I've been here right along. I've also, as you have, been observing the total disconnect between the Condi stated foreign policy aims and the actual foreign policy results. Of course the best glaring example was during the Israel-Hizbolla affair where she so publicly demanded that the only cease-fire that should come about was one that did not leave everything at the "status quo ante"; and the actual cease fire did exactly that and worse in terms of Hizbolla.
Notice how the Bush doctrine on both Korea and Iran has gone from ther understanding that neither of those countries should have nukes, to now saying they simply should not be allowed to trade or share their nukes.
The DOD could have eliminated the Mahdi (Shia) army in Iraq, organized, controlled, supplied and funded by Iran a long time ago (as Rummy has wanted to do), and since they are a major source of the sectarian violence from Shia to Sunnis, they are a major source of continued instability in Iraq (which is Iran's aim to begin with). But Condi and Burns have blocked those efforts. Now, if the Shia get a truly autonomous region under the "federalism" bill pushed through in Iraq, the Shia region will be under the full control of Tehran as an indentured client. Thank you Condi.
(Oh, and we know the locations in Iran where the IEDs used in Iraq are produced, but we cannot attack them. Thanks again Rice and Burns)
Prior to the 2004 elections, Bush had a robust foreign policy and his stated goals and aims were pushed and proded, with lackluster enthusiasm, by the State Department under Colin Powell.
We were led to believe that Condi was appointed due to her loyalty to Bush. Then, when conservatives' attention was directed elsewhere, she named and received confirmation on the appointment of Nicholas Burns as her Deputy Undersecretary for Political Affairs. He last previous role prior to that had been as the lead foreign policy advisor to the POTUS campaign of John Kerry; and it one of Condi's mentors, the RINO Chuck Hagel that made the suggestion to Condi.
If you want to read the framework of the course of our foreign policy after that point - talk and retreat, talk and retreat, talk and retreat - you only need to read the foreign policy white papers put out by the Kerry team in the runup to the election. Burns was a chief architect of them and they pretty much define how he and Condi have pursued our "diplomacy" since then.
Foreign policy aims and foreign policy results are usually two different things. And our State Department is in major need of housecleaning.
I can't make the leap, though, to your conclusion that we are the weakest nation on the planet.
The opposite is true, although our foreign policy often seems to be ashamed of that fact.