Posted on 08/17/2006 8:30:54 PM PDT by Solitar
ASPEN, Colo. -- The idea of a woman president is not so abstract now that the 2008 election nears, Lynne Cheney, wife of vice president Dick Cheney said Wednesday. "If you're thinking of Condi Rice, I think she has good credentials," Cheney said. During an appearance sponsored by the Aspen Institute, Cheney talked mostly about education and history but did venture into current politics, including the possibility of women running for president. She did not mention New York Sen. Hillary Clinton, widely thought to be considering a presidential run in 2008. "(National security) is the driving issue," Cheney said. "The stereotype exists that women are softer. Maybe it's not true. I don't think it's true. But it's a little bit of a challenge to overcome for a woman president."
(Excerpt) Read more at thedenverchannel.com ...
The problem with Condi, and it's not her fault really, is that she has been tasked to implement someone else's policies. Condi may or may no have fully agreed with those polices.
Until she voices her own opinions in public to a greater degree, I'm not fully sure what here personal views are or what her own policies would be like.
During the recent war between the Israelis and Hezbollah, Condi voiced concern for civilian deaths and the need for a ceasefire. I found that disturbing.
When your ally goes after terrorists, you don't trip them on the way out the gate. When they're engaged, you don't lament colateral damage.
What you should be doing is laying down a firm reason why they are taking the actions they have. You then support that action based on a set of principles that cross national, cultural and religious boundaries.
We fail our allies when we fail to implement this type of supportive function. Who else is going to defend what is right on the world stage if we don't. How is support for Israel going to grow if no one explains why they are doing what they are doing, and then supports them publicly on reasoned grounds?
IMO, we failed Israel once again. Sadly, it's very appearant that we learned nothing from the process either. Now that it's clear that Hezbollah won't disarm and nobody is going to make them, our leaders remain silent.
We were hosed on this ceasefire. I don't see anyone acknowledging it and promising it won't happen again. Huge mistake.
Condie was mixed up in this. I want to know to what extent she agree with this policy. If she was fully on board, I wouldn't vote for her. It would say too much about what her world view was.
If Condi wins the nomination, I will gladly vote for her.
Well that is always a problem - usually a problem that Vice Presidents have to face. Bush Sr. overcame it. Gore didn't.
I agree that the ceasefire hosed us, and was bad for Israel and the US. But I am not sure that it was the US that pushed that line or merely gave Olmert a way out. IMHO, Olmert handed the US a problem and said 'get me out of it'. I am not so sure it was the other way around.
I do think the US was not pleased at all with the execution of the war. Israel did not have good intel at all. I think they thought they could soften it with air power and then go in for a mop up only to find they didn't soften anything and got hosed on the front lines when they went in, foretelling a long bitter conflict that Olmert didn't want and probably the US didn't want. The US wanted Iran on the agenda and perhaps saw Lebanon as a dry run.
Whether the perception here now strengthens Iran or not remains to be seen, but hopefully we can see this as Israel being 'sacrificed' if you will for the sake of a united front against Iran. Lebanon was a distraction but also an opportunity to bring France on board with the US, UK, Germany and others vis a vis Iran.
She's qualified- maybe overly qualified, but I don't think she wants it badly enough. Sadly, you have to WANT to practically kill for the presidency in order to win. (Note to Kennedys: I said "practically kill for", actually killing will count you out!)
I personally don't think 2008 is the right time simply because of all that is goin on in the world - it's too unstable. Condi has not shown well regarding Israel and personally it's gonna take an "in your face" guy like Rudy to tell the Saudis, Iranians, Syrians, N. Koreans, etc. to go shove it when the time comes. That time is coming! Although Clinton desperately wants the nomination and Presidency, world events are spinning away from her grasp and making her chances slimmer, not better as we approach 08...
I appreciate the comments. I think we're kidding ourselves if we think we're going to mop up the Iraq operation without neutering Syria and Iran.
Neither had The Hilderbeast when she ran for the Senate.
I think Rice & Bush know what they are doing with Israel. Our defense team is not stupid.
If the Israelis had just kept invading Lebanon - in very little time the whole world would have been calling Israel the "aggressor" and "baby killers" - totally forgetting what started it. (The world has a very short attention span). We know and Israel knows that the other side is not going to live up to the UN agreement.
Israel has already said that if there are any more attacks by Hezballah - Israel will destroy Lebanon.
They are just biding their time. When Hezballah resumes the attacks Israel can completely wipe them out and the UN and the rest of the world won't be able to say boo.
At least that's what I would do if I were running things.
We keep reading criticisms of Condi which say she has never done a national campaign.
Well...
Of all the Republicans who have done national campaigns, who among them is a decently electable conservative?
I do not include among that short list those who might be great conservative Presidents and who could adequately defend this nation but who don't stand a chance of a spark in a blizzard of getting elected.
I totally agree. There is no question in my mind Iran is doing all the mucking up in Iraq. One big problem is that it's a Shia government in Iraq, who probably do not favorably view an attack on Iran. This is a situation where there are triple and quadruple agents, i.e. Shia Iranians supporting Sunni attacks on Shias to push Shias closer to Iran.
So hopefully we can get a united front to topple the Iranian regime and it can be done many ways, including fostering a democratic movement, ethnic Arab Iranian separatist movements, and humiliating attacks on their nuclear installations... a series of measures that in total are too much for the current regime to handle. It doesn't have to be us vs them in direct military confrontation, it can and should be framed in a way to isolate the Iranian government from its people.
I don't have a problem with that suggestion at all. I'd prefer and like to see a move in that direction. I do think it may tend to be impractical since the regime in Iran is so represive. We'd probably see a very reactionary move if this were to be tried in ernest. Of course that would serve to undermine the mullah's even more IMO.
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.