The Woman Behind Bush

In your Dec. 16 cover story on Condoleezza Rice, I wish you had included her admirable commitment as a member of the U.S. negotiating team under former president Bush, helping pave the way for Germany’s reunification. By her own account, she wept with joy when she crossed one of history’s most inhumane borders shortly after it had relinquished its horror. However, I have some doubts about whether Rice has what it takes to see the challenges facing America in the war on terror for what they really are. Some months ago, she gave an interview to the German news magazine Der Spiegel, comparing Al Qaeda to Palestinian militant organizations such as Hamas and Islamic Jihad, and implying that the latter should be next on the United States’ list of groups to be eradicated. That’s taking an attitude which will only strengthen the impression that America automatically sides with Israel by placing all its enemies squarely within the terrorist camp. Werner Radtke Paderborn, Germany

I am impressed by Condi Rice. Why is it, though, that all these successful men around her have families, and she doesn’t? Why, in the case of a woman, must it be a choice between reaching the top and having a family? Also, notice the traditional mother/wife role she has in the most powerful circle in the world. Michal Lichtenstein Bet Shemesh, Israel

I have to say that I am no fan of Condoleezza Rice. At the beginning I had some hope that, as a woman, she might be able to bring change and a positive impact on the policies of the White House. Your article only establishes and reinforces the contrary. At the commencement of George W. Bush’s term in office, one was left wondering where on earth he got his half-baked theories. Was it hereditary? But as Rice’s involvement became clearer, one was left with no doubt about the real source of his right-wing policies. Whether it’s the contempt he has for the International Criminal Court, the Kyoto convention on the environment, the questioning of the role played by the United Nations and his overall policies toward this body–or, more recently, the Axis of Evil speeches and the impending war on Iraq based on uncollaborated reports–it is a basic contempt for multilateralism and the international comity of nations. No doubt Rice is in it for self-preservation and her own popularity–and to leave her undeniable legacy behind. A better adviser would have actually showed Bush some sense, not goaded on his megalomaniac policies. Sadly, Rice is a failure despite all the mysterious powers and charms she is alleged to possess. Lara De Silva Colombo, Sri Lanka

Thank you, NEWSWEEK, for a fascinating article on “The Real Condi Rice.” You showed us that she is quite a gal! But may I point out that, while Madame de Sevigne was certainly a gossip, contrary to what you reported, she was never the mistress of Louis XIV; nor was the king–who was born in 1638–an “old guy” for Sevigne: she was twelve years his senior, as she was born in 1626. Penelope Louet Paris, France

Correction

In “The Quiet Power of Condi Rice” NEWSWEEK reported that during Rice’s time as provost of Stanford University (1993-1999) the number of African-Americans on the faculty declined. According to Stanford, the number of African-Americans on the faculty increased from 36 to 44. NEWSWEEK regrets the error.

The Fur Phenomenon

Despite the hype from desperate fur retailers and unfeeling fashion designers, fur is not back, no matter which way you color it (“Not Your Grandma’s Mink,” Dec. 16). In fact, fur sales are still down about 50 percent since the late 1980s. According to the Sept. 2002 Trapper and Predator Caller, “Since the 1987 market crash, it has often been difficult to find a willing fur buyer regardless of how low the prevailing prices.” Many top designers like Stella McCartney, Calvin Klein, Todd Oldham and Oleg Cassini have sworn off fur. Although PETA has never “splashed ink on minks,” we do encourage everyone to buy faux instead of fur. Heather Moore People for the Ethical Treatment of Animals (PETA) Norfolk, Virginia

Each year more than 40 million animals are killed for fashion. Caught in traps or snares, they may suffer for days before dying of exposure, exhaustion or strangulation. Along with fur-bearing animals, trappers also catch non-target animals like deer, birds, squirrels, endangered species, cats and dogs. Farm-raised fur comes from animals kept in tiny, filthy cages, deprived of protection from the elements. There are no laws regulating how animals on fur farms are housed or killed. The techniques used to kill animals on fur farms include neck snapping, anal electrocution and crude carbon-monoxide or dioxide “gas chambers” that are notorious for prolonging the suffering of dying animals and for their tendency to cause animals to regain consciousness while being skinned. Fur represents pain and suffering. Margaret Hyer Norristown, Pennsylvania

Tearing the skin off the back of another is neither fashionable nor chic. It is depraved and criminal. Sherry Fudim Upper Montclair, New Jersey