You'd think someone would have figured out before:
Nobel Peace Prize winner and internationalsymbol of freedom Nelson Mandela is flagged on U.S. terrorist watchlists and needs special permission to visit the USA. Secretary of StateCondoleezza Rice calls the situation "embarrassing," and some membersof Congress vow to fix it.
The requirement applies to former South Africanleader Mandela and other members of South Africa's governing AfricanNational Congress (ANC), the once-banned anti-Apartheid organization.In the 1970s and '80s, the ANC was officially designated a terroristgroup by the country's ruling white minority. Other countries,including the United States, followed suit.
Because of this, Rice told a Senate committeerecently, her department has to issue waivers for ANC members to travelto the USA.
It like both Condoleezza Rice and Democratic members in Congress will change his status. The real question is why, following a situation like that, would Mandela even want to come here?
Back in 2003, Paul Wolfowitz Congress that Iraqi oil would finance the reconstruction. More than $1 trillion of US taxpayer money later, Condoleezza Rice is naming :
Paul Wolfowitz, forced to resign from the World Bank because of hisrole in obtaining a high-paying promotion for his companion, is slatedto chair a U.S. State Department advisory panel on arms control, a U.S.official said on Monday.
The official, who spoke on condition that he not be named because ofthe appointment has not yet been made public, said U.S. Secretary ofState Condoleezza Rice planned to name the former deputy defensesecretary and an architect of the Iraq war to chair the InternationalSecurity Advisory Board.
The board gives the State Department independent advice on armscontrol, disarmament, international security and other matters and itsmembers include two former directors of the U.S. Central IntelligenceAgency.
It underscores the fact that neoconservatives still have a significance on policy in Washington, especially as it pertains to matters of arms control. The only way we can kick them out is by clearing the slate in '08.
It appears that the State Department is having a difficult time trying to get people to work at the new US Embassy in Baghdad. Next week, if the , a number of diplomats will be forced to serve there:
Four days before a deadline for Foreign Service officers to volunteer to go to Iraq or face the prospect of being ordered there, the State Department notified employees yesterday that "about half" of 48 open assignments there for next year have been filled.
"This reduces but does not eliminate the possibility that directed assignments may be necessary," Deputy Secretary of State John D. Negropontewrote in an e-mailed update. Filling the remaining jobs is still "theDepartment's priority," he said, adding that he is optimistic that morewill volunteer.
Amid yesterday's report about how the State Department is in disarray.
The that we put into this embassy illustrates the neoconservative vision of a permanent American presence in Iraq.
First it was Alberto Gonzales. Now Condoleezza Rice may be next. Congress has every reason to question the managerial skills of the former Bush National Security Adviser, whose State Department is now suffering from a state of disorganization.
This morning, the summarized the confusion at the State Department in the three years since she took the post:
Nearly three years later, Rice is under fire from inside and outsidethe State Department for a range of crises that are largely managerialin nature -- the failure to monitor private security guards in Iraq, the delays in opening the huge U.S. Embassy under construction in Baghdad,and the resistance of some Foreign Service officers to being forced toserve there. Over the summer, the department also fell woefully shortin processing passport applications, resulting in ruined vacation plansfor many Americans.
Within the department, Rice is viewed by many rank-and-file employeesas an aloof manager who relies on a tight circle of aides, leaving herout of touch with the rest of the staff, in contrast to herpredecessor, Colin L. Powell,a retired Army general who won praise from workers for treating them asthough they were his "troops." At her last town hall meeting withemployees 2 1/2 years ago, Rice told staffers: "I consider myself thechief management officer of this department." But a poll by theAmerican Foreign Service Association indicated that an overwhelmingmajority did not feel that Rice was their advocate.
Relying on a tight circle of aides, eh? That sounds familiar. That angers the career professionals at State:
The latest controversy about forced assignments to Iraq has onlyheightened internal resentment of Rice's management style. "Ipersonally do not like the ultimatum-giving," said one Foreign Serviceofficer. "It is not what State is about."
This pretty much puts Condoleezza Rice out of the running for the Republican VP slot.
Thus the two and a half year reign of former Bush campaign manager Karen Hughes as the State Department's head of American public diplomacy. Her job was to turn around the world's negative image towards the United States. We all know how well that has gone.
Astonishingly, on Halloween Condoleezza Rice called spectacular. Spooky indeed:
Rice told the assembled State Department staff that Hughes carried outher public diplomacy work in "spectacular fashion." She listed herefforts toward Muslim outreach and other public diplomacy programs likea rapid response unit to counter negative stories about America andsetting up regional media hubs around the world that deployed ForeignService officers into local communities, as successes.
Spectacular fashion, eh? Kind of like how, according to President Bush, the war in Iraq has been a .
Recently, the Bush Administration changed its strategy of letting China control negotiations with North Korea to engaging with Kim Jong IL's regime directly. The State Department is to thank for persuading Bush to . Ironically, this is just a few years after Condoleezza Rice was that bilateral talks would not work. Now they are on the edge of a breakthrough.
This new approach is upsetting Dick Cheney. One of the Vice President's loyal soldiers, John Bolton, former U.S. Ambassador to the United Nations, is to undercut any bilateral successes with the North:
Former United Nations Ambassador John Bolton is urging GOP lawmakers tooppose the Bush administration’s recent agreement with North Korea toend its nuclear programs, according to House Republican sources.
WhileBolton’s skepticism of North Korea is well-known, this is believed tobe the first time a former top adviser to the president has taken theunusual step of lobbying against a pillar of the administration’scurrent foreign policy. It is particularly surprising given the valuethe administration has placed on loyalty.
If North Korea disarms, that would give the U.S. a reason to stop flexing its sticks as much in Southeast Asia. Cheney's allies do not want that.
Remember, it was John Bolton that Bush brought in by way of recess appointment because the Senate Foreign Relations Committee him. And it was this same John Bolton who was responsible for the with North Korea earlier this decade when he had a different job under Bush.
Bolton desperately wants to prevent any breakthrough with the North, and will go to great lengths to do that -- even if it goes against Bush. And as we have seen from , Bolton never does anything without Dick Cheney's approval.
Just think: a sitting Vice President trying to undercut a sitting President. Has this happened before?
The State Department is tasked with the job of overseeing and auditing the work of private contractors in Iraq. But according to an recently submitted to Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice, her department is not performing sufficient oversight of contractors such as Blackwater and DynCorp:
A State Department review of its own security practices in Iraqassails the department for poor coordination, communication, oversightand accountability involving armed security companies like Blackwater USA,according to people who have been briefed on the report. In addition toBlackwater, the State Department’s two other security contractors inIraq are DynCorp International and Triple Canopy.
At the sametime, a government audit expected to be released Tuesday says thatrecords documenting the work of DynCorp, the State Department’s largestcontractor, are in such disarray that the department cannot say“specifically what it received†for most of the $1.2 billion it haspaid the company since 2004 to train the police officers in Iraq.
...in presenting its recommendations to Ms. Rice in a 45-minute briefingon Monday, the four-member panel found serious fault with virtuallyevery aspect of the department’s security practices, especially in andaround Baghdad, where Blackwater has responsibility.
So much for oversight. Remember, Blackwater is a company that may have . Yet, Condoleezza Rice's State Department just sits there and allows companies like Blackwater to do whatever they want.
John Ashcroft, Tom Ridge, Scott McClellan, Harriet Miers, Colin Powell, Donald Rumsfeld, Porter Goss, Karl Rove, and now Tony Snow. Surely I left a few out. These are the major faces that said 'no' to staying on for the remainder of Bush's second term. As most progressives would agree, these individuals were beyond a doubt corrupt, and helped dismantle a US political system that was supposed to be based on checks and balances.
Then again, who are we left with? All of those people were influential figures. Bush listened to them. Sometimes they helped off-set the influence of Dick Cheney -- which is really the key issue here. With all of them gone, the only person standing in the way of Dick Cheney is Condoleezza Rice. As inept as she is at understanding the complicated world we live in, she is at least calling for a diplomatic solution to the Iran nuclear standoff. This month, several worried Administration officials leaked to the press that Dick Cheney is pressing Bush to in Iran. I would not be surprised if the leakers came from inside Rice's State Department.
Really though, think cause and effect. If we strike Iran, other than making it harder for us in Iraq, Ahmadinejad will attack Israel. If Israel gets attacked, Bush will help them fight back. Middle Easterners will view it as a holy war, possibly forcing moderate governments like Jordan to pick a side, and then all bets are off.
Getting back to the larger point, this is the one and only downside of all the Bush loyalists leaving the Executive Branch. Bush is closer to Cheney than ever before. The only dissenting voice standing in the way is Condoleezza Rice and the US State Department. The actions we take against Iran will have huge foreign policy implications for the next generation. And I don't feel any better about things now that more cabinet members are resigning.
In politics, not just foreign affairs, the enemy of my enemy is my friend. It's mentally exhausting to even think this -- but Condi, you go get 'em girl!
I wrote on Friday about the bitter disagreement within the Administration over how to tackle the Iran issue. On one side, there is Condoleezza Rice and the State Department, who favor diplomatic pressures. Then on the other end of the pendulum, Dick Cheney and the American Enterprise Institute, who are dead-set against bilateral talks with the Iranians. The real question is who will President Bush side with -- Cheney or Rice? In Friday's column, I noted that Rice had the upper hand. Within the last few hours, there is more evidence of that.
The Administration has a council called the , which had originally been designed to coordinate aggressive actions against the Iranian government. This is a major setback for Cheney:
The interagency group, known as the Iran Syria Policy and OperationsGroup, met weekly throughout much of 2006 to coordinate actions such ascurtailing Iran's access to credit and banking institutions, organizingthe sale of military equipment to Iran's neighbors, and supportingdemocratic forces that oppose the two regimes.
State Departmentand White House officials said the dissolution of the group was simplya bureaucratic reorganization, but many analysts saw it as evidence ofa softening in the US strategy toward the two countries.
Just because Condoleezza Rice's side is winning out does not mean the threat of military force has been eliminated. After all, Rice is pretty hawkish herself. But unlike Cheney, Rice probably understands that efforts to undermine the Iranian government will only make president Ahmadinejad more motivated to obtain nuclear weapons, mostly out of fear that we would invade.
There is a strong disagreement within the Administration over policy with Iran. Dick Cheney favors a confrontationalist approach, while Condoleezza Rice, although she is still very far to the right, favors diplomacy. According to the Washington Note, Dick Cheney is worried that Bush favors the Rice-approach, and it prepared to :
Multiple sources have reported that a senior aide on Vice PresidentCheney's national security team has been meeting with policy hands ofthe American Enterprise Institute, one other think tank, and more thanone national security consulting house and explicitly stating that VicePresident Cheney does not support President Bush's tack towardsCondoleezza Rice's diplomatic efforts and fears that the President istaking diplomacy with Iran too seriously.
This White House official has stated to several Washington insidersthat Cheney is planning to deploy an "end run strategy" around thePresident if he and his team lose the policy argument.
The thinking on Cheney's team is to collude with Israel, nudgingIsrael at some key moment in the ongoing standoff between Iran'snuclear activities and international frustration over this to mount asmall-scale conventional strike against Natanz using cruise missiles(i.e., not ballistic missiles).
By "end run strategy," it likely means that Cheney's people will speak to Israel on behalf of the U.S. government, even if their message is opposite the policy of the Bush Administration.
This strategy also includes using Chalabi-like tactics to control what the media reports about Iran. For example, a story this week in the UK's cited unnamed Administration officials who speculated that Iran will try and push the U.S. out of Iraq this summer. Could this story have been planted in order to influence Israel's policy towards Iran? Remember, Israel, more so than any other nation in the world, is particularly uneasy about Iran's meddling in Iraq.
Apparently this is much more serious than just a few rumors. It is drawing a close eye of Congress. In a sent to the White House on Tuesday, a bipartisan group of lawmakers demanded that the Bush Administration release a clear a report regarding U.S. strategy towards Iran. The letter urgently asked for a response "as soon as possible."
The problem is that Cheney, who is ideologically miles apart from Condoleezza Rice on U.S.-Iran policy (and that is saying something!), is not running for president in 2008. He has nothing to lose by acting insubordinate to Bush. So what will Bush do -- fire him? Not likely. Since Bush refused to fire Gonzales -- why would he fire Cheney, even if he undercuts the President?
To put it in layman's terms: Cheney is like an 8th grader in the last week of school. He knows that anything he tries to pull will go unpunished.
Recent Comments