> Well it's common knowledge that the person he's talking about was a senior member of Bush's cabinet when the war on Iraq in 2003 was launched

Can something be "common knowledge" and still be false?

While the person involved later became a senior cabinet member as Secretary of State, at the time the war in Iraq was launched, Rice was not only not a "senior member of Bush's cabinet", but she wasn't a member of the cabinet at all.

At that time, she was Assistant to the President for National Security Affairs (popularly, "National Security Advisor"), a position that is a member of the National Security Council, but not the cabinet.

You're right, I got that wrong.

She nevertheless, imo, played a pretty big role in paving the way for an attack on Iraq and was rewarded for that with elevation to cabinet afterwards.

By all the accounts of which I'm aware, Rice had just as much of Bush's ear during her time as NSA as Sec of State.

Do you have any reason to believe that she was in the dark in 2003?

Bob Woodward chronicled the access Rice had to Bush in his book "Bush at War"[0]. His impression matches your own. According to Woodward's account, her de facto role as National Security Advisor (before her tenure as Secretary of State) was to meet with the principals (Rumsfeld, Cheney, Powell) without the President, and then discuss alone with the President the positions of his various cabinet members. Rice met one-on-one with Bush much more often than the others, especially Powell. That said, her explicit role at the time was more about collating data and balancing priorities, not advancing her agenda. But it is definitely fair to say she had the President's ear during this period, perhaps more so than any other national security administration official.

On an semi-related note, "Bush at War" is a great, quick read about the months following 9/11, with a breathless day-by-day account of the meetings and phone calls held between the President and his advisors. Woodward had unparalleled access during this period, including multiple in-person interviews with Bush both in Washington and in Crawford. Fair warning, he does not mince words on his dissatisfaction with Bush's performance.

[0]: https://www.amazon.com/Bush-at-War-Bob-Woodward/dp/074324461...

> More often than not the mother was highly involved. Almost never was a nanny the primary caregiver.

Sure, if the claim had been "had Bush's ear" rather than "was a senior member of Bush's cabinet", I wouldn't have said it was factually incorrect.

Just name the person. I had no idea who it was maybe the 3rd comment I read below the original post.

Does Condoleezza Rice being on the board make me less likely to work there? No. Does it make it less likely for me to invest in the company? No. Maybe your opinion is different, but a comment just hand waiving that Dropbox has a bunch of lying war mongers on their board makes no sense without that context.

> Does Condoleezza Rice being on the board make me less likely to work there? No. Does it make it less likely for me to invest in the company? No.

Look, they have Guido and Jessica and Brandon among their ranks. That's big. I'm sure many of us love the idea of working with them.

But I also think that many people see Condi as a huge red flag and that, among everyday tech investors, yes, it will hurt them. Will it help their standing in beltway circles and among military contract investors? Yeah, it probably will.

But it's a dangerous game. There's no reason for Rice to be able to live a normal life after what she has done. This is pretending that the huge changes that the world has undergone in the past 10 years are a thing of fiction. It's mindblowing, really.

Here's a lot more reading on the subject:

http://www.drop-dropbox.com/