Posted on 07/26/2006 2:36:52 PM PDT by red meat conservative
Conservative national security allies of President Bush are in revolt against Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice, saying that she is incompetent and has reversed the administration’s national security and foreign policy agenda.
The conservatives, who include Newt Gingrich, Richard Perle and leading current and former members of the Pentagon and National Security Council, have urged the president to transfer Miss Rice out of the State Department and to an advisory role. They said Miss Rice, stemming from her lack of understanding of the Middle East, has misled the president on Iran and the Arab-Israeli conflict.
"The president has yet to understand that people make policy and not the other way around," a senior national security policy analyst said. "Unlike [former Secretary of State Colin] Powell, Condi is loyal to the president. She is just incompetent on most foreign policy issues."
(Excerpt) Read more at insightmag.com ...
Will the whining never stop??
I agree if by "Dump Her" you mean "free her up" to start campaigning for Pres.
Go CONDI 2008
The State Dept. Sucks. The Institution is wimpy in general. I'm not sure how Condi could fix that short of abolishing it. In Viet Nam the State Dept fought against the Defense Dept. Selling food to and building truck factories for the Communists in Russia who then used their money to finance the NVA.
Sounds like the store might be out of tinfoil... unless they've restocked since you picked up yours.
She serves at the pleasure of the president and the direction is his to change.
in two weeks at FR
How lucky have they been on convincing GW he is wrong on immigration?
Some of the mmore clever liberals slip in here and try to play the "I'm more conservative than anyone" game.
Using that ruse, they then start going after conservatives that they think are vulnerable and start picking away at them.
It's nothing new, but they seem to theink it still works.
He probably would have signed up sooner but assembling a list of talking points takes time.
Typical lib trick on this forum...pretend to be very conservative and then start looking for conservatives that appear to be vulnerable to attack for not being conservative enough aand start denigrating them.
It's like everything else liberals do, they have to hide their motives and make it sound like they're just concerned about someone not being as conservative as they claim to be.
Rice scares the stuffing out of those guys.
What an utterly stupid and totally clueless rant.
Should that not be Red Mean NON Conservative? If you have to lie about your real political allegience, you have all ready LOST the debate.
What you are really saying is that the president should change his policy. If he needs to, then, lay the blame on her to save face, he should do so.
He's not that kind of guy. When he decides to change policy, he will and he'll take the hit himself.
Now to the specifics:
She and Bush are handling the Lebanon incursion pretty well. They have said they favor a cease-fire just as soon as Hezbollah disarms, which pretty clearly means "when they surrender". Hezbollah understands it, so does Lebanon, and so does everyone else.
She and Bush continue to favor the so-called "two-state" solution in palestine, which is really a three-state solution, but who's counting. That is still Israel's position, actually. But neither she nor Bush have done anything to impede Israel as they go about their business in Gaza.
I don't favor the fantasy-notion of an independent Gaza or West Bank at all, and I'll be happy when the smart folks have abandoned that idea for good. But until Bush (and the Israelis) are ready to dump the idea, Rice will continue to walk the line.
Bush/Rice have not only continued to arm Israel in the middle of the battle but have made sure everyone knows about it, and they are delivering bunker busters, just to make the point clear for anyone not paying attention.
Last I checked we were pretty effective on changing Miers.
He has a 50/50 record. So, change is possible.
Guarenteed? Nah, nothing ever is, but it's conceivable and you can't deny that. Especially since this is a different policy item altogether. He's been known to take strong stands on foreign policy with Afghanistan, with Iraq, even Bolton's appointment. You simply cannot compare the two.
And it's certainly a more effective solution then getting rid of someone who's competent in their job. I don't want to fire competance. I do want to alter the mindset in State that seeks to avoid conflict at all costs.
As an aside, The proper comparison to immigration is an insistence on a Palestinian state. That one he isn't going to budge on. I don't like his position on either, but I know it's not going to change and I've never tried to change it. I've tried to throw up roadblocks in the other legislative branches, particularly concerning amnesty instead.
But being more aggressive with terrorists? yeah, we can win that one.
Gotta disagree with you. I'd rather have an intelligent Condi as SOS than shoot from the lip idiots like Perle or egomaniacs like Newt.
Screw em.
Nonsense. She is better than Powell.
I wouldn't say this anymore.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.