Skip to comments.Dump Condi: Foreign policy conservatives charge State Dept. has hijacked Bush agenda
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 administrations 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 ...
Perle and Newt just wish they were SOS. They obviously think they would not have to follow their president's directives. Envy makes for ugly.
That's called "diplomacy" and that's what SOS's do.
What part of what she said do you think was NOT what Bush wanted her to say?
Kissing up to international egos is all a part of it and it certainly didn't start with Ms. Rice, it's been going on for decades, but that never bothered you until just now.
You seem to have a real agenda against the lady. Why don't you just come out and tell us what you real gripe about her is?
George W. Bush, who is responsible for her, thinks otherwise and he's in a better position to know than any of us, except for, perhaps, you.
I expect an apology.
The you need to "set me straight" your statements are not backed up by anything more than your opinion.
You've got that right. Somebody is afraid that Ms. Rice may show up as a presidential candidate in 2008. Start the trash talk now, just in case she makes a run at it.
Like I said, she's a lovely person but the wrong person for that job. I think she's a lightweight whom the rest of the world does not take seriously. Bush, being a very politically correct politician, saw the opportunity to promote a Black woman and make himself look good.
Gasp. You're kidding. Tell me your kidding.
A lightweight compared to...whom exactly??
It's rare that I post but I can't let this pass.
Dr. Rice is a diplomat, our top diplomat. As such she has to play a different game than the one we arm chair quarter backs play on the net and letter to the editor pages.
To question her conservative credentials based on what her statements and actions are as SOS is a fool hardy exercise.
As to anything about referring to Islam as a religion of peace, go back to school and learn about tact and tactics. Bushs team knows there is no support for a much broader War on Terror right now, and despite many positions to the contrary we are not at war with the entire Muslim world, just perhaps a large part of it. Indeed many such nations are valued partners in the WOT, think Jordans aid on al-Zarqawi. You don't ask for help by calling the person you are approaching a murdering radical.
Diplomacy is not well practiced by fools, and true conservatives know that.
And Newt should know better if he indeed is saying this...
I need a few examples of "non-lightweights" in that job to be convinced that you have a point.
Kissinger made a lot of noise and his mumbling sounded educated because most of it was unintelligible. I need some names, from recent history, of your favorite "heavyweight" SOS's.
A Sec. of State should reflect a mirror image of the president's international views. Like it or not, that's the job description and does that....what more do you want?
Every other Sec of State, with the only exception being Madeliene Albright. If anyone thinks Condi was given the job because of her credentials and superb abilites, they are wrong. Rice had been saying the direct opposite of President Bush's stance on Isreal, until she was obviously spoken to and 'corrected'. She was a politically correct appointment, period. (Note: this does not mean I think she isn't bright and talented, she is. But in these times we live in Sec. of State is way over her head).
I have this feeling that she will not be SOS very much longer. Bigger and better things await.
Bush and Rice have been joined at the hip since before he was president. She is one of a very short list of people that Bush trusts almost completely.
With Bush its Rice, Rove, Cheney, and just about no one else.
She is probably the smartest person to lead State in a long time. She is tougher than she appears at first glance on camera, remember when they tried to roll her during her confirmation hearings, and during the 911 commission. She is usually the smartest person in the room, whatever room she is in. And quite possibly the toughest.
I suspect we are looking at our next president.
Well said, and amen.
What kind of an answer is that?
I asked for specific names and examples of these great Sec. of State's in the past 20 years and you give me nothing but a blanket mention, two of which (Kissinger, and Haig) have already been eliminated. "Every other Sec of State" and it's not what I asked.
Simply name your favorite Sec. of State since the 70's (just one would suffice if that's all you can come up with) and I will believe you actually have a point.
It's possible, but I don't know if she would want the hassle of the job, she is almost too smart for it.
And as an aside I am getting a kick out of the lightweight comments...
Have these chuck heads read her resume? Her work?
Thought not, that would make it hard to fault her. Got to be DU plants...
The Perle/Newt crowd are standeasys for Cheney and Rumsfeld, who, apparently, aren't too pleased with Condi right now. They misunderstood Rice's offer to the Iranians as appeasement, and began this campaign against her.
When Hezboallah began the missile barrage against Israel, Condi understood immediately that she had her answer to the May 30th initiative. What is not being said is what became immediately apparent to Rice and Bush: Ahmadhi-Nejad, secure at home, had decided on war. He had made Hitler's mistake in underestimating the West. Spengler, in his excellent article in the Asia Times Online, points out that war with Iran is now inevitable, probably by the end of the year.
Lincoln is said to have responded to Seward's eagerness to take on Britain during the Civil War, "One war at a time." Rice has always understood the Roman admonition that martial impulses must be ruthlessly be subordinated to political aims. She has always understood that the fanaticism of Dinner Jacket would lead him towards war as a solution to Iran's encirclement. The problem of Germany repeats itself.
Ahmadhi-Nejad truly is a fool. He doesn't understand that the finest, most experienced fighting army in human history is on his doorstep. No one realizes this, apparently, except Bush and Condi. No one ever seems to mention the five divisions we have in the center of the Middle East. When the time comes, they will come into play-filled as they are with men who have done two to three tours in Al Anbar Province. When the Revolutionary Guards face these men, you will see history repeat itself. The Gauls, when they finally confronted Caesar's Tenth Legion, found the immovable force.
People who want to get rid of Rice are people who are too damn eager to go into Iran. Condi understands what people like Jed Babbin do; that the Iranians are fascists who will do anything to break out of their encirclement. Condi stood against European Appeasement today in Rome because she understands that Nasrallah is Ahmadhi-Nejad's client, no more, no less. As she stands against appeasement, the logic of her arguments will begin to carry the day, as did Churchill's sixty years before.
The next phase of the War has begun. Conservatives need to fight the enemy overseas, not phantom enemies at home. Condi is the best thing we have going right now.
Be Seeing You,
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.