Its not a mistake to attack the policy, I disagree with the policy. The mistake is to imagine that Rice is free-lancing. She isn't. Its the same policy as it was before she went to State. Its the same policy the Israelis are pushing.
Quoting Bolton from another thread:
"...Bolton... said he "unequivocally" thought the United States should pay its full U.N. dues. He said there should "absolutely" be a "viable, contiguous Palestinian state." And, after aides distributed his prepared testimony to reporters, they returned with a revised copy that excised a sentence defending the Israeli military action in Lebanon."
Bolton, like Rice, represents the president. So even a Bolton must get on board with the so-called "two-state" solution. I'm against it. But Bolton's a good man. I don't know what its going to take to dump the "independent" palestine nonsense, but its not Rice's policy, its Bush's policy.
Gingrich and Perle want a more aggressive policy. Me too. Probably Bush does too, but the difference is he (and Rice, and Bolton) has to figure out how to execute it, man it, pay for it, keep all the allies and almost allies and secret enemies on board while you do it. They don't. I don't. We have the best job; we get to analyze what they are doing wrong. They have to make deals with people that make my skin crawl, in order to get anything done at all.
Does Gingrich want to go to war with North Korea? NK is China's sock puppet. Does he really want to get into it there while we are busy, really, pretty busy in Iraq? Me and Gingrich don't have to worry about "how". Bush and Rice and Cheney and Rumsfeld do.
This follows a pattern of hits on people associated with the Iraq Group [also remember the hits on Feith, etc of the "Office of Special Plans" at the Pentagon?]that we've seen all throughout the post-Rockefeller memo and Niger/Plasme Leak timelines...
Thanks for the info on Bolton BTW- I hadn't seen that
Ah. The bottom line. Something often simply ignored around here.