Posted on 02/15/2006 8:36:14 PM PST by NormsRevenge
The "Condi for President" movement is gathering steam. The recent Conservative Political Action Conference (CPAC) featured an "Americans for Dr. Rice" booth, and 47 percent of the public in a new Fox News poll says Rice would make a good president.
Even more important, the Wall Street Journal has run an article about the new "neorealists" guiding foreign policy in the Bush Administration, focusing on the arrival of Condoleezza Rice as Secretary of State. The article was obviously intended to be a flattering portrait of Rice. But that is not the way it may come out in the end.
The article serves as a useful reminder of the schizophrenia at the paper. The Journal has long been known to have a strong ideological divide, even a virtual Church-State separation, between the editorial page and the news pages.
While the editorial page has been a staunch supporter of the Iraq war and the global war on terrorism, this Journal "news" article blasted the "neo-cons" in the administration who were said to have been behind the "hard-line" foreign policy in the first Bush term, including the invasion of Iraq.
In this connection, remember that the recent UCLA-Missouri study attempting to quantify media bias found that, by its criteria, the Wall Street Journal was further to the left than even the New York Times.
That's a reflection of the bias of the Journal's news pages. So, to those familiar with these facts, the pro-Rice screed in the Journal is a matter of some concern.
Indeed, in its attempt to be kind to Rice, the Journal may have done her more harm than good.
The Journal story reports, for example, that "The most recent sign of a shift in the administration's tone came last week in London. After an intense day of diplomacy, Ms. Rice brokered a compromise agreement among Russia, China, France and Britain for the International Atomic Energy Agency to report Iran to the U.N. Security Council for allegedly violating commitments to the Nuclear Nonproliferation Treaty. Over the weekend, nearly all other IAEA member countries endorsed the agreement. Ms. Rice's aides came away touting the efficacy of the U.N. and the IAEA—organizations disdained by Bush aides three years ago in the run-up to the Iraq invasion."
The Journal makes it sound as if this was a great victory. In fact, the compromise resolution endorsed a nuclear-free Middle East, a concept that entails the dismantling of Israel's secret defensive nuclear weapons program. Reflecting the views of the Arab/Muslim bloc, the Europeans, and China and Russia, the resolution takes the heat off Iran and implicitly makes Israel out to be a villain in the Middle East conflict. This was the "realistic" price of the U.S. getting the other countries to agree to send the issue of Iran's nuclear program to the U.N. Security Council.
Getting the matter to the Security Council, of course, guarantees nothing. In fact, many observers believe the Security Council will never agree to do anything substantial about the matter. It is simply a way to buy time. In the end, if anything is done, it will probably be accomplished by a "Coalition of the Willing," such as what was done in the case of Iraq.
As the treatment of Rice's approach to the Iran problem indicates, the authors of the Journal article, Jay Solomon and Neil King Jr., assume that putting the term "neorealist" on a policy of depending on the U.N. or appeasing the "international community" will sound attractive. But how realistic is it, considering the U.N.'s failures on Iraq, to expect that the world body will do anything about Iran? A natural follow-up is how going to the U.N. with the Iran nuclear problem squares with Dr. Rice's tough rhetoric about making sure Iran will not be allowed to have nuclear weapons.
From a conservative perspective, one could argue that the difference Rice is making at the State Department has not been good. AIM has reported on how she recently announced that the State Department is working with the liberal Aspen Institute on an Edward R. Murrow journalism program to train foreign journalists. Murrow, of course, is the CBS journalist who made his name by attacking anti-communist Senator Joseph McCarthy and is the subject of the George Clooney film, "Good Night, and Good Luck." Rice should have honored an anti-communist journalist, such as the late author and Reader's Digest writer John Barron, with such a program. But it's wiser, from the point of view of cultivating the press, to go with the liberal icon Murrow.
On another matter of critical importance to U.S. foreign policy, the American Prospect, a liberal magazine, has noted with great pleasure that Rice personally intervened last September when U.S. Ambassador to the U.N. John Bolton was calling for major changes in a so-called U.N. World Summit outcome document that sought to expand the U.N.'s authority in world affairs. The Prospect said that Rice had participated in a conference call with U.N. Secretary-General Kofi Annan and British Foreign Minister Jack Straw, and that the next day Bolton sent a letter to his U.N. counterparts pulling back from his demands.
Ewen MacAskill, diplomatic editor for the British Guardian, provided the details, noting that Straw had "made a personal plea" to Rice and asked her "to rein in John Bolton…" That was accomplished when Bolton eventually agreed to a summit outcome document that advocated strengthening the U.N. in global affairs. Bolton was even forced to water down U.S. opposition to global taxes.
Such actions by Rice are viewed by liberal writers at the Prospect and the Journal as welcome because they despise the so-called "neo-conservatives," or "hardliners," who have been widely reported to have been in charge of U.S. foreign policy. But their slanted coverage is based on another false assumption—that the war in Iraq was conceived in secret by the "neo-cons" and quickly executed in open defiance of the U.N. and our allies.
In fact, the Bush administration did not rush into war. It took the matter to the United Nations, where it got a unanimous Security Council Resolution, 1441, to give Iraq one last chance to come clean on its weapons of mass destruction programs. The clear implication was that if Iraq didn't cooperate, the next step would be military action. Some conservatives, like Jed Babbin, have argued that the Bush Administration wasted precious time going to the U.N. for approval of the war in Iraq.
Hans Blix, who led the U.N. inspectors back into Iraq in November of 2002, returned after 60 days to tell the world body and the world that "Iraq appears not to have come to a genuine acceptance, not even today, of the disarmament which was demanded of it and which it needs to carry out to win the confidence of the world and to live in peace." It was clear by that point that the war had become inevitable.
The apparent point of the Journal's depiction of Secretary Rice as a "neorealist" was to flatter her, and to keep her moving in the direction of increased reliance on the U.N. in global affairs. But you don't have to be a "neo-con" to think this spells big trouble for the U.S., our allies, and the world itself in the case of Iran.
If Iran acquires nuclear weapons, we may all be pining for the days when the hardline "neo-cons" were truly in charge of U.S. foreign policy. More delay by the administration on this vital matter suggests that the movement for "President Condi" could quickly lose steam.
FYI -
FR Presidential poll.
Who is your favorite Republican for President in 2008?
George Allen
19.9%
Condoleezza Rice
19.9%
Undecided/Other
13.6%
Tom Tancredo
13.1%
Rudy Giuliani
11.7%
Newt Gingrich
9.1%
Mike Pence
5.4%
John McCain
4.3%
Rick Santorum
2.4%
Bill Frist
0.6%
Yah, brahs. I read this a couple of days ago. Sounds like some of the Ubermensch crowd got spooked by the durability of Rice's popularity and the inability of one trick ponies like Tancredo and Brownback to break out of the pack.
So, they decided to publish this hit piece labeling Condi as a disciple of Neville Chamberlain.
Groan.
It doesn't work when the Michael Moore Democrats are attacking her as a warmonger.
Be Seeing You,
Chris
Condi lets her resume and performance speak for herself. She's accomplished more in her life so far that it would take 10 lifetimes for the fake intellectuals that populate the MSM like Christiane Amonpour.
The MSM can't touch her and they know it. If the MSM attacked her as they desperately wish they could, they would be exposed for what they really are. Liberal racist thugs. Everything those phonys try to mask with their fake self-rightousness would be exposed.
A Allen/Rice ticket in 2008 sounds really good to me.
They would destroy Hillary.
I could vote for that ticket...easily.
Agreed!
Time for a Condi - Chaney job swop
"A Allen/Rice ticket in 2008 sounds really good to me."
I could buy into that combo but you have the order reversed.
I've said it before, I'll say it again. Unless Condi comes out against abortion, especially partial-birth abortion, she will not win the nomination, much less the presidency. That goes double for Guiliani. If they manage to get the nomination for the general election, the single issue pro-life voters won't vote democrat, they just won't vote.
As much as I like Condi, she has never been tested electorally, and we do not know her temperament under that type of pressure, we don't even know what her positions are yet. While we're discussing this, how about somebody posting that picture of her in the black outfit?
""A Allen/Rice ticket in 2008 sounds really good to me.""
"I could buy into that combo but you have the order reversed."
Governors win the Presidency. Senators rarely win, Kennedy was the last...barely.
But I suppose if they run Hildabeast we can run a Senator too.
Chae,
This one quote directly addresses your question:
"I am a strong proponent of parental notification. I am a strong proponent of a ban on late-term abortion. These are all things that I think unite people and I think that that's where we should be."
Here is the rest of Rice's position on abortion from a Washington Times article last month:
It's absolutely insane for any conservative to back Condileeza Rice at this juncture. She has not revealed her position on ANY domestic issue.
Do any of these FR poll voters for Rice know where she stands on : abortion ? affirmative action ? elimination of estate taxes ? immigration reform ? social security reform ? tort reform ? Supreme Court nominees ?
Of course not. No one does.
Apparently, to many RINOs, Ms. Rice's greatest asset is that she is a registered Republican. Heck, why not just get Hillary Clinton to switch parties and maybe the RINOs can vigorously support her and Ms. Rice as running mates on the same 2008 GOP ticket ?
A diplomat, especially a highly skilled diplomat is not the sort of person that conservatives need to pe president. A diplomat's whole makeup is compromise and getting what everyone can accept for the moment. Where would the US be now if W was a Diplomat? I like Condoleeza Rice. I admire her. I respect her. Odds are she would be an infuriating president and would govern effectively as a liberal, regardless of her own views bevause she would be making deals. All presidents have to deal to some extent but I don't want one whose skill and training is Compromise and Getting Along.
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.