The Blue State

Rice on the Middle East: It wasn't going to survive anyway

When you thought it had become just about impossible for them to cover their tracks while still holding a straight face, Condoleezza Rice took it to new levels this week.

As USA Today reports for Wednesday, when asked about the turmoil in the Middle East, the Secretary of State shrugged it off as if it would have happened anyway even without Bush's help.  She went on to tout the accomplishments of Bush's foreign policy, since it has resulted in three new Middle East democracies:

"Let's stop mourning the old Middle East," Rice said. "It was not so great, and it wasn't going to survive anyway."

She compared the Middle East troubles to Europeafter World War II and said it might take decades to judge Bushadministration policies.

Rice said there are "positive elements" in theMiddle East that the Bush administration can build on in its final twoyears. Among them, she said, was the emergence of fragile democraciesin Iraq, Lebanon and the Palestinian territories.

"Fragile democracies?"  Is that what she is proud of? 

The Hamas and Fatah political parties are conducting urban warfare against one another inside the Palestinian territory.  Yesterday when the two sides clashed in the streets, they were shooting in the direction of school children that were out on lunch break.  The infrastructure is falling apart.  Does that crippling government even deserve the privilege of being called "fragile?"  If anything, the situation is dire.  How is a failed Palestinian government in Israel's national security interest?

In Lebanon, the government can barely keep its own legislators safe.  Hezbollah even has seats in the parliament.

In Iraq, the elections only helped put bold lettering on the ethnic divisions, since everyone was encouraged to vote on ethnic lines.  Well, as Fareed Zakaria said last week on the Daily Show, at least they got cool-looking purple fingers when they went to vote.

Just because a country votes does not mean it is democratic.  You need checks, balances, security and some sort of stability.  Neither of those countries have all that.

Serious intra-party battle might erupt over Iraq after November election

In the shadow of the Mark Foley scandal, the situation in Iraq has deteriorated rapidly in the last week.  A Republican leader that just got back from the region is suggesting a policy change.  And during a surprise visit, the Secretary of State's plane was barely able to land.

"Drifting sideways" was the phrase that Senator John Warner, Chairman of the Armed Services Committee, used to describe the situation to the press after just getting back from Iraq.  Warner went on to add that if the situation does not change within 90 days, then the Bush Administration will need to change course:

"In two or three months, if this thing hasn't come tofruition and if this level of violence is not under control andthis government able to function, I think it's theresponsibility of our government, internally, to determine:  Isthere a change of course that we should take?'' he said.

The violence was so bad that it prevented Senator Warner from touring parts of the Iraq, even with an overwhelming security presence.

And when Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice made a surprise trip to Iraq late Thursday night, she probably now wishes that the huge press contingent did not come along with her to watch what unfolded.  Her plane had to circle for thirty minutes because the situation on the ground was so bad.  When the plane finally landed, Rice was seen stepping off the plane with a bullet proof vest around her.

Back to John Warner.  For the most part, Warner has been a somewhat loyal supporter of President Bush's Iraq war policy.  But now things have changed, and it is very significant.  Warner is one of the most influential senators on Capitol Hill.  He is among a few old school, realpolitik conservatives that have different foreign policy views than many of the neocons.  Until now, the two sides have managed to use the hyper partisan atmosphere as motivation to keep their differences under wraps -- considering that the Democrats might exploit the friction.  However, the fact that Warner is giving the White House 90 days to pressure the Iraqis to halt the violence likely means that after the election heads will roll.

Remember, after the last mid-term election before 2008, many long-time conservative lawmakers won't owe much to the White House, and therefore will have little reason to remain complicit as the climate in Iraq continues to deteriorate.

Rice debunked by documents that show she was warned about al Qaeda in July '01

I have to hand it to Bob Woodward.  He comes to school prepared.  He knew that releasing his book State of Denial would make him an instant smear target.  So yesterday when Condoleezza Rice challenged Woodward's assertion that she had been briefed by CIA Director George Tenet in July of 2001 about a possible terrorist attack, documents immediately surfaced in her own State Department proving that such a meeting did indeed take place:

A review of White House records has determined that George J. Tenet,then the director of central intelligence, did brief Condoleezza Riceand other top officials on July 10, 2001, about the looming threat fromAl Qaeda, a State Department spokesman said Monday.

Defense Secretary Donald H. Rumsfeld and former Attorney General John Ashcroft were also briefed a week later.

The account by the spokesman, Sean McCormack, came hours after Ms.Rice, the secretary of state, told reporters aboard her airplane thatshe did not recall the specific meeting on July 10, noting that she hadmet repeatedly with Mr. Tenet that summer about terrorist threats. Ms.Rice, the national security adviser at the time, said it was"incomprehensible" to suggest she had ignored dire terrorist threatstwo months before the Sept. 11 attacks.

Mr. McCormack also saidrecords showed that the Sept. 11 commission had been informed about themeeting, a fact that former intelligence officials and members of thecommission confirmed on Monday.

When details of the meeting emerged last week in a new book by BobWoodward of The Washington Post, Bush administration officialsquestioned Mr. Woodward's reporting.

Now, after several days, both current and former Bush administration officials have confirmed parts of Mr. Woodward's account.

Check-mate: another lie about the Administration's missteps before 9/11 has been exposed.

Woodward's Book: Many in war cabinet wanted Rumsfeld fired

Laura Bush, Andrew Card and Condoleezza Rice led the effort to convince the President to fire Rumsfeld back in 2005:

The book reports that then-White House Chief of Staff Andrew H. CardJr. twice suggested that Bush fire Rumsfeld and replace him with formersecretary of state James A. Baker III, first after the November 2004election and again around Thanksgiving 2005. Card had the support ofthen-Secretary of State Colin L. Powell and his successor, CondoleezzaRice, as well as national security adviser Stephen J. Hadley and seniorWhite House adviser Michael J. Gerson, according to the book.

Evenfirst lady Laura Bush reportedly told Card that she agreed Rumsfeld hadbecome a liability for her husband, although she noted that thepresident did not agree. "I don't know why he's not upset with this,"she told Card, according to the book. But Vice President Cheney andsenior Bush adviser Karl Rove argued against dumping Rumsfeld, and Bushagreed.

The book details how Rumsfeld alienated key figuresthroughout the government and military: Rice complained that Rumsfeldwould not return her telephone calls, forcing Bush to personallyintervene. Rumsfeld rebuffed Card when he conveyed Bush's order to sendNational Guard troops to Louisiana after Hurricane Katrina untilhearing from the president himself. Gen. John P. Abizaid, the seniorU.S. commander in the Middle East, concluded that "Rumsfeld doesn'thave any credibility anymore."

My guess is that Dick Cheney wouldn't let it happen.  He and Rumsfeld are too close, and represent the most influential wing of the Bush war cabinet.  With Rumsfeld gone, Cheney knows Rice and Hadley would assume more control -- and as a result the Vice President would see his power diminish.

Rice tries to get back at Clinton, but lies big time

I don't like to recklessly call people liars.  But that is exactly what Condoleezza Rice did when she tried to discredit what Bill Clinton said in his weekend interview with Fox News.  Calling it anything else but a lie would be a disservice to the truth.

These last few days, the Bush Administration has been put on the defensive on an issue they thought would benefit the Republicans this November: terrorism.  The Bill Clinton interview on Fox News over the weekend, coupled with the leaked details of the 2006 National Intelligence Estimate on worldwide terrorism, is forcing the White House to come back swinging.

Yesterday, Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice snapped back and said Clinton never left Bush with a strategy to fight terrorism:

"We were not left a comprehensive strategy to fight al Qaeda," she toldthe newspaper, which is owned by News Corp., the same company that ownsFox News Channel.

But according to a 13-page memo sent from Richard Clarke to Condoleezza Rice just five days before Bush was sworn into office -- titled Strategy for Eliminating the Threat from the Jihadist Networks of al-Qida: Status and prospects -- the Clinton Administration did indeed leave the incoming Bush team a comprehensive strategy to deal with terrorism.

Even read the document for yourself.  Condoleezza Rice and the rest of the foreign policy team in the incoming Bush Administration were given prior warning and a realistic strategy to deal with al Qaeda.  So it looks like Condi Rice did what people would call "lying" -- all just to get back at Clinton.  What a shame!  In November, we've got to cast our ballots for accountability -- those in power have lost our trust.
-------------------------------------------
Other sites blogging about this issue: Media Matters, Truthdig, Motor City Liberal, The Carpetbagger Report, Media Girl, Vox Verax, Faithful Progressive, Donkey Digest, AMERICAblog, The Strata-Sphere.

Rice compares war critics to Confederacy appeasers

You can put Condoleezza Rice on the same level as Donald Rumsfeld.  Two weeks after Rumsfeld compared war critics to Nazi appeasers during World War II, Secretary of State Rice is now making similar correlations.

In an interview with Essence Magazine, Condoleezza Rice compared the opposition of Bush's Iraq policy to those who didn't want to confront the Confederacy during the Civil War era:

"I'm sure there are people who thought it was a mistake to fight theCivil War to its end and to insist that the emancipation of slaveswould hold," Rice said in the new issue of Essence magazine.

"I know there were people who said, 'Why don't we get out of this now,take a peace with the South, but leave the South with slaves?'" Ricesaid.

It's ironic that the Administration makes all these historical comparisons, yet turns around and says repeatedly that this is a  "different kind of war."  The Democrats need to do a better job of calling the Republicans on this contradiction.

Also, how about pointing out the poor historical analogies for what they are?  Iraq didn't attack us on 9/11.  Yet, we were attacked by both Japan in World War II and the Confederacy during the Civil War.  Once again, they are trying to mold Iraq into the overall war on terrorism, even though a majority of Americans no longer buy that comparison.

----------------------------------------------

Other sites blogging about Condoleezza Rice: Crooks and Liars, Connecticut Blog, Left Word, Huffington Post, Newsvine, Alternate Brain, The Heretik, Political Nonsense.

Talk about deja vu

Let's hope that this is just the Administration's way of controlling the press, and that they are not actually serious.  Once again, when asked by reporters when Condoleezza Rice will head to the Middle East to try and broker a ceasefire, the Secretary of State sounded the least bit urgent:

"I am going to return to the Middle East. The question is when is it right for me to return to the Middle East," she told  a news conference after taking part in a global security forum  in Malaysia.

Last week, before her previous visit to the region, Rice said almost exactly the same thing:

"When it is appropriate and when it is necessary and will be helpful tothe situation I am more than pleased to go to the region," theSecretary of State Condoleezza Rice added.

Why is there no urgency here?  450 Lebanese and 51 Israelis have been killed as of yesterday.  Iran and Syria are in the middle of a geopolitical power-play, trying to re-assume control of Lebanon and stall the nuclear issue.  Is that not urgent enough?  Rice should get over there, stay there and invite all the foreign ministers of the entire G8 -- showing to the world that for the first time in six years we will be engaged leaders in world affairs.  And if Condoleezza doesn't feel that it's urgent, then sending a group of senators like Chuck Hagel, John McCain, Joe Biden and Hillary Clinton to the region might be the most productive option.

At the very least, do something besides just sitting there in Washington.

*Update (10 PM ET): A Pakistani man entered a Jewish Center a few hours ago in my home town of Seattle and shot the place up, killing one and injuring a few more.  Again, I ask Condi Rice "when is it right" for her to get over there?  It is now impacting our national security.  Get a move on!

When is it appropriate and necessary?

If you recall, during President Bush's slip of the lip yesterday while the mic was turned on, he told Tony Blair that he would be sending Condoleezza Rice to the Middle East.

But today all of a sudden when confronted by reporters, Condoleezza Rice backed off on the urgency of heading into the region to broker a ceasefire:

"When it is appropriate and when it is necessary and will be helpful tothe situation I am more than pleased to go to the region," theSecretary of State Condoleezza Rice added.

So if it's not appropriate and necessary to head to the region now, when will it be?  Will we have to sit through three more weeks of innocent civilians getting killed before we do something?  If Bill Clinton were in office, Madeleine Albright would have sped the region immediately.

In fact, former Secretary of State Madeleine Albright said just that a few days ago:

``There has to be a major diplomatic initiative,'' Albrightsaid on ABC's ``This Week'' program. ``I frankly was waiting forSecretary Rice to say she was going to the Middle East.''

What is Bush waiting for?  Send Condoleezza Rice over there now!
----------------------------------------------------------------
Other blogs writing about this issue: Downing Street Says, The Democratic Daily, Donkey Path.

Enough about the Condistas already!

I have heard enough about the mainstream media ranting and raving about the so called "Condistas" -- supporters of a possible Condoleezza Rice 2008 presidential bid.  It won't happen.  Yes, it was somewhat interesting that Rice spoke at the Southern Baptist Convention last month.  Yes, if Condoleezza Rice did run, Bush would definitely back her.

But again, she won't run at the top of the Republican ticket.  Even McCain won't be the Republican nominee in 2008.  According to one Republican, their party despises McCain and does not trust him.  There are powerful influences inside the Republican elite, such as Grover Norquist, that will not let certain Republican candidates get the nomination because it would mean the end of Republican wedge tactics on social issues.  Republicans need those tactics during even election years.  Condoleezza Rice is pro-choice, pro-affirmative action and in support of gay rights.  There goes the GOP agenda out the window!

So no, I don't see any chance (unless hell freezes over, of course) that Rice would get the nomination even if she did make the unwise decision to run.  This lazy reporting by the mainstream media is a diversion from more important issues that most Americans care about.

On Iran, Rumsfeld sides with Cheney and Bolton, not Rice

Donald Rumsfeld is trying to shatter all chances of a deal with Iran.  When asked about whether Iran should be offered incentives to join the community of nations if they dismantle their nuclear program, the Defense Secretary disagreed:

Rumsfeld said he finds it "passing strange" to bring the "leadingterrorist nation in the world into an organization that says it'sagainst terror."

As I wrote about on Friday, Vice President Dick Cheney and U.S. Ambassador to the U.N. John Bolton are trying to outweigh the policy influence of Condoleezza Rice in Bush's war cabinet.  The two are not happy about Rice's strategic move to convince Bush to engage in direct talks with Iran.  In other words, on one side we have Rice and the State Department doves, on the other side are Cheney and Bolton, and in the middle of the two sides is President Bush.  By his comment about Iran this weekend, Rumsfeld made it perfectly clear where he stands -- and that is with Cheney and Bolton, not Rice.  In order to make certain that Condoleezza Rice does not prevail, the three hawks need the talks with Iran to fall apart.  One way for Rumsfeld to do that is by polarizing his rhetoric, just as he did, therefore making the Iranian government less likely to comply.  By the Iran talks collapsing, Bush will have less confidence in Rice and from then on implement the foreign policy of all the hawks instead.

I guess it is pretty sad to be in a position where you want talks to fail.  But then again, it's Rumsfeld, Cheney and Bolton after all.  So no surprise there!