|
|
A Weblog of Centrist Voices in American Politics |
|
January 28, 2005The Anti-Rice CrowdA lot of praise/insults (depending on your choice of Daily Kos or Power Line) are being hurled at John Kerry, Ted Kennedy, Barbara Boxer, Robert Byrd and the other Democrats who protested against the appointment of Dr. Condoleeza Rice for SecState. I'm wondering what your thoughts are on the matter - are these men and women obstructionists, or are they simply exercising their right to discourse? Nobody's arguing whether they had the right to hold up the nomination, but whether they should have done so. I, personally, see no point in it. I'm by no means a hard rightist, but I have to work hard to steer clear of the term "obstructionist" - Rice was clearly going to get nominated. If not for this "boy who cried wolf" approach to the SecState position, perhaps the Democrats' criticisms of Alberto Gonzalez would be taken seriously. And oh, yes... I'm new here! Posted by Andrew Quinn at January 28, 2005 05:36 PMComments
I don't think that Rice's role in hyping the pre-war intelligence should be dismissed. Nor do I think it unrelevant to the position she was nominated for. So, I think the Dems who spoke up performed a service by holding her feet to the fire in a manner of speaking. Neither she nor President Bush can take from this experience the notion that hype will be meekly accepted by Congress. If sending our young (and not so young in the case of Reservists and the Guards) men and woman off to die is to hold any real meaning for Americans, then the circumstances under which they are sent to die should never ever be treated as a political football or otherwise treated lightly. The fact of the matter is that Dr. Rice played a central role in hyping the WMD angle on Iraq. WMD that apparently don't and perhaps didn't exist when the hyping was done. Whether all the world, half the world or any permutation thereof believed Saddam possessed WMD is beside the point. Suspecting that he had them and starting a war in part on the basis of those suspicions are two very different things. I don't wanna rehash the whole WMD. I'm just stating why I don't have a problem with the way Dr. Rice was grilled. If we give this issue a pass, what political pressure can we reasonably expect to be exerted in the future if another administration wants to send our boys and girls off to die? Posted by: Kevin at January 28, 2005 06:27 PMhe had all rights to vote her down. This is Birch Bayh's son we are talking about Posted by: Daniel at January 28, 2005 06:57 PMAll soon to be forgotten and (hopefully) we move on to the more important issue: how she does as Sec of State. Personally, I'm glad her first trip is to Europe. Posted by: Chris at January 30, 2005 10:26 AMOne thing that is missing from the evaluations of Condoleeza Rice is any assessment of her ability to sell American foreign policy abroad. To illustrate this, I read in Foreign Affairs two years ago a comment by then Spanish Prime Minister Aznar that to sell his decision to support Bush's war in Iraq (which I fullheartedly support) to his people, he wanted more Powell and not much Rumsfeld. The question is, if conditions arise during Bush's second term justifying another operation, would citizen Aznar suggest selling it to his fellow country men with "Send Rice?" Posted by: Scott Smith at February 1, 2005 12:21 AM |
Archives
March 2006
February 2006 January 2006 December 2005 November 2005 October 2005 September 2005 August 2005 July 2005 June 2005 May 2005 April 2005 March 2005 February 2005 January 2005 December 2004 November 2004 October 2004 September 2004 August 2004 July 2004 June 2004 May 2004 April 2004 March 2004 February 2004 January 2004 December 2003 November 2003 October 2003 September 2003 August 2003 July 2003 June 2003 May 2003 April 2003
Recent Entries
Dubai Out
Why So Long Between Democracies? Round One, Centrism Rock Lobster? Blackwell Releases "Worst-Treated" List "IRV" used in Burl., VT for mayor election. Great idea! Random Thread Election 2006: Round One A Proper Multiculturalism Bush proposes line item veto act - what's changed?
|