Russian Crisis Reveals Condi Rice as Worst Secretary of State Ever
Condi Rice might have had an oil tanker named after her by Chevron but she was a terrible National Security Advisor and is even worse as Secretary of State. As President George W. Bush's foreign policy tutor she botched all the warnings leading up to the September 11th attacks. She lied to the American people about "smoking guns" and "mushroom clouds," and she lied to Congress about the administration's goals and motives for the Iraq war. She should never have been confirmed as Secretary of State but the Bidens and the Clintons and the Lugars of the Senate voted for her despite her many failings and basic intellectual dishonesty.
But the worst was yet to come.
As Secretary of State, Condi Rice never really employed what we might call "diplomacy" toward Russia. She is supposed to be an "expert" on Russia. But her Cold War mentality and extreme hawkishness was really what allowed her to rise through the ranks within the U.S. foreign policy establishment in the first place. When Reaganites were calling for more nuclear missiles aimed at the Soviet Union, Condi wanted even more overkill; when the hawks called for arming "freedom fighters" in Central America to stave off "Soviet expansionism," Condi wanted to commit even more American resources and military personnel to the cause. Whatever the Right wanted during the Cold War, Condi wanted more. She caught the attention of the Republican hawks and the rest is history.
But as Secretary of State all she did vis-à-vis the Russians was needlessly antagonize them. The entire Bush policy toward Russia can be summed up in two words: "NATO Expansion." Condi pushed hard for the Czech "missile defense" system, and for the breakaway independence of Kosovo, initiatives that make little sense unless viewed through an outmoded Cold War prism. Calling for expanding NATO into Ukraine and Georgia was unnecessarily provocative.
Now, with the Russian military action in Abkhazia and South Ossetia, all the United States can do is make hollow threats. Unless George Bush and John McCain want to initiate a military draft in this country they should put to rest their blustering and posturing toward their old Cold War enemy.
The United States cannot do anything. Especially after eight years of Bush's repeated and routine violations of international law. Bush recently lectured the Chinese on "human rights" when he tortures prisoners and holds people without due process (and executed 152 people in Texas). Now we hear him tongue-wag Vladimir Putin for his incursion into Georgia. This belated moral rectitude regarding the sanctity of international borders comes from the Conqueror of Baghdad who lied to the world via the United Nations, invaded a nation of 27 million far from any U.S. border, and continues an illegal military occupation.
Those of us who opposed the Iraq war before it was launched argued that violating international law would undermine future efforts by the United States to hold other powers accountable for similarly lawless behavior. Well, here we are.
Loading comments…
Want to reply to a comment? Hint: Click "Reply" at the bottom of the comment; after being approved your comment will appear directly underneath the comment you replied to
Good Post, but I think we already knew she wasn't at the top of her game!
See Joseph A. Palermo's Profile
I just thought that maybe Putin would call this "Birth Pangs of a New Caucuses?"
I am sure that is how he views it... The re-establishment of the Soviet Union....
Michale...
Well, sort of. In reality, there really isn't any such thing as socialism or capitalism. All is about the gathering of power.
But to the point: Putin--collection of power, establishment of empire, disregard for rights of others, militarism, leaders are above the law etc.
Agree so far?
George Bush--"I looked into his eyes and saw a kindred spirit;" -collection of power, establishment of empire, disregard for rights of others, militarism, leaders are above the law etc.
Notice the parallels?
Actually other than the Baltics most ex-soviet states were taken by the Tsars. THe Soviets just inherited it. You could call it the restablishment of the Russian Empire if you want, but Americans are more afraid of communists than royalists so I doubt you'd find it frightening enough.
The caucases make the Balkans look stable. We're crazy to get involved there.
Considering the history, more like the resurrection pangs of the old Caucuses. Attempting to enlist Georgia into NATO is the root of this. Russia could have handled an independent Georgia, but trying to enlist it in NATO made something like this inevitable. I was expecting something a little more subtle, like Saakashveli's plane crashing and a new, pro-Russian president taking over, but then I never expected Saakashveli to provoke the Russians directly.
Obama voted for her too.
Rice is extremely intellectually dishonest. She is a believer in the the end justifying the means, although I am sure she would not admit it. As a NSA, she percieved her role as one to protect the president and to advance his agenda. She should have been a honest broker of information. Her hawkish views appease the right and appease Bush who ikes simplistic solutions to complex problems. I would like to see Rice punished or at least professionally discredited for her lies leading to the Iraqi war. In reality, it is unlikely. The Bush administration is untouchable.
You hit the nail on the head as far as "The ends justify the means"... This is a paradigm that many leaders in the second half of the 20th century were very wary of, and were actually haunted by it, because Hitler had stated it so brazenly, many times. Very shortly after it was affirmed that Watergate would actually bring down President Nixon, Nixon stated very matter-of-factly that he had never intended that his would be a type of government where the "ends justified the means"..; Seemingly going out of his way just to mention it, to hopefully absolve himself from criticism of such recklessness.
Of course, enter Bush and his whole cabal, and you see such unmitigated arrogance that they actually look down on everyone and everything, quite stupidly, even history itself. Bush and his crew may be untouchable, but history will not forgive such outlandish incompetence in the stewardship of our great nation. Somehow, someway, the truth will win out and make itself heard.
Yes, even John Dean, former Nixon White House counsel, said the Bush administration is much worse than Watergate and that was some time ago when he made those remarks. It will take years to undo what the Bushies have done to our democracy, if ever.
Pragmatically speaking, as rice lady always does, the ends always justifies the means, ecept when it doesn't. If you succeed then the means will always have been the right ones to use to acheive the ends. But when they don't, there is hell to pay because they were the wrong means. In a sane and compassionate world the means should always be those that accomplish the greatest good with the least damage. Condi actually belongs to the world of "let's use a hydrogen bomb to kill mosquitos!" For her, its the means that are important, not the ends.
Yes, I agree. I guess she would say her hydrogen bomb at least killed most of the mosquitoes.
The naive and arrogant illegitimate boy president believes that his legacy will vindicate him.
In reality, it will be a litany of worst disgraces ever from an openly criminal administration:
Worst administration ever
Worst president ever
Worst vice-president ever
Worst attorneys general ever
Worst lies and deceptions ever
Worst political persecutions ever
Worst corruption and graft ever
.
.
.
Yep, he has left his mark.
Until the next rethug.
Georgia is reaping what Bush sewed.
Exactly. The bungling incompetent fools in the administration couldn't have set it up any better for the Russians.
Where the hell do you get that from?
Comparing the UN/IRAQ situation to the Georgia/Russia situation is like comparing Apples and Alligators
First off, the US led a COALITION into Iraq...
There is no coalition in Georgia. Just Russia.
Secondly, the Coalition was (and still is) operating under the auspices of the UN to enforce UN Resolution
Yea, I know I know.. You can argue that it wasn't REALLY a coalition.
The Georgia situation has absolutely NO comparison to Iraq...
The best comparison to Georgia is what the Soviet Union did to Czechoslovakia in 1968 and Afghanistan in 1979...
Michale...
So what your saying is that Bushco took the time to sell part of the world a bunch of Bull S#!t in the form of lies and misdirection, in order to get sanction extended and/or imposed and to build a coalition to ‘legally’ go into Iraq and Putin didn’t take the time to lie, he just went ahead an illegally invaded a country?
Is that right?
No...
I am saying that the US led a Coalition into Iraq under the auspices of the UN to enforce UN resolution
I am saying that there is no such coalition for Russia and there are no resolution
These are the facts.. Whether you choose to acknowledge them or not..
Michale...
Nobody here, I believe, is stupid enough to try to compare Georgia to Iraq.
Putin didn't have to lie or put a show to supposedly make himself justified to go there, he just did it.
This so-called coation is a joke actually, in the eyes of everyone in this world except a few million who watch and believe a syndicate in the US called FOX news. Everyone knows this is Bush's baby, pushed by Cheney for his reasons of supposed global dominance. It's not even really a war, although they try to call it that, instead of an occupation.
The point very well being made is that Bush has flexed our muscles wantonly and abusively in the attempts to satisfy his cowboy style leadership, and it has cost us to the point where the US now has to stand by with no power of detterence, constipated further by the absolute intellectually dishonest leadership of Condi.
Man, this whole administration has been a textbook example of incompetence and idiocy, and why anyone would even try to defend this ship of fools is beyond me.
So if Russia had another country acted with it would it make a difference? You are comparing apples and bananas.
Our coalition always existed more on paper than anywhere with many countries just contributing an old helicopter or other used material.
The U.N. never gave us authority to enter Iraq. We were not acting under its auspices. If so, they could tell us to leave. It was always an American action. In fact, we kicked U.N. weapons inspectors out of the country before we entered. They wanted to finish their job. You Bush supporters always want to re-write history to make Bush seem more legitimate than he acted.
The sad fact is that Russia could use our invasion of Iraq to justify what they did because we acted unilaterally. They could say they were fighting terrorism or some such. Countries could make a similar claim when they dismantle civil liberties, as Bush has done here.
We already knew that.
It was the stairsteppin' with the Cowboy while "Rome" burned that got my goat.
Time to shut down every "think tank" located in Washington DC and beyond.
They broke it.
She listened and drank the koolaide.
She owns it.
You must be logged in to comment. Log in or connect with
