[Changleen]

From the Times:

Linky

We should try talking as well as fighting, admits Rice

CONDOLEEZZA RICE announced a striking overhaul of American foreign policy yesterday, conceding that US military might alone could not deliver President Bush’s goals, especially in Iraq.
Dr Rice used the Senate confirmation hearings of her appointment as Secretary of State to promise a new era of conciliatory diplomacy with Washington conducting “a conversation, not a monologue”.

She also signalled that US forces in Iraq would wind down operations after this month’s elections because the insurgency “cannot be dealt with by military power alone, and certainly not by overwhelming military power”. It was the first time a senior American official had admitted that US military force was losing to the insurgency in Iraq, or implied that the assault of Fallujah had failed.

After four years in which Washington’s ties with traditional allies have been stretched to breaking point, Dr Rice used her big moment to present an emollient face to the world. “The time for diplomacy is now,” she said.

She vowed to work to mend ties with allies and sought to draw a line under Mr Bush’s first-term foreign policy, much of which was driven by the Pentagon and influenced by neoconservative ideologues. Rather, Dr Rice told the foreign relations committee, “the primary instrument of American diplomacy” in the second term would be the State Department. Of the Middle East, she said: “Everyone can be certain that it’s a high priority to try to seize this moment.”

Well, I read the speech and maybe the Times is reading a little too much into it with their assessment but this is certainly a positive sign. I really hope this actually translates into more sensible policies in the future, but having witnessed the reality of America's regular discrepancies in words vs. action in the past I'll take this with a pinch of salt for now.

Unfortuantly for us all, nothing is really going to fundamentally change the US/Western realtionship with the Arab world until Ariel Sharon stops being such a dick. As you may have seen, he has taken this great opportunity for fresh start in Palestine by - you guessed it - refusing to talk to Abbas. If anyone ever needed any further proof the man has zero interest in actually finding peace, then here it is. America - you are the only people who can possibly have a chance at changing this ****wit's mind. Let's hope your administrations apparant newfound quest for dialogue extends to your longest running and most costly foreign policy mistake.

 

[Silver]

C'mon, this is a confirmation hearing. Remember Clarence Thomas? You say what you have to say to get through.

 

[Changleen]

Thanks for pissing on my fireworks...

 

[Silver]

Just don't get your hopes up, is all I'm saying. This is Rice's version of compassionate conservatism...it'll get dusted off when occasionally needed, and then it's back to the same old story.

 

[Changleen]

At the risk of having Silver be the only one to read this I'll post it here...

http://www.startribune.com/stories/561/5195168.html

Condi Rice: Steady on, toward disaster

The two-day dialogue between Condoleezza Rice and members of the Senate Foreign Relations Committee at times resembled material from "Catch-22" and at other times seemed to reflect "Dr. Strangelove." Other than a few hard questions from Democrats Joe Biden and Barbara Boxer, at no time did it remotely resemble reality.

You'd have thought from the way committee members treated Rice that she'd just arrived in Washington and had no part to play in, and no real knowledge of, the foreign-policy disaster that was President Bush's first term.

What alternate reality do these senators inhabit? Rice is a principal architect of the Bush foreign policy. She was an ardent supporter of going to war in Iraq. Her statements in the run-up to war about "mushroom clouds" and aluminum tubes were preposterous. And yet in a hearing on whether she has the stuff to be secretary of state, she had the temerity to lecture Boxer, asking her to "refrain from impugning my integrity." Well if not now, when?

Even in front of the committee, Rice couldn't refrain from telling what would generously be called fibs. Biden caught her out in one when she said 120,000 Iraqi military personnel had been trained to date. A more reliable figure from a more reliable source, he said, is 4,000.

Iraq is a quagmire killing Americans troops every day and costing American taxpayers billions each month. America's standing with allies, friendly nations and not-so-friendly ones has been badly damaged. We are seen abroad as bullying, arrogant and frequently just plain stupid. Rice was at the center of decisions which created that not-so-rosy scenario, and yet, as Biden said, played her confirmation hearings as a version of "Don't Worry, Be Happy."

Rice promised to repair relations with the world and to seek multilateral solutions to some of the most vexing problems the United States will confront in the next four years. But how is she going to do that? Repackage the Bush mood music and try to do a better sales job than outgoing Secretary of State Colin Powell?

It won't work; Rice doesn't enjoy Powell's respect in the world, and no one is going to be fooled by mood music. They want new American policies, and there is no indication there will be any from a second Bush administration. So long as Rice tries to sell the same spoiled fruit Powell was forced to peddle, no one is going to buy.

Diplomatically and militarily, everything the United States tried in Bush's first term went rotten. Yet the same unapologetic team, admitting to no mistakes, will be at the helm during the second four years, minus Powell and a few others.

Even many of the Republican members of the committee have been critics of the Bush foreign policy that Rice helped design, especially of its approach to Iraq. And yet they fawned all over her instead of holding her to account. More pathetic was Biden, who was biting in his criticisms but then voted to support her confirmation.

In the end, only Boxer and Sen. John Kerry did the principled thing and voted against Rice. Perhaps it was a symbolic vote, but it mattered. Kerry wasn't very pithy, but he was right when he said, "Dr. Rice is a principal architect, implementer, and defender of a series of administration policies that have not made our country as secure as we should be and have alienated much-needed allies in our common cause of winning the war against terrorism. Regrettably, I did not see in Dr. Rice's testimony any acknowledgment of the need to change course or of a new vision for America's role in the world."

With that the committee voted 16-2 to continue steady as she goes toward the next disaster.

 

[Casey]

Obviously written by a Democrat! lol.

Here's the thing, from what I see anyway: We'll never win the "war on terror" because terror is not something you can fight. Terrorism is a means to an end. It's not a people, or an army. It's a tactic. It amazes me that the media, as well as the administration, has embraced this idea that we're fighting a war against something that has no shape, no form, can't hold a rifle or put on a uniform. There are terrorists in the world, certainly, and maybe we're fighting them but we're not fighting "terror". Terror is a feeling.

I'm pretty conservative in my views, but I'm not sure we should be in the mess we're in. But we are in it, and we must see it through. There's no easy way out. That last posted article, however, REEKED of bias, spewing far more rhetoric and angst than it did fact. Be careful about letting some journalist dictate your views to you. We gotta think for ourselves.

 

[MMike]

Bah.... every 28 days she'll want to declare war on someone.....

 

[fluff]

Obviously written by a Democrat! lol.

Here's the thing, from what I see anyway: We'll never win the "war on terror" because terror is not something you can fight. Terrorism is a means to an end. It's not a people, or an army. It's a tactic. It amazes me that the media, as well as the administration, has embraced this idea that we're fighting a war against something that has no shape, no form, can't hold a rifle or put on a uniform. There are terrorists in the world, certainly, and maybe we're fighting them but we're not fighting "terror". Terror is a feeling.

I'm pretty conservative in my views, but I'm not sure we should be in the mess we're in. But we are in it, and we must see it through. There's no easy way out. That last posted article, however, REEKED of bias, spewing far more rhetoric and angst than it did fact. Be careful about letting some journalist dictate your views to you. We gotta think for ourselves.

As you say, the US should not be in the mess it is in. What is hard to understand is why people should think that the people that got the US into the mess are the best people to get it out of said mess.

 

[rigidhack]

Obviously written by a Democrat! lol.

Here's the thing, from what I see anyway: We'll never win the "war on terror" because terror is not something you can fight. Terrorism is a means to an end. It's not a people, or an army. It's a tactic. It amazes me that the media, as well as the administration, has embraced this idea that we're fighting a war against something that has no shape, no form, can't hold a rifle or put on a uniform. There are terrorists in the world, certainly, and maybe we're fighting them but we're not fighting "terror". Terror is a feeling.

I'm pretty conservative in my views, but I'm not sure we should be in the mess we're in. But we are in it, and we must see it through. There's no easy way out. That last posted article, however, REEKED of bias, spewing far more rhetoric and angst than it did fact. Be careful about letting some journalist dictate your views to you. We gotta think for ourselves.

We do have to think for ourselves. Only it isn't always an esay thing to do if you are not given the tools to do it. I'm stretching the example a bit, but its hard to build a freeride park with just a box of spaghetti. When we are constantly being trained that if it isn't reducible to a sound-byte it isn't worth knowing, and then being told to "believe what you see" (translated: believe what you are told by a less than independent media); thinking for yourself becomes increasingly difficult. The qoute, by the way, is from todays innaugural spech.

We should not be in this mess, and we are. The problem with the "see it through" mentality is that this is EXACTLY what we did in Vietnam. 50,000+ American dead and still the country falls to Communism. Perhaps "seeing it through" means getting out and cutting the losses? I'm not sure how feasible this is, since Iraq has now become exactly what we were told it already was before the war - a haven for terrorists. (Think about the wording of that for a minute - I'm implying that it wasn't like that before.)

The problem is that the admin is using "realism" to defend and promote and idealistic agenda. They have not allowed themselvess to room to say "oops." This is really evident in Rice's confirmation hearings. There is a constant theme that "we did it therefore it is right." That in itself is troublesome. I don't have the answers, but I do think that one of the first steps is to learn how to admit mistakes when they happen.

 

[Casey]

I'm not sure what "see it through" entails either. I agree that, as a country, we'd be much better off to pull out and bring the boys back home (with my apologies to Pink Floyd). But I'm thinking more about the Iraqi people and the mess we'd leave them with. We broke it, and now we need to fix it. I have no idea how we're going to do that, and I'm glad it's not my call. From my point of view, we've accomplished what we went in for: we unseated a dictatorial leader (of a sovereign nation!!!) and have prepared the people there for free elections. Perhaps if we packed up all our toys and went home the internal conflict would resolve itself. Perhaps not. I don't know. But somebody somewhere needs to come up with an answer to the "see it through" question and implement it.

 

[BuddhaRoadkill]

What is hard to understand is why people should think that the people that got the US into the mess are the best people to get it out of said mess.

DING DING DING!!!! Staggering isn't it?

 

[-BB-]

Other than a few hard questions from Democrats Joe Biden and Barbara Boxer, at no time did it remotely resemble reality.
[/url]

Which is why I am proud to be a Dela-fornian

(grew up in DE, live in CA)

 

[Damn True]

As you say, the US should not be in the mess it is in. What is hard to understand is why people should think that the people that got the US into the mess are the best people to get it out of said mess.

Um....not sure what you mean by "mess".

Are you refering to the toppling of two of the most despotic regimes on the planet as a mess?

Or are you refering to the provision of free elections in two countries that haven't had them before as a mess?

Perhaps you are refering to providing freedom of religion to people who have never had it as a mess?

Please point out for me which of the above is the mess you are refering to, then explain why we would want to get out of it.

 

[fluff]

Um....not sure what you mean by "mess".

Are you refering to the toppling of two of the most despotic regimes on the planet as a mess?

Or are you refering to the provision of free elections in two countries that haven't had them before as a mess?

Perhaps you are refering to providing freedom of religion to people who have never had it as a mess?

Please point out for me which of the above is the mess you are refering to, then explain why we would want to get out of it.

Free elections, in Iraq? I must have blinked. I see civil war but no free and full elections. I also see an administration groping for an exit strategy.

100,000+ dead Iraqi civilians (and counting) is the mess I am referring to, not even one of the two most despotic regimes on the planet achieved that level of genocide in the space of three years. (Unless you see 100,000+ dead Iraqis as a good thing of course.)

As for getting out of it, I do not advocate leaving now, there is a job to be done now that is far more important than the perceived one that got us there. However getting out of it was one of the major election issues for the US public.

 

[thaflyinfatman]

Um....not sure what you mean by "mess".

Are you refering to the toppling of two of the most despotic regimes on the planet as a mess?

Or are you refering to the provision of free elections in two countries that haven't had them before as a mess?

Perhaps you are refering to providing freedom of religion to people who have never had it as a mess?

Please point out for me which of the above is the mess you are refering to, then explain why we would want to get out of it.

How about referring to "lying to the entire world about WMDs and starting a war that didn't need to happen in order to further his own interests" as a mess? Iraq, whilst far from perfect, was at least somewhat stable beforehand. Look at it now, wow what a utopia of "freedom", security and stability it is now.

 

[Casey]

How about referring to "lying to the entire world about WMDs and starting a war that didn't need to happen in order to further his own interests" as a mess? Iraq, whilst far from perfect, was at least somewhat stable beforehand. Look at it now, wow what a utopia of "freedom", security and stability it is now.

Exactly what "interests" is GWB furthering in Iraq? Has he taken over their oil fields, stealing the "black gold" and selling it on the open market so he can pocket the money? Nope.

Or how about power? Let's see...is Bush a power-hungry madman? Perhaps, though I doubt it. But if he is, then he's a very successful one, as he already holds the office of the most powerful man in the free world. There's no higher or more powerful position a man can hold than U.S. President. And that's a position he had before this whole mess ever started.

Ddid he "lie" to the world in order to start this conflict? His detractors, of course, say yes. His supporters say he got bad intel. I truly believe it's very likely that there were in fact WMDs in Iraq before we moved in. It's not like we snuck silently in in the middle of the night. We told the MoFos we were coming!! We crossed the Iraqi border with frickin' TV CAMERAS rolling. Hussein had more than adequate time to move anything in the country across the border (probably into Syria, if I were to hazard a guess).

Whether Bush is going about his war on "terror" in the same way I would is neither here nor there. He's the guy with the fuzzy nuts, and the guy with the fuzzy nuts gets to make the decisions. Stop spewing all this "furthering his own interest" crap unless you can show me exactly what interests GWB has that need furthering. He's got it all already, and to be totally honest, if I WERE in his shoes, it'd be MY d*** oil (to the victor go the spoils!) and we'd be paying 75 cents a gallon for regular unleaded like we did back in the good ol' days

 

[Casey]

And another thing...show me ONE country, anywhere, any time, any place that went through a revolution, that had a governmental overthrow, that was able to accomplish said overthrow and return to a stable, safe and secure form of government in a year. Paul Revere took his ride in, I believe, 1775, and the British didn't sign the articles of peace until 1782. That's seven years of grim war in the effort to establish our own government here. To expect Iraq to be "a utopia of freedom, stablility and security" at this early stage of the game would take a moron :mumble:

 

[fluff]

And another thing...show me ONE country, anywhere, any time, any place that went through a revolution, that had a governmental overthrow, that was able to accomplish said overthrow and return to a stable, safe and secure form of government in a year. Paul Revere took his ride in, I believe, 1775, and the British didn't sign the articles of peace until 1782. That's seven years of grim war in the effort to establish our own government here. To expect Iraq to be "a utopia of freedom, stablility and security" at this early stage of the game would take a moron :mumble:

Revolution and invasion are two different things.

 

[Casey]

Granted, but in this case I believe invasion is leading to revolution.

 

[fluff]

Granted, but in this case I believe invasion is leading to revolution.

Well, invasion generally leads to regime change if that is what you mean by revolution. It seems closer to civil war at present. The question is whether that was necessary, desired and predicted.

Given that the invasion was not originally done for the good of the Iraqi people but in order to eliminate a threat to 'the free world' does it not bother you that you were misled?

 

[Casey]

To be honest, I also don't think we had any business going into Iraq. I'd much rather we'd stayed in Afghanistan and continued the big push to locate and eradicate O.B.L. I'm simply saying that there's no way to prove we were intentionally misled, at least not that I'm aware of. Is it not possible that the Bush administration was actually given bad intel as they claim? And if so, and if Bush was in fact given information indicating that WMDs existed in Iraq and did nothing about it, and something happened later as a result of his inaction, the pundits would be right there again, saying how wrong he was NOT to have gone into Iraq.

Look, I have no way of knowing the truth of the matter with regard to what the impetus was for us to invade Iraq. I thought it was a dumb idea when we did it. But I acknowledge that my President is a human, working with a bunch of other humans, and in charge of the safety and welfare of millions of still other humans. Humans make mistakes. Often they make great big, huge, tragic mistakes that lead to wars. I'm just not ready to immediately start jumping up and down, pointing my finger and yelling, "Oooh, oooh, he told a fib! He told a fib!" It's more likely, in my opinion, that he simply got bad intel. I see no rationale that would make him want to deliberately lie to send American troops into a sovereign country.

 

[valve bouncer]

Humans make mistakes. Often they make great big, huge, tragic mistakes that lead to wars. I'm just not ready to immediately start jumping up and down, pointing my finger and yelling, "Oooh, oooh, he told a fib! He told a fib!"

This bit made me laugh. So if mistakes leading to war don't get you upset what does?

 

[fluff]

This bit made me laugh. So if mistakes leading to war don't get you upset what does?

Hmm, that made me think. Either Bush lied or screwed up big time. Either way is that a good reason to re-elect him...

 

[Casey]

Guys, guys, guys...this is the reason I love this place and am glad I found it. You entertain me. You make me think. Glad I could add a chuckle to your day, VB.

GWB is not the first president ever to make a mistake, and he will make more of them, I assure you. He's a crappy public speaker who can't pronounce Nuclear (Nucular...I just love that!! lol) But from everything I see, he is a man of his word. His word may have been wrong, and he may have made a bad decision that cost innocent lives, but remember this little bit that my dear ol' Daddy used to tell me: You make the best decision you can make with the information you have available, and you go all out once you've made it. Then let the chips fall where they may. GWB is in charge of some pretty damn big chips. But I truly, really do not believe that he intentionally misled the American people. Were we misled? Yep, looks like it. But if you're going to fault and refuse to reelect every president who makes a mistake, you're gonna run out of Presidents pretty fast and have a lot of lame ducks. John Kerry would have let the United Nations dictate US foreign policy, and that is unacceptable.

 

[thaflyinfatman]

Exactly what "interests" is GWB furthering in Iraq? Has he taken over their oil fields, stealing the "black gold" and selling it on the open market so he can pocket the money? Nope.

Or how about power? Let's see...is Bush a power-hungry madman? Perhaps, though I doubt it. But if he is, then he's a very successful one, as he already holds the office of the most powerful man in the free world. There's no higher or more powerful position a man can hold than U.S. President. And that's a position he had before this whole mess ever started.

Ddid he "lie" to the world in order to start this conflict? His detractors, of course, say yes. His supporters say he got bad intel. I truly believe it's very likely that there were in fact WMDs in Iraq before we moved in. It's not like we snuck silently in in the middle of the night. We told the MoFos we were coming!! We crossed the Iraqi border with frickin' TV CAMERAS rolling. Hussein had more than adequate time to move anything in the country across the border (probably into Syria, if I were to hazard a guess).

Whether Bush is going about his war on "terror" in the same way I would is neither here nor there. He's the guy with the fuzzy nuts, and the guy with the fuzzy nuts gets to make the decisions. Stop spewing all this "furthering his own interest" crap unless you can show me exactly what interests GWB has that need furthering. He's got it all already, and to be totally honest, if I WERE in his shoes, it'd be MY d*** oil (to the victor go the spoils!) and we'd be paying 75 cents a gallon for regular unleaded like we did back in the good ol' days

Own interests? How about distracting people from his failure to catch Bin Laden or achieve anything much against al Qaeda? How about the fact that leaders virtually never get voted out during wars, and he was coming up to an election?

And the "he had WMDs but he moved them" thing is just SUCH a load of crap. Hans Blix etc found no evidence to suggest that he had them, all the UN guys said DON'T GO. To quote a knowledgeable political-type fella from another forum:
"There were many who said all along that the Intelligence was wrong, there was no imediate threat, invasion will end in civil war: Hans Blix, Mohummad El' Baridei, Scott Ritter (Former FBI Weapons inspector) Andrew Wilkie (Australian ONA intelligence analyst) God knows how many retired generals, politicians, academics, media commentators and funnily enough, Saddam Husein.................. not to mention a couple of million people in the streets of the world."

Dubya lied to start a war. You don't do that just because you're bored one afternoon. He claimed that he had solid evidence of WMDs, which obviously he didn't, since there aren't any, and he hasn't even offered up fake evidence or ANYTHING publicly. Given that the claimed reasons were so blatantly just bullshït, it stands to logical reason that there is some other motive for the war. What it is, I can only speculate (like I did above). It seems exceptionally stupid to me, to look those facts in the face and then deny that Dubya is/was doing the wrong thing.

 

[MikeD]

Here's the thing, from what I see anyway: We'll never win the "war on terror" because terror is not something you can fight. Terrorism is a means to an end. It's not a people, or an army. It's a tactic. It amazes me that the media, as well as the administration, has embraced this idea that we're fighting a war against something that has no shape, no form, can't hold a rifle or put on a uniform. There are terrorists in the world, certainly, and maybe we're fighting them but we're not fighting "terror". Terror is a feeling.

Hey, thanks, and welcome to my corner. We'll hold on to whatever shreds of logic we can, and fight the rest of 'em all off with a sharpened spoke.

MD

Edit: Hmmm, you're pretty easy on Bush, my man. Even if, and just if, he really did sincerely believe in WMDs and the 'threat' from Iraq, the administration's lack of foresight into what would become of the country and total absence of planning is astounding and contemptible. (read Bob Woodward's "Plan of Attack," which doesn't delve into ulterior motives, but gives a detailed account of the planning, and shows-not overtly, mind you-that the aftereffects of toppling Saddam's regime were largely not even considered.) As a military man, I know plans go to hell on first contact, but they really didn't seem to think there'd be anything difficult to do once Saddam fell... I mean, *I* foresaw the mess we'd be in, and I'm nobody educated beyond the basics. (At the very least, it's obvious we'd be giving anti-US sentiment in the middle east its own personal "US target" in their backyard, and any new Iraqi government will have to maintain its legitimacy under the crushing shadow of US presence and influence. Unless, of course, they're a radical Islamic government. Luckily for us, the other Arab governments want as little radical Islam in power in the region as possible, because it threatens them, too. They want just enough, but not enough to really matter in the power structure.)

 

[N8 v2.0]

Perhaps we will never win The War on Spam either...