Faint Praise For Condi
I’m really starting to warm up to the fact that Condoleeza Rice is the new Secretary of State. “What the hell?!”, you may ask. Bear with me on this one, folks. It’s not what you think.
First let’s take a look back at Colin Powell’s tenure. While added to the Bush/Cheney ticket in 2000 to give them some instant cred (and help allay fears that Bush was an incompetent retard), once he was confirmed by the senate, his role took one of three forms : the “good cop” to the neoconservatives’ “bad cop”, the amiable frontman for an insane policy, or the shunned little brother who’s better seen and not heard. Is it any wonder why Powell was always at odds with the decision-makers in the White House and Pentagon?
Now let’s take a look at the job description. Traditionally we think of the Secretary of State as the nation’s “chief diplomat” and we rightly assume that the person who fills this role should possess all the values and gravitas that we’d want to present to the international community. But this is the Bush Administration we’re talking about here. Just as the role of Vice-President has transformed from tie-breaker to lie-maker, a SoS under Bush has one duty : selling the war.
That’s where Powell’s problems began. As someone who’s actually been to war, everyone understood him to be weary about invading other countries unless it’s a last resort. Although he talked a good game about the United States being “committed to diplomacy”, everybody knew that it didn’t truly reflect the President’s desires. Regardless of any diplomatic overtures that Colin made, if Junior wants to blow shit up, then he’s gonna blow shit up. The result of this schism between Powell and the rest of the Administration was four long years of mixed messages directed towards the international community.
Which brings me back to Condi. I’ll grant to you that she’s uniquely unqualified to run the State Department, but you’ve gotta give her credit for one thing : The lady can stay on message with the best of them. Indeed, her questioning before the senate reminded me of the “Have you made any mistakes?” cat-and-mouse game the press likes to play with Bush every few months. Even after hours of torture strong interrogation methods, I’m sure Condi would still stick to the script.
And what about mixed messages? Not only will Condi say exactly what she’s told to say, but the choice of her sends an even larger message of its own to the world. While I’m as disappointed as you are that the message seems to be “The United States rewards failure and celebrates mediocrity, so fuck off.”, with Bush being “re”-elected with three million more votes than Kerry, you’d be hard pressed to make the argument that it doesn’t truly reflect the will of the American people.
As much as it sucks to admit, Condolezza Rice does accurately reflect the Bush Administration’s goals and values. While my instinct would be to fight her nomination, in the back of my mind I can’t help but think I’d just be re-fighting a battle we’d already lost. Rice is a nearly perfect choice to lead the diplomatic efforts of a far, far, far from perfect administration. Sure, I’m disappointed that her appointment was assisted by the effusive praise and (more importantly) unnecessary votes of 32 senate Senators1, the only real alternative here would have been a slightly less awful Secretary of State who’s completely ignored.
1: On a far more exciting note, the Alberto Gonzales nomination sailed through committee without garnering a single senate vote. His nomination is a much more important fight for Democrats and it’s a good sign that they’re all sticking together on this one.
19 comments
Copy link for RSS feed for comments on this post
Sorry, the comment form is closed at this time.
Buy The Convenient Family-Pack
Now that Condi is the Chimp’s Pointer-hound, the government’s failure in the entire Middle East really will be all hers to own. In a way, I can’t wait.
One thing Condo can be held responsible for going forward is to alert The Chimp of the massive environmental damage being done to Iraq as a result of the war she so ferverently endorsed. It isn’t only the oil fires, the unexploded munitions, the use of Sabot rounds and the resulting poisioning of air and water from spent nuclear fuel.
Apparently, microwave radiation is the latest concern for civilian and U.S. Military alike. Cursor.org and Skippy The Bush Kangaroo both have made mention of it:
“… occupied iraq has become a ’saturation environment’ of electromagnetic radiation. Potentially lethal electromagnetic smog from high-power us military electronics and experimental beam weapons is placing already hard-hit local populations?-particularly children?at even higher risk of experiencing serious illness, suicidal depression, impaired cognitive ability, even death…”
_____________________________
So, here’s a new page from the Condi Cookbook! Her most famous recipie so far has been the Integrity Pie, which should not be impugned, and whose ingredients are classified or unclear.
_____________________________
IRAQ - READY-TO-CONMSUME!
_____________________________
Conventional Oven Instructions:
To bake Iraq Ready-To-Consume! using convection technology, sprinkle with GBU-20-b’s, Aerosol Explosive Devices, and standard napalm.
Drain off oil until dry. This may take ten or more years.
Due to continuing insurgency, repeat cooking until crispy; skin may retain meat shape due to cooking method.
_____________________________
Microwave Oven Instructions:
To use Iraq Ready-To-Consume! with microwave or radiology tools, light up entire country with air and ground-based radar and RTF equipment, 24-7. Use multiple Sabot/AP rounds against targets of any size whenever possible.
Drain oil as in conventional method. Irradiate until golden-brown to black and meat falls off in chunks due to skin failure.
Use of new NAC-Condi adapter may allow theatre-wide use of low-yield tactical nuclear munitions to increase cooking times in the near future.
_____________________________
Serves the entire western oil-consuming world.
—-
Comment by Tom S — January 27, 2005 @ 1:24 pm
I don’t understand why you see her as uniquely unqualified to run the state department. I can understand disliking her, and I can understand thinking that she was a poor National Security Advisor. Even if you find her role in cheerleading for the Iraq war to have been deplorable, I don’t see how that makes her unqualified to run the state department.
Comment by E-Rock — January 27, 2005 @ 1:57 pm
I wrote this post about her lack of qualifications a couple months ago. Here’s the bullet points :
- She has no diplomatic experience. She’s an academic who’s spent the majority of her career in think-tanks and the like.
- Where she does have experience is in foreign policy, but that hardly served her well as national security advisor (a job which, on paper at least, she should be perfect for). To make things worse, she’s an expert in cold war issues, which means her expertise doesn’t necessarily translate into the “new kind of war” that we find ourselves in.
- Her key failures in regards to the 9/11 and Iraq intelligence failures were the inability to get various entities to communicate with each other (in this case, the CIA, FBI, Pentagon, etc.) Granted, this isn’t just her fault, but if she can’t get government bureaucracies to get past their cultural differences, how is she gonna be able to get, say, the Israelis and Palestinians to talk to each other?
To turn the question around, what makes Condolezza Rice the best candidate for Secretary of State? Other than her unflinching loyalty to George W. Bush?
Comment by greg — January 27, 2005 @ 2:22 pm
______________________________________
Actually, E-Rock, my take would be that Condo is unqualified to hold the office because she is an ethical failure, and purposefully walks with monsters — to the point that she is in peril of becoming a moral failure and possibly a monster herself.
But, she’s allegedly intelligent enough to know the difference between right and wrong. Not between the relative up- or downsides of situation ethics, E-buddy — right and wrong.
Lying, incidentally — particularly when it makes you in the deaths of thousands of human beings — is wrong. That may have escaped your notice.
Also, I can’t imagine anything willingly having intimate physical relations with her. Even appliances would refuse to assume the “on” position. I can call up a hazy image of Adolf and Eva; but Condo? I’d have to take a shower afterwards.
Comment by Tom S — January 27, 2005 @ 2:57 pm
Well, I would say that Condoleeza Rice is the perfect choice because of her relationship with the President and her background in and knowledge of our contemporary foreign policy. One without the other is useless in the foreign arena.
But when it comes to background, Condoleeza Rice’s background isn’t severely different from Madeline Albright’s. If, however, we return to the question of ethics, that takes us right back to the argument over Bill Clinton and whether ethics issues were enough for disqualification from office. (Yes, I know there is a difference between oral sex and toppling a sovereign nation)
Comment by E-Rock — January 27, 2005 @ 4:42 pm
I dunno if I’d call her an expert in contemporary foreign policy. She, like the rest of the Bush administration, seems stuck in a cold war mindset when the war on terrorism is anything but. Rice’s expertise in particular seems to be in Eastern Europe and the former Soviet Union. (See her bio for more details)
I agree with the president that the threats we face now represent a “new kind of war”, but nobody in that administration seems to understand that you can’t win a modern war using old methods. The current Iraqi insurgency was predictable, but it took these morons off guard because they were still thinking in terms of overthrowing regimes rather than winning hearts and minds.
I concede your point about Albright and admit that her qualifications are problably equally lacking, but only one of these women was indirectly responsible for two of the greatest intelligence lapses in our nation’s history. Her promotion has nothing to do with experience or performance. Rice is a “team player” and she’s being rewarded for that.
It was Rice’s responsibility to stay up-to-date on the workings of the intelligence community in order to advise the President effectively. To give you an idea of how egregious her failure was, consider this : on September 11, 2001, Rice was planning to deliver a speech in which she argued that the greatest threat to our safety was the one posed by ICBM’s.
The fact is, Rice was a complete failure as national security advisor, a job that she should have been very, very good at. If she can’t pull that job off, I have no reason to believe she’d be a good diplomat either.
Comment by greg — January 27, 2005 @ 5:31 pm
______________________________________
Oh, E, E, E — so deserving of the right to an opinion. Otherwise, so clueless.
Oral sex in the oval office equated with planning and executing an aggressive war. Lying about a relationship with a woman is on the same level as lying to an entire nation and the deaths of (I’ll make it easier for you, E) over 1,400 Americans. These aren’t even arguments, E. They do not carry the same rlative weight. They have no basis in reality. But, then, you people aren’t ‘reality-based’, are you?
So, E — What’s it like to be a tool? What’s it like to be a troll? No, really, we’ve always been curious — between working for the WinterHilfe, and being involved with the struggle for the trumph of the pure volk, there can’t be a lot of free time. Perceiving the world in terms of negatives and social eugenics… it’s got to be such a responsibility.
And guess what, E? If you support these creatures, every time we blow a child apart in Iraq (or, eventually, Iran), you’re complicit, E. You. Because you agreed. Because you voted for it. Because you went along.
At the end of WWII, the Allies made local Germans walk through their concentration camps, E. I wonder what people like you will have to do?
Comment by Tom S — January 27, 2005 @ 6:18 pm
I’ve seen photos of African American women celebrating Condi’s new position because she is a black woman who has risen to a respected position of power. I say share the wealth. Those of us who are not qualified to hold such an important government post should celebrate in a similar manner because an incompetent hold the position. Please do not argue that registering republican is the same thing, unless the neocons are willing to wave incompetents for Condi signs.
Comment by kamachanda — January 28, 2005 @ 8:52 am
Tom S, The argument I wasn’t making but was alluding to was that the entire debate over Bill Clinton’s having had an affair and lied about it in a deposition centered on whether you believed that character was an important enough a quality to attempt to remove an official from office over a legal quibble. About half the nation believed that the whole thing was a moral issue and didn’t rise to the level necessary to remove a man from office. The other half offered that he deserved to be removed because of an ethical failure in his decision to lie during a deposition, whatever the reason may have been. If you want to say that Condoleeza Rice is ethically unqualified for office, then you are making the Republican argument for impeaching Bill Clinton.
I’ll go ahead and conceed, Greg, that as of September 11th she probably hasn’t been the best National Security Advisor, but I just don’t know if that means that she would be a bad secretary of state. I understand the argument that you shouldn’t reward poor job performance with a promotion– I just don’t know if its an entirely apt argument to make in this case.
Comment by E-Rock — January 28, 2005 @ 10:32 am
Only if you accept the idea that lying about an affair and lying so you can start a war are on the same ethical footing. One was the result of adultery and the other resulted in the loss of thousands of lives, so not all lies are equal here.
Comment by greg — January 28, 2005 @ 10:52 am
Granted, the magnitude is different, but the motivation is the same. What you’re ultimately asking is whether you want to have officials who are willing to lie to the American public or not, right? When it comes to misleading the American public, we’ve all agreed that it’s ok. We just haven’t agreed upon when.
I apologize for having gotten us off topic, I really was just curious, initially, as to why you thought Condi unqualified for office. Moral questions aside, I think she probably as qualified as most Secretaries of State that we’ve had.
Comment by E-Rock — January 28, 2005 @ 11:28 am
The difference is this:
Clinton’s lie about the affair had NOTHING TO DO with his job as president. It was none of our business as American People and would not have been brought to our attention if Ken Starr hadn’t been on his witch hunt.
Many, many leaders of state, government, and finance (including congressmen that impeached Bush) have had and are having affairs. It has no bearing on their ability to conduct their jobs.
Comment by Dave — January 28, 2005 @ 12:04 pm
That difference is a lie, Dave. Clinton’s lie came during a deposition, where he was attempting to subvert someone’s civil rights through perjurious testimony. He was trying to protect himself, not from Paula but from the right wing’s hounds, which is understandable but not something that should be applauded or excused. He never should have engaged in the behavior in the first place. The lie may have been negligible, but it was the context of the lie that raised its importance. A lie between spouses is one thing, but a lie given to court is entirely another. Following the possibly perjurious testimony, he found it necessary to lie to the American public. Is an affair our business? No. What is our business is perjury from our President.
Look, all I’m saying is that we accept moral failure in our leaders when it’s to our advantage to, and we abhor it when it’s to our advantage.
Comment by E-Rock — January 28, 2005 @ 12:38 pm
This Is Not The Argument; This Is Not The Point
___________________________________
Debate over Rice’s alleged fitness to hold the position is moot. Engaging in that discussion — because ‘all politicians lie’, or that we do not live in a morally or ethically absolutist world — is also a waste of time. These arguments promote a purposeful ambiguity. We can’t afford the luxury of that now.
Seymour Hersh made an assertion at Stephen Wise Free Synagogue in NYC a short time ago: That the real internal force directing the government of the United States sits in the hands of a small group of neoconservatives. This isn’t a tinfoil hat diatribe on Hersh’s part, and it isn’t an argument in favor of a vast, right-wing conspiracy theory. But the fact our country is being pushed and dragged into a cultural sea-change is beyond doubt.
The fact that Bush, and Rice, and others, lied to create a pretext for war is also beyond doubt. That a majority in the First and even Second Worlds are more prepared to take adversarial positions against us - out of fear of a superpower out of control - is also not in question. (Hersh refered to the rage against the United States among European citizens as titantic.)
At a minimum, Rice is on the side of the circle of neoconservatives creating these obscenities. Her nomination, or that of anyone like her, needs to be resisted — not because she’s “disliked”, or that she’s “qualified or not”. It is a matter of her philosophy and mindset — who and what she represents. What she has proven by word and action she supports and believes. It’s whose side she’s on.
I personally don’t care whether Clinton had the sexual ethics of a red-assed baboon. The results of his affair with Lewinsky did nothing to harm the nation — only the vile, expensive and self-serving circus the Right unwillingly dragged the country into. There is no comparison except in fantasy between a blow job and what Bush and his handlers are doing to our country.
To be drawn into a relativist comparison of these points (If you believe Rice’s actions are immoral, then you must condemn Clinton) is a Right-wing tool’s trick, a three-card-monte distraction. It’s a misdirection the Right uses every day — look at the war in Iraq. The ‘Crisis’ of social Security. The ’scandal of the few’ of Abu Ghirab.
I argue that with the advent of this neocon ruling clique, and the choices they are forcing upon us in foreign and domestic policy, it is no longer business-as-usual in America. Events now differ from anything we’ve experienced as a country — except for the McCarthy era, or the outright paranoia of the Nixon years.
The Right has used the term ‘cultural war’ as a rallying cry for years; we are in the opening stages of the real thing, now.
Rice assisted at the birth of all this. She’s not quite a True Believer, but is an opportunist. Her appointment should have been opposed because she helped to create a foreign policy based on deceit that is unprecedented in American history — a policy with no clearly enunciated and defined goal, except to “spread freedom”. It’s as plastic and rudderless as it comes.
Our government has never lied to its citizens, in the way in which Rice participated, to take the nation to war, ever. Even the quicksand of policy that pulled us deeper into Vietnam is no comparison.
Rice is the enemy. That’s why we would say “no” to her continued presence in government. It’s that simple.
As divisive as some might label that perspective, the Right has used that us-versus-them view to organize the red-state lumpen for over a decade. The neocons and christoid robots have reaped the benefits.
Rice’s nomination is one facet of what has to be resisted, and at this juncture, that can’t be done politely. I for one don’t want my country to be submerged in a dark age of the Right’s superstition, fear, and lies. I don’t want my country reviled and ignored by the rest of the world. And I don’t want to engage in hair-splitting arguments that are, at best, bullshit.
I don’t want to feel that I sat idly by and did nothing, while the principles I believe are what make my country what it once was are pissed upon by people like Rice, or the trolls and fellow-travellers who support them.
___________________________________
Comment by Tom S — January 28, 2005 @ 1:07 pm
… oh, yes; I almost forgot — E, you’re wearing your ass for hat.
_______________________________________
Comment by Tom S — January 28, 2005 @ 9:26 pm
Rice’s fitness for office, most definitely, is not a moot point. Indeed, it was the question that started this thread! If you want to ignore that, then that’s fine, but don’t deny that you have removed yourself entirely from the question at hand because of some self-righteous urge to prove yourself morally superior to me, to yourself, to Christians, to Southerners, and to anyone other group of people to whom you imagine yourself superior.
Look, this will be my last word on the subject because this is getting out of hand. Do I see Rice as the enemy? No. In fact, if you want to jump into a selfish us vs. them argument, Condi Rice’s being Secretary of State does a lot to bolster my race’s image, and maybe I should be happy just to see another black person assume a prominent role of power in the Federal government. If you think that she shouldn’t be Secretary of State because of her role in pushing us into war, then that’s fine. To call her evil by association, however, is plain stupid.
You feel we’re entagled in a culture war; I feel we’re just in the middle of one of the back-and-forth reactions that has defined our nation’s (and every nation’s) history (to which Clinton’s blowjob did make a minor contribution). I don’t think that villainizing half the nation does anything to help your position.
We were hated and despised for our power before Iraq, and we will be after it. Get over it, and get to the task of constructively helping our nation be the best it can be.
“‘The U.S. government is hated . . . all the people in the world are against it, therefore there is a threat,” Gadhafi said on “The Early Show” on CBS. But, he added, “I hope it will not happen in this new year. . . . I have no knowledge about” a particular threat.’”
That is from the Seattle Times, December 21, 1999. Title: U.S. POLICIES BREED THREAT OF TERRORISM
Like I said, get over it, and do something constructive.
Comment by E-Rock — January 29, 2005 @ 10:18 am
________________________________________________
E., you’re still wearing your ass for a hat, and still (not very surprisingly) ignorant.
It is a war. Far from getting over it, you’d better get used to it. It’s fairly clear which side you’re on from the flavor of argument you raise; thanks for making yourself so easy to spot.
You’re a troll; plain and simple, and we should waste no more time on you.
________________________________________________
Comment by Tom S — January 29, 2005 @ 5:43 pm
Just because somebody disagrees with you doesn’t make them a troll. In this case, the person wearing his “ass for a hat” is a friend of mine who, like me, likes to argue about politics. While I strongly disagree with him in this case, he never resorted to ad hominem attacks on anyone in this thread.
Here’s some advice for you :
1) If you can’t defend your views without resorting to name calling, then you might want to consider the possibility that you might be wrong.
2) If you’ve both made the points that you’re trying to make and nobody’s willing to budge, then drop it and change the subject. It’s okay for grownups to agree to disagree sometimes.
Comment by greg — January 29, 2005 @ 6:05 pm
Fair enough.
Comment by Tom S — January 29, 2005 @ 7:35 pm