Democrats & Liberals Archives

Hooray for Rice!

In the midst of this dysfunctional macho administration with its fetish of secrecy and bullying manliness, there is one official that stands out. She has brilliantly switched the course of this administration from dehumanizing militarism to fresh-breathtaking diplomacy. Her name is Rice. They call her Condi. As Secretary of State, she is doing what we Democrats have been recommending for a long time. She is working with world leaders using non-military means to persuade and convince Tehran it would be better off without nuclear weapons.

Condoleezza Rice is asking for $75 million to be added to the $10 million already allocated so that, as she says:

"The United States will actively confront the aggressive policies of the Iranian regime. At the same time, we will work to support the aspirations of the Iranian people for freedom and democracy in their country."

Among the activities Rice will be involved in are:

  • Provide funds to Iranian non-governmental bodies that promote democracy, human rights and trade unionism

  • Broadcast radio and TV programs into Iran

  • Get more Iranians to study in America

  • In a trip to the Middle East next week, Rice will make Iran a focal point in her talks with regional leaders

  • She will place Iran diplomacy at center-stage at an upcoming G8 meeting in Moscow

  • She will call a meeting of political directors from NATO in March or April to talk solely about Iran diplomacy
What a change. Diplomacy. Talk. Persuasion. Interaction. Discussion. Give and take. Exchange of views. Compromise. Working together. Seeking peace. What a relief.

I'm extremely happy to see that finally, at long last, U.S. is seeking change, not through antagonism and aggression but through discussion and diplomacy. If Condi is not influenced by neoconservatives to be more belligerent, I think she stands a good chance of producing good results. If she persists in these cooperative endeavors, she may even bring back some of the luster of America that has been lost by the aggressive actions of this administration.

Hooray for Rice!

Posted by Paul Siegel at February 16, 2006 4:47 PM
Comments
Comment #126050

Paul:

Perhaps you will be supporting Dr. Rice if and when she runs for President? :)

Posted by: joebagodonuts at February 16, 2006 5:23 PM
Comment #126053

Rice has appeared to have had some success moderating the W admin’s stances to a more diplomatic tone from neocon aggression. But the reason for this aren’t simply the emergence of Condi (remember, Powell was the poster-boy for diplomacy) - it more has to do with the constraints imposed by the debacle in Iraq. If we had the military resources to attack Iran, I don’t think we’d be singing the praises of Condi right now. Her political career (per “Rise of the Vulcans”) has been dominated and shaped by W, Cheney, et al - she is their puppet and she simply performs the duties that the puppet-masters request. If our military was available and not tied down in Iraq, Condi would be heaping an unending stream of military-based threats at Iran right now.

Lets not get carried-away with giving her too much credit - due to the debacle in Iraq, we have no choice but diplomacy.

Posted by: Centrist Ideology at February 16, 2006 5:24 PM
Comment #126063

“I’ve asked why nobody saw it coming. It does say something about us not having a good enough pulse.”
Secretary of State Condi Rice on the victory of Hamas

I might have a little more respect for the Secretary of State when she starts keeping up with world affairs.

In another example, detailed on www.juancole.com, Rice attempted to blame the cartoon wars on Iran & Syria. That scenario might fit the administration’s preconceived notions, but as happens so often, the administration’s notions don’t fit reality. Rice keeps carrying water for Cheney and the Neocons, and time and again, it turns out to be nothing but a honey bucket.

Paul, give it 72 hours, and she’ll blunder again. Gentleman’s bet… by Monday she’ll be backpedaling on some gaffe, or lying again, the way she lied to Biden about the 110,000 trained troops in Iraq in January of 2005.

Posted by: phx8 at February 16, 2006 6:00 PM
Comment #126066

Rice’s political maneuvering reminds me of how Douglas MacArthur, by the sheer force of his brilliant debating skills, tricked the Japanese into surrendering on the deck of the USS Missouri.

This was truly brilliant diplomacy. Indeed, the surrender of the Japanese was the direct result of the Truman administration’s rejection of FDR’s warmongering and cowboy gun-slinging.

Peace was only achieved then by “Diplomacy. Talk. Persuasion. Interaction. Discussion. Give and take. Exchange of views. Compromise. Working together. Seeking peace.” And that’s the only way it could possibly be achieved now.

Great post Paul! Great Democratic ideas!!

Just like debating and tea ceremonies ended WWII, they will disarm Iran’s mullahs—if only we dedicate ourselves completely to this path and assure the world and the Iranians that our soft-spoken diplomacy is NOT backed up by any willingness to use force.

Posted by: sanger at February 16, 2006 6:12 PM
Comment #126076

The most apt description of Dr. C. Rice that I ever heard was that she is a nimble prevaricator, but I can not remember who gets the credit for that.

Has anyone ever suggested that WE should buy up all the nuclear material available at a higher price than Iran? Are we too poor now to do that, or is it just because there is no profit in it for Haliburton and the rest?

Posted by: ray ohrealy at February 16, 2006 6:39 PM
Comment #126080

Are you talking about the same woman who couldn’t figure out that a report titled “Osama Bin Laden determined to strike on US Soil” was not historic data?

The same woman, who on 9/11 was going to give a speech that said the US Military needed to strengthen its long range missle capabilities?

The same woman who shrank into a corner once the Twin Towers and Pentagon were hit and asked Richard Clarke to take over?

I doubt if Rice will ever get elected president.

Posted by: Pat at February 16, 2006 6:58 PM
Comment #126081

ray ohrealy,

Has anyone ever suggested that WE should buy up all the nuclear material available at a higher price than Iran? Are we too poor now to do that, or is it just because there is no profit in it for Haliburton and the rest?

Iran is mining uranium from their own hills. They don’t need to buy anything from anyone.

Posted by: Rob Cottrell at February 16, 2006 7:04 PM
Comment #126084

Sanger,

“Rice’s political maneuvering reminds me of how Douglas MacArthur, by the sheer force of his brilliant debating skills, tricked the Japanese into surrendering on the deck of the USS Missouri.”

It probably didn’t hurt that he had a pretty damn big stick either.

Posted by: Rocky at February 16, 2006 7:18 PM
Comment #126086

>>Iran is mining uranium from their own hills. They don’t need to buy anything from anyone.

Posted by: Rob Cottrell at February 16, 2006 07:04 PM

Rob,

Left to their own devices, Iran is about ten years out. How far out are they if they can buy materials and technology at will?

Posted by: Marysdude at February 16, 2006 7:24 PM
Comment #126090

Wow, I must give credit to some of the writers who never seem to tire of finding evil and incompetence in everyone with whom they disagree. Don’t you people ever eat or sleep? I am convinced that many of the writers on this blog would still be arguing about the last two elections even as they witnessed death and destruction by our enemies. Clearly we have enemies…just read a newspaper or listen to a news broadcast. And…the emeny ain’t U.S. It’s difficult to understand why anyone would prefer to pander to discord in a time of national crisis rather than unite against the common enemy of terrorism. While it is a good thing to offer helpful critiques of the means, let’s all agree on the appropriate end result. We (U.S.) win and survive.
By the way, perhaps some of you fail to understand that we can take care of the Iranian threat without boots on the ground. We have lost that option with North Korea primarily by the inept Clinton administration believing our enemy wanted atoms for peace. Let’s not make that same mistake with Iran. Secretary Rice, to our good fortune, is not M. Albright and she will pursue the goals that protect Americans first and the free world will be a beneficiary.
It’s interesting to note that our European allies at last perceive the growing threat of unchecked terrorist groups and regimes. The danger has at last become a reality to them and we will certainly need their support for the work at hand.
I have no doubt that the free world will prevail in this battle despite all the comfort and aid being given unwittingly, I hope, by many persons here, and in other countrys who appear to be blinded by their own hatred. Jim

Posted by: Jim Martin at February 16, 2006 7:36 PM
Comment #126097

Rice is about 100 smarter than her boss but he is still her boss. Just personal observation of course. She appears to have the same type of brilliance as Kissinger and Brezinski,a totally amoral manipultor of vast power. I find it chilling yet fascinating.
Some of the steps mentioned are not very short of agression. How would we like it if Iran started broadcasting into the US and funding US ngos? I would like to quip about how at least Bush is willing to support trade unions somewhere but the CIA has a tradition of manipulating trade unions for their own purposes rather than for the workers. More Iranian students? More potential recruits. Looks like a setup for a classic CIA destableization assault. Some might wonder what is wrong with that? One thing wrong is they have done it so often and so long that it does not fool anyone anymore and does not work. Recent evidence? Venusuala.(forgive the spelling)
Still,we should do something to taech them a lesson. I mean they have a lot of nerve keeping our oil under their sand.

Posted by: BillS at February 16, 2006 7:47 PM
Comment #126099

Hooray for Siegel!

Paul,

You are one of a minority within your party who sees Condi as something other than a token. Thank you for the civility.

This was a good article, but I have to disagree with you that the administration is making a course change (not a big one anyway). They’re simply handling different situations differently. They didn’t deal with Iraq the way they dealt with Afganistan, and Iran is going to be dealt with differently as well.

I would still like to see Rice run for President, but if she really doesn’t want to, maybe she’ll be McCain’s VP. I don’t think the Democrats could mount much of an opposition to that ticket, especially if she helps deal with Iran quickly.

Posted by: The Traveler at February 16, 2006 7:51 PM
Comment #126100

Jim,
“Blinded by hate.” Yes, we see a lot of that these days. But- correct me if I’m wrong- when you support Condi Rice, aren’t you basically coming out in favor of killing people? Because I’d be very, very hard pressed to come up with a way in which any country would seriously threaten US borders or national security anytime in the next two decades, certainly not Syria or Iran. And no, killing 3,000 innocent civilians on 9/11 did not threaten our national survival. Not even close. About the only ‘national crisis’ I see is the people who are concerned with the political legacy of the Bush administration. Perhaps Afghanistan and Osama bin Laden are major concerns, but Rice as well as most Bush supporters are awfully, awfully quiet about them. The killing so broadly advocated by the right seems to have little to do with Afghanistan or OBL. Ah well. Sadly, people such as Condi Rice, an adminsitration official with a proven record of incompetence and prevarication, are responsible for implementing policy. And killing more people seems to be in the cards. Of course, as long as Bush supporters advocate killing, or maybe just torturing people of different races and/or religions, we don’t get too concerned. “Blinded by hatred.” Yes indeed.

Interesting. People opposed to killing and torture must be evil, and blinded by hatred.

Posted by: phx8 at February 16, 2006 7:57 PM
Comment #126106

I have noticed the WingNuts have stopped calling the UN names. Funny how nice idiots become when their Army is trapped and another enemy is out there.

Posted by: Aldous at February 16, 2006 8:06 PM
Comment #126109

phx8,

I know many Bush supporters. In fact, I support him myself on several issues.
I’ve never met or even heard of one Bush supporter who “advocate(s) killing, or maybe just torturing people of different races and/or religions.”

Posted by: The Traveler at February 16, 2006 8:10 PM
Comment #126110

“Wow, I must give credit to some of the writers who never seem to tire of finding evil and incompetence in everyone with whom they disagree.”

Jim -

Have you ever considered that there are those who never tire of practicing their evil and incompetence, and we are simply pointing these things out? Seriously - name a single issue that we have pointed out that had no validity. One?

Also, I think a huge difference between the Liberals and Conservatives is the we (LIBs) feel that we should promote things that help human life a better life - it seems that the Cons feels that we are better promoting things are good only for Americans. (Sorry, but this just kind of jumped out at me: “hile it is a good thing to offer helpful critiques of the means, let’s all agree on the appropriate end result. We (U.S.) win and survive.”)

The last comment: “I have no doubt that the free world will prevail in this battle despite all the comfort and aid being given unwittingly, I hope, by many persons here, and in other countrys who appear to be blinded by their own hatred.”

Are you seriously equating our complaints against this administration with aiding terrorists? I can see that as a valid REP talking point, but it’s pathetically shallow and immature thinking.

Posted by: tony at February 16, 2006 8:14 PM
Comment #126112

Great so now will you call USA today and have them apologize for there portrayal of Dr. Rice with there touched over photo’s. I guess you will now be recognizing the fact fact that she is a minority and giving credit to George for knowing what he was doing in appointing DR. RICE.

Posted by: CAD at February 16, 2006 8:14 PM
Comment #126113

I wrote about Rice on March 27, 2005 called Condi Rice Superstar

Glad the Dems are finally starting to recognize her. She is a brilliant woman.

Ironically, when Rice was confirmed as SecState, a year ago and more recently re Iran, she had to slap down Barbara Boxer. Of course, for Condi this is not real hard. There is no intellectual parity. I guess Boxer squashing is part of the job.

Rice has said many times without equivocation that she has no interest in being president. I understand her next ambition is to be commissioner of the NFL.

Posted by: Jack at February 16, 2006 8:15 PM
Comment #126115

Traveler -

“I’ve never met or even heard of one Bush supporter who “advocate(s) killing, or maybe just torturing people of different races and/or religions.”

Actions speak louder than words.

Posted by: tony at February 16, 2006 8:17 PM
Comment #126117

Jim Martin
Let me try a different tack.
Lets say that one day you went to work. By the end of the day all the people you work with were angry with you. You started home but stopped at the store. When you left the store people were glaring at you.When you had been home for a bit your wife got angry with you etc,etc.And this goes on day after day. Just maybe,maybe you might wonder if you might need to change your behavior or at least reflect a little on why everyone is so pissed at you.If you didn’t wonder you would be a candidate for therepy. Now apply that to nations and you might gain some understanding of many of the comments here.

Posted by: BillS at February 16, 2006 8:18 PM
Comment #126120

Tony,

Also, I think a huge difference between the Liberals and Conservatives is the we (LIBs) feel that we should promote things that help human life a better life - it seems that the Cons feels that we are better promoting things are good only for Americans.

It does seem like that sometimes, but it depends on which issue you are talking about. On Iraq, for instance, it was the other way around. In that case (for the most part), the Republicans wanted to help the Iraqi citizens and the Democrats wanted to stay out for the good of the US.

Posted by: The Traveler at February 16, 2006 8:27 PM
Comment #126126

Rice has said many times without equivocation that she has no interest in being president. I understand her next ambition is to be commissioner of the NFL.

I’ve heard that to. It’ll mean a weaker country, since she’s smarter than most people in Washington (cough, Bush, Cough) But at least football will be fun to watch!

Posted by: The Traveler at February 16, 2006 8:32 PM
Comment #126127

Traveler -

Are you serious? Bush wanted a regime change, and supported by bogus intel on WMDs, we invaded and destroyed their country + killed approx. 50,000 people (or more.)

DEMs wanted to maintain diplomatic pressure while the UN Inspectors finished their job.

Personally, I think not killing people is ‘helping them.’

Posted by: tony at February 16, 2006 8:37 PM
Comment #126138

Tony,

We didn’t go there for the purpose of killling Iraqis. As you should be aware, out intell was supported by that of many other countries and there is some evidence (maybe not positive proof, but compelling evidence none the less) that Iraq moved weapons to Syria. Also, you should be aware that most of the civillians weren’t killed by our side.

DEMs wanted to maintain diplomatic pressure while the UN Inspectors finished their job.

That may have proved the existance or nonexistance of WMD, but it would not have brought about freedom for the Iraqi’s would it? Also, the sanctions were hurting the people and the abuses of the Oil-For-Food program were helping Sadam.

Despite the spin, there were humanitarian reasons for going to war, and despite the spin, they were given before we went in (some of you have selective memories about this). They were not the only reasons, but they were given.
Many of our military operations in Iraq were and are still exclusively of a humanitarian nature.

Posted by: The Traveler at February 16, 2006 9:05 PM
Comment #126139

“… the surrender of the Japanese was the direct result of the Truman administration’s rejection of FDR’s warmongering and cowboy gun-slinging.”
Posted by Sanger

This is revisionist history taken to a new extreme. I assume that you totally discount the effect of dropping the two atomic bombs.

Posted by: goodkingned at February 16, 2006 9:07 PM
Comment #126140

Traveler -

I don’t buy the humanitarian white wash this administration has tried to put on the invasion of Iraq. (If Bush is so focused on humanitarian issues - why has Darfar gone on so long without any solution offered up?) There are also quite a few other brutal dictators in the world. Who do you suggest we go after next?

Actions speak much louder than words. And exactly how to you show humanitarian support solely with armed forces. No - many innnocent people have been killed by others than our military, but it was our forces that removed law and order - and it was us who failed to restore it.

And why - with all this humnatirian focus - was the only warnings aimed at the Iraqi forces “Do not destory the oil fields!”? You can’t call your self a humanitarian, you have to SHOW yourself as one.

Posted by: tony at February 16, 2006 9:13 PM
Comment #126153

Tony,

I don’t buy the humanitarian white wash this administration has tried to put on the invasion of Iraq.

You can call it “white wash,” but that just shows how uninformed you are about what’s going on over there.

And exactly how to you show humanitarian support solely with armed forces.

Wow, you really don’t know what’s going on over there.
We have airlift units that are there for the express purpose of bringing food to remote villages. Some of our military personel are there solely to build hospitals and other important buildings. It goes on and on. Providing security is only part of the mission.

but it was our forces that removed law and order

Good. That was not the kind of law and “order” that any human being wants to (or deserves to) live under.

and it was us who failed to restore it.

We are in the process of training a military and a police force. The Iraqis are now in control of many parts of their own country and they are carying out many operations without our help. That’s why we are planning on bringing a lot of our people home this year.

(If Bush is so focused on humanitarian issues - why has Darfar gone on so long without any solution offered up?)

I have no clue, so I guess I do agree with you on that.

There are also quite a few other brutal dictators in the world. Who do you suggest we go after next?

Well, Iran was the topic of this article. I think that’s a good place to start. I wish we could deal with these things all at once, but of course we can’t.

Posted by: The Traveler at February 16, 2006 9:35 PM
Comment #126158

>>Despite the spin, there were humanitarian reasons for going to war, and despite the spin, they were given before we went in (some of you have selective memories about this). They were not the only reasons, but they were given.
Many of our military operations in Iraq were and are still exclusively of a humanitarian nature.

Posted by: The Traveler at February 16, 2006 09:05 PM

Traveler,

A few other reasons were given, however we would NEVER have gone to war for them. The administration knew the country could not be convinced to kill a bunch of Iraqis for humanitarian reasons, so WMD was trotted out. We did, indeed, go to war in Iraq for bogus purposes.

There is no spin in blaming Dubbya for lying us into this mess, and there is no spin in saying that many thousands of Iraqis have died because of our invasion, and there is no spin in saying that Iraq was not a threat to the United States, and there is no spin in saying that Iraq was not a significant part of world terror.

Posted by: Marysdude at February 16, 2006 9:54 PM
Comment #126159

Traveler -

“You can call it “white wash,” but that just shows how uninformed you are about what’s going on over there.”

1 - you assume a lot about my knowledge
2 - you presume a lot about this White House.

1 - I know as much as I can know without being there. I’ve tried to fill in those gaps by some very in depth discussions with friends of mine who have been there. I do not hold with your perception of things, but I also don’t assume to judge your knowledge. (Don’t worry about offending me too much – I don’t hold my thoughts accountable to the perception of others.)

2 - My main point with Iraq - you have to prove yourself a humanitarian - show it, don’t just talk about it. I think that to presume that this Administration has such deep felt empathy for the Iraqi population that it would fabricate WMD intel, spend $200+ Billion, allow 2400 Americans to die, and suffer the political fallout just to do ‘the right thing’ is simply amazing. Sorry, I don’t buy it for a second. Your point about training police and military - that’s way too little way to late to pull at my heart strings.

I don’t doubt for a minute that the Iraqis lived under a very brutal dictator - but I’m willing to bet that many people, especially those far removed from the political world there, lived fairly normal lives… working, raising kids, standard life kind of stuff. But when you have bombs dropping out of the sky, no power/water/medical care… I DO NOT see that as an improvement, no matter what some might say the reason behind it was. Let’s look at the situation today, and from an average persons perspective, please tell me how life has improved for them? Hell, let’s get political… tell me how a fundamentalist theocracy helps an average person live a free life?

I think calling this a “White Wash” is a very passive description of what is really going on in Iraq.

Posted by: tony at February 16, 2006 9:55 PM
Comment #126169

TRAVELER,

“I think that to presume that this Administration has such deep felt empathy for the Iraqi population that it would fabricate WMD intel …”

Ummm, thousands of the Iraqi people died from Iraqi WMD … so I don’t think they have any problem with the intel!!

Please see your favorite democrats and their view of Iraqi WMD at this link with quotes from 1998 through 2002: http://media1.streamtoyou.com/rnc/111505.wmv

Posted by: Ken Cooper at February 16, 2006 10:26 PM
Comment #126173

Paul,

Iranian NGOs thaqt cooperate with us with undoubtedly find themselves in the hands of the religious police.

TV and Radio broadcasts can be jammed there like in Cuba.

Getting more Iranians to study in America gives me the creeps. They will probably end up biting us in the ass, like Sadam.

Condi may think she will be dictating to NATO and G8 members, but they will be demanding an end to some of our actions in Guantanamo and such.

NATO still exists? Is Freedonia a member yet? Nice bomber jackets, I guess.

Posted by: ray ohrealy at February 16, 2006 10:44 PM
Comment #126206

“… There were humanitarian reasons for going to war…”

Well, knock me over with a feather. Normally I associate humane behavior with benevolence and philanthropy. Ah, well. Onward, Christian soldiers.

Jack,

Yes, Condi Rice became quite indignant when Boxer ‘impugned her integrity.’ So, what do you think- in January 2005, Rice testified there were 110,000 trained security forces in Iraq. Do you think she told the truth? After all, this is a very important matter. Almost everyone believes a key to US withdrawal is replacing US troops with Iraqi troops. Did Rice tell the truth?

Ken,
Lying to Congress is an impeachable offense. Everyone on that link will vote for Bush’s impeachment, given the chance.

Is China a threat to the US? No. If China attacked Taiwan, the US would have to borrow the money from China to defend Taiwan from China. And China would have to lend the money, because so much of their capital is invested in US bonds. Thomas Barnett makes a good case for this in his book, “The Pentagon’s New Map: War and Peace in the Twenty-first Century.”

Will another country attack the US with nukes? No. They won’t, for the same reason the USSR and China did not attack. MAD. Right now, no country possesses the means and motivation.

Will another country provide nukes to terrorists? No. First, it’s tremendously difficult and expensive to produce a nuke. Second, nuclear detonations carry an identifiable signature. You can tell the difference between an American nuke, a Russian nuke, and so on. Third, nuclear weapons have safety features built into them. Nuclear powers make sure other nuclear powers have these safety features incorporated into the weapons. It takes a lot to detonate a nuke- and even if a group of terrorists could steal one, it wouldn’t do them any good. They would lack the PALs, the codes.

Iran is years away from developing a nuclear weapon, and additional years away from developing an ability to deliver it outside their region.

When Bush & Cheney & Rice are asked if the US might invade or bomb Iran, and they coyly suggest ‘all options are on the table,’ they are suggesting we might invade or bomb. They are suggesting we might kill large numbers of people in a ‘pre-emptive’ strike. Because make no mistake, a strike would have to take out the people as well as the facilities; and it would have to take out the Iranian government.

Having done so, the Iranians would certainly rally round their flag. It’s highly unlikely they would be happy about the deaths of thousands of their people at the hands of the US. Iranian options would include closing the Straight of Hormuz, inciting or even attacking in Iraq, or worse.

Pakistan, however, has nuclear weapons right now. It is a dictatorship which hangs by a thread. If we want to worry about a nuclear threat, Pakistan is a far bigger problem than Iran.

Posted by: phx8 at February 17, 2006 12:42 AM
Comment #126207

Ken Cooper:

The rule is to critique the message, not the messenger. Your posts to PHX8 are inappropriate, and I would hope you are moderated.

Disagreement here gets heated, but it is supposed to remain about issues, not the poster themselves.

You seem to have your talking points down pat though.

Posted by: womanmarine at February 17, 2006 12:48 AM
Comment #126208

Bill S, very good points.
phx8 and tony — excellent replies to Jim Martin.
Marysdude — you too, to Traveler.

I’m with Centrist Ideology on this one.
Condi is a puppet of the chickenhawks, and if we weren’t tied down by the extraordinarily expensive quagmire that is Iraq, she’d be singing an entirely different tune — more like The Marines Hymn or The Caisson Song.
If you look closely at the ideology of the Neocons, you’ll notice how they’ve always promoted war, and have tended to view diplomacy as for the weak.
To me, Condi’s diplomacy seems a heads-up on just how much money we have spent, and how broken our army must be due to their Iraq War.

Posted by: Adrienne at February 17, 2006 12:49 AM
Comment #126209

ray:
“NATO still exists? Is Freedonia a member yet?”

:^D Hail Freedonia!
God I love the Marx Brothers, and ‘Duck Soup’ is my all time favorite!

Posted by: Adrienne at February 17, 2006 12:53 AM
Comment #126217

The thing yaall don’t want to admitt but know is true, is that Condi wouldn’t be doing this without approval from the Oval Office.

Posted by: Ron Brown at February 17, 2006 1:22 AM
Comment #126241

While I am very enthusiastic about Rice’s increased emphasis on diplomacy, this administration has repeatedly demonstrated utter disdain for dipolomacy, which makes this current emphasis highly suspect. Many above have asserted that the use of force is not a viable option at this time because of being bogged down in Iraq, and I agree. So it is a reluctant diplomacy, which reveals how compromised we have become.

I truly do not understand how anyone can believe that our invasion of Iraq has increased the safety of our nation. Their are, of course, extremists such as Osama who seek to inflict suffering upon us for whatever reasons. When the conditions of a society are good, these extremists lose their following. Why in the hell would we invade a country, kill thousands upon thousands of its people, and then remain there indefinitely? It is almost as if the Bush administration wanted to increase the ranks of terrorist organizations. In fact, why would that be so far-fetched? The arms business is booming (pun intended), as the recent budget proposal clearly indicates, and many of the bush administration’s personnel and their cronies have been privately reaping fortunes as a result. This war is not about national security. It is about profit. If I am wrong, I would like to know how. I am actually quite open to anything that would refute this perspective.

Posted by: The Great Divide at February 17, 2006 2:18 AM
Comment #126244

Nothing like being made a fool of to make the White House go the diplomatic route.

Where are all the UN Oil-For-Food Bashing? Where are the Freedom Fries? Where is the Bring Them On Crowd?

Like I said… Nothing like having your Army trapped in Iraq while Iran is ready to move to make the He-Man Macho Crowd go wobbly.

Anyone else notice the lack of Conservatives rushing to Enlist? Hard to spend your tax cuts when your dead.

Posted by: Aldous at February 17, 2006 2:43 AM
Comment #126267

Condi is a lacky of this admin. Pure and simple. She talks about option “B” while the admin is really going after option “A”.
She has never really shown any independent thought in her entire term in office.
Don’t give her credit for something she has not done.

Posted by: Cole at February 17, 2006 4:19 AM
Comment #126292

To Everyone Who Thinks Iraq Wasn’t A Threat:

Saturday, details of some 40 hours of taped meetings by Saddam will be released. If the excerpted previews are accurate, I’d be careful about going on the record as saying that Iraq was harmless.

Posted by: goodkingned at February 17, 2006 6:33 AM
Comment #126315

Sanger,
Some folks are missing your sarcasm. I read you loud and clear. World War was the answer 65 years ago so it must be the answer to everything.

Posted by: Schwamp at February 17, 2006 8:13 AM
Comment #126332

Ken Cooper, I have junked your comment referring to phx8 with name calling. If you are unable to comply with our policy, take it elsewhere. This will be your only warning and request to follow our policy, Critique the Message, Not the Messenger.

Posted by: Watchblog Managing Editor at February 17, 2006 9:06 AM
Comment #126333

Remember, Condi was also reported to have kept a Russian diplomat locked in a room in the White House until he agreed to go along with a policy of the White House. Bullying was the answer to everything 65 years ago, so I guess its still the answer now as well.

Posted by: Kathy at February 17, 2006 9:08 AM
Comment #126337

“Condi is a lacky of this admin. Pure and simple. She talks about option “B” while the admin is really going after option “A”.
She has never really shown any independent thought in her entire term in office.
Don’t give her credit for something she has not done.

Posted by: Cole at February 17, 2006 04:19 AM”

Cole,
I’m totally in agreement with you on this. Anytime I think of Condi my mind replays her less than eloquent stonewalling before the 9-11 Commission.

IMO her statement, “I’ve asked why nobody saw it coming. It does say something about us not having a good enough pulse”, is representative not just of Hamas’ victory but nearly every action (or inaction) taken by everyone that is now or has been a part of this Bush administration since day one.

KansasDem

Posted by: KansasDem at February 17, 2006 9:28 AM
Comment #126358

Let’s imagine the unimaginable for just a few moments and assume that those who so vhemently oppose this administration’s foreign policy were in power. President Gore would have three years remaining in his presidency. Gore’s SecState is now Howard Dean and he has just brought home the solemn promise from the U.N. that they will continue to monitor Iraq and Iran’s peaceful nuclear development. And he has just announced that North Korea, while possessing nuclear weapons has once again promised never to use them providing we continue to provide missle technology and more money. With Iraq’s successful reinvasion of Kuwait, the middle east is once again peaceful however the Saudi’s and Egyptians are somewhat concerned that Sadaam may be ready to “free” their countries as well. Israel has agreed to disarm as our umbrella of protection has been withdrawn since we have come to realize that disarmament is the road to peace. Our European allies love U.S. and have promised to keep the oil flowing no matter what the price. American flags are waving proudly in Tehran, Baghdad, Peking, and even Havana.
Folks, I can rewrite history and fantasize too.

Posted by: Jim Martin at February 17, 2006 10:23 AM
Comment #126366

“Folks, I can rewrite history and fantasize too.

Posted by: Jim Martin at February 17, 2006 10:23 AM”

Whooie, that and then some Jim, lol. You should seriously think about writing material for Rush Limbaugh.

KansasDem

Posted by: KansasDem at February 17, 2006 10:48 AM
Comment #126371

Jim -

I really don’t have much interest in harshing your mellow fantasy - but one point really jumped out at me:

” And he has just announced that North Korea, while possessing nuclear weapons has once again promised never to use them providing we continue to provide missle technology and more money”

But it was Bush’s Axis of Evil speech that drove N. Korea from the middle of peace negotiations and spooked them into restarting their nuclear program. If Bush had failed to become President, this would not have happened as N. Korea might now be more settled into normal relations sans nuclear weapons.

Posted by: tony at February 17, 2006 11:08 AM
Comment #126377

Thanks for the insight Tony. Nations like N. Korea trembled at the harsh words of President Bush much in the same way that the defunct Soviet Union was spurred into reaction by President Reagan’s calling them an evil empire. How silly! At least I don’t live in my fantasy’s Tony.
NOTE TO KANSASDEM: I am laughing with you at the mere thought of a Gore Presidency. Wouldn’t it have been great to listen to his screeming during his State of The Union messages.

Posted by: Jim Martin at February 17, 2006 11:32 AM
Comment #126404

Nice personal attack Jim. However, if you would read up on the history - there was an immediate an deliberate reaction to W’s Axis of Evil speech. One - Kim Jonk Il is extremely paranoid and is now way more heavily armed. Two - Bush was a moron for launching his verbal attack and veiled threat towards Kim Jong.

Would you like to make a bet on what Kim Jong’s reaction will be if we invade Iran? (I’m guessing South Korea will be liquified.)

I have no idea why you would consider this fanatsy, but that’s your issue to deal with.

Posted by: tony at February 17, 2006 12:33 PM
Comment #126477

PHx8,

Nuclear powers make sure other nuclear powers have these safety features incorporated into the weapons. It takes a lot to detonate a nuke- and even if a group of terrorists could steal one, it wouldn’t do them any good. They would lack the PALs, the codes.

Can we really assume that all Nuclear powers actually incorpporate a safety feature? Seems to me that if one really wanted to ‘nuke’ the world, one wouldn’t worry too much about safety features.

Or keeping codes that terrorists can’t use. Again, it would seem to me that should someone want to ‘nuke’ the world, they wouldn’t worry to much about making difficult codes, if any. Afterall, these ARE the terrorists that we fear.
Aren’t they?

Posted by: Linda H at February 17, 2006 2:30 PM
Comment #126484

Linda,
“Can we really assume that all Nuclear powers actually incorpporate a safety feature?”

Yes. Multiple features, with redundancies, and very secure codes. And yes. We make sure nuclear powers possess every safety feature possible. An accident would jeopardize the US arsenal and national defense. Because of the various safety features, it’s nearly impossible to set off a nuke accidentally, and that’s how we want it. In practical terms, nukes are useless to terrorists unless a country wants them to have the weapons, and wants to be identified as having provided them.

Posted by: phx8 at February 17, 2006 2:35 PM
Comment #126522

>>In practical terms, nukes are useless to terrorists unless a country wants them to have the weapons, and wants to be identified as having provided them.

Posted by: phx8 at February 17, 2006 02:35 PM

phx8,

Do you mean a country like Pakistan, should it ever be taken over by evildoers? Or a nation like Iran, if it becomes a nuke power? Or a country like N Korea with such a stable leadership? Or a country like the United States which can’t keep a secret, perhaps even a nuclear code, i.e., exposing its own CIA agants?

Posted by: Marysdude at February 17, 2006 3:26 PM
Comment #126625

” … It was Bush’s Axis of Evil speech that drove N. Korea from the middle of peace negotiations and spooked them into restarting their nuclear program. If Bush had failed to become President, this would not have happened as N. Korea might now be more settled into normal relations sans nuclear weapons.”
Posted by: tony at February 17, 2006 11:08 AM

North Korea has been cheating on the many nuclear production agreements she has signed since the Clinton administration. North Korea’s weapon production program has been proceding at a self-determined timeline that is only interrupted by the occaisional international intervention or famine. The idea that North Korea would play pretty if diplomacy was managed just right is as likely as Kim getting his next haircut at Fantastic Sams.

Posted by: goodkingned at February 17, 2006 6:53 PM
Comment #126796

“Can we really assume that all Nuclear powers actually incorpporate a safety feature? Seems to me that if one really wanted to ‘nuke’ the world, one wouldn’t worry too much about safety features.

“Or keeping codes that terrorists can’t use. Again, it would seem to me that should someone want to ‘nuke’ the world, they wouldn’t worry to much about making difficult codes, if any. Afterall, these ARE the terrorists that we fear.
Aren’t they?

Posted by: Linda H at February 17, 2006 02:30 PM”

Linda H,
Just because these fanatics blow themselves up every day to kill a few people doesn’t mean they would do that with a “dirty bomb”. Just listen to Bush & Co. A little radiation is good for you anyway. I mean, really, how much damage could a guy do with a small amount of radioactive material and a teeny-weeny bit of C-4?
Just trust in George n’ Dick and all will be well.

KansasDem

Posted by: KansasDem at February 18, 2006 2:11 AM
Comment #126823

Kansas Dem: I don’t get your meaning in the post copied below. It seems that you are holding the administration culpable for potential suicide bombers.

Is the administration responsible for the dirty bombs or for the suicide bombers or both?
Don’t you think that the blame for terrorist attacks falls primarily upon the terrorist who is, afterall, trying to kill people?

“… Just because these fanatics blow themselves up every day to kill a few people doesn’t mean they would do that with a “dirty bomb”. Just listen to Bush & Co. A little radiation is good for you anyway. I mean, really, how much damage could a guy do with a small amount of radioactive material and a teeny-weeny bit of C-4?
Just trust in George n’ Dick and all will be well.

KansasDem”

Posted by: goodkingned at February 18, 2006 3:40 AM
Comment #126846

GKN,

My point was, and is, that no codes are needed to release “dirty” nuclear waste through the use of any type of bomb. You must know that even the USA has done a haphazard job at containing and disposing of nuclear waste.

I lived within 180 miles of Rocky Flats from its beginning ‘till it closed. Both of my son’s lived within 20 miles of the site every summer when they’d live with their mom. These problems have still not been corrected:

At one time the site stored more than 14 tons of plutonium, which was the second-largest repository of the element in the U.S. Some of that inventory has been sent to other DOE facilities, but the lion’s share of it remains at Rocky Flats. A significant amount of the plutonium was in liquid form, contained in deteriorating piping systems.

Certainly, it’s the terrorists fault every time there is a “terror” attack whether it’s a suicide bomb, a car bomb, or whatever. I simply know that it’s ridiculous to think the release of nuclear waste would require a special “code”.

Would it create a “mushroom cloud”? No. Would it create a crater? No. Could it cause a great deal of illness? Yes.

Speaking of radiation illness Bush is doing his best to respect those who put their lives on the line for us in the past:

White House Eyes Atomic Illness Cost Cap
http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20060215/ap_on_go_pr_wh/bush_nuclear_workers_2

I guess they need to save money to pay the extra Secret Service costs when they go huntin’ and stuff.

KansasDem

Posted by: KansasDem at February 18, 2006 4:44 AM
Post a comment