons wanted to invade next under the same set of false pretenses.
    - ekianjo 10y ago
Mango_Diesel 10y ago
This is not related to the implication made that she is an equivalent to the board at Theranos. One one side you have people who are actively using their political influence to help a company avoid laws and regulations and operate an extremely careless, dangerous, fraudulent, etc. company in a very sensitive industry dealing with people's lives. On the other side is a former politician who appears to be diversifying her experiences by being a member of the board of several venture-backed tech companies, one of which is a pretty decent way to share files. The motivations and sinisterness of one of them stands in stark contrast to the other in the example made.

idlewords 10y ago

Rice is an architect of the Iraq War. It reflects horribly on Dropbox that they would have her on the board.

tptacek 10y ago
I have approximately the same take. But why do we think Drew Houston recruited Rice for his board? Is it the Stanford connection? Does Dropbox do a large amount of GSA business we haven't heard about? Surely it can't be because he supports Rice's performance as National Security Advisor. I think Rice is towards the bottom of a list of architects of the Iraq War, for what it's worth; only Powell is further removed from it. It probably goes Cheney, Rumsfeld, Bush, {Wolfowitz, Feith, Bolton, &c}, a bunch of other people, and then Rice and Powell. She's a critic --- not very credibly, but a critic nonetheless --- of the actual execution of the war. I wouldn't hire her, but my reaction to her involvement with Dropbox is less visceral than, I don't know, puzzlement?
- ekianjo 10y ago
  That's all a matter of values. By hiring her, Dropbox gives the impression that they are endorsing her and what she did in the past, or that "her past does not matter". Which is a very sad call to make when you respect human life.
  - tptacek 10y ago
    I understand why people believe this, but strictly speaking, it isn't true. Employing someone isn't an endorsement for all their positions, and even more to the point, employing someone who was in the past affiliated with an organization isn't an endorsement of the whole organization. Again: I wouldn't hire her, and I'm more confused by her presence on the board than anything else.
    - idlewords 10y ago
      I think a board seat is rather different than employment. I am comfortable with political and "values" tests for company directors that I would consider inappropriate for an employee.