Tammy Bruce: Heartbreaker: The Failure of Condi Rice

Heartbreaker: The Failure of Condi Rice

I've been saying for weeks that how Rice handled the Israel-Iran conflict would indicate whether she would be a successful or failed Secretary of State. Well, the verdict is in and it is a heartbreaker.

Consider the events under her "leadership":

North Korea launches 7 ballistic missiles, at least one of which is aimed at Hawaii and lands nearby. The Norks suffer no punishment for this act. Failure #1.

For over three years Iran ignores the international community and its demands they stop their enrichment of uranium. And for years, despite our funding the UN and allowing it to be on our soil, no action is taken. Instead, we allow despotic Russia and China and the increasingly pathetic France to control the response to Iran. Iran mocks the US regularly, and continues with its efforts to make the Bomb while increasing its rhetoric that Israel needs to be destroyed. The US does nothing. Failure #2.

Iran continues to sponsor worldwide terrorism, continues its US currency counterfeit program, dissidents are disappeared, and Kurds in Iran's northern region are systematically murdered. The US and the UN do nothing. Failure #3.

The genocide of black Christians in Darfur by the Sudan's Islamic government militia continues unabated. Condi did meet with those fascists, shook their hands, and accomplishes nothing. Failure #4.

Am I wrong to expect more from Secretary Rice? I had such hopes for her. Failure #5 is obvious as the stink of our telling Israel to let Hez survive (with their weapons and without releasing Israel's kidnapped soldiers) wafts. Let me tell you this, the president has been insisting for two days now that Israel won the war with Iran via Hez. Yeah, right. Bottom line here is, when you're the winner, you don't have to persuade people of the fact--it's obvious.

Nasrallah, chief Hez thug, in the meantime is saying he doesn't much like the idea of disarming, so they won't. Assad in Syria is mocking us saying there will be "no New Middle East." And the Israelis are ready to fire Olmert, investigate themselves and do "soul searching" so the same thing won't happen "next time" which there will be. The problem is, that Next Time, there just might be a nuclear tip to one of those missiles.

Oh yeah, and now Hamas is demanding a prisoner exchange for Israeli soldier Shalit.

Great job Condi.

Yeah, sounds like a monumental victory to me.

Posted by Tammy · August 15, 2006 09:53 AM · Permalink
Politics | War on Radical Islam

Trackback Pings

TrackBack URL for this entry:
http://tammybruce.com/mt/pings.cgi/849

Listed below are links to weblogs that reference Heartbreaker: The Failure of Condi Rice:

» MidEast War: 111 from Pajamas Media
War News (Blogs & Opinion below) New Zealand negotiates for release of Fox News cameraman Olaf Wiig, 36 (Monsters&Critics) 13:31 PDT Syrian officials' assets seized by US: Said to have supported terrorist groups including Hezbollah. (Reuters) 13:24... [Read More]

Tracked on August 15, 2006 01:52 PM

» Disappointed In Condi from Say Anything
I'm a big Condoleezza Rice fan, but I've got to agree with Tammy Bruce on these points: North Korea launches 7 ballistic missiles, at least one of which is aimed at Hawaii and lands nearby. The Norks suffer no punishment... [Read More]

Tracked on August 15, 2006 04:16 PM

» Quotes of the morning from Globalclashes
What should really worry the country is not whether the Democrats are being dragged to the left by antiwar activists who haven’t thought a whit about the larger struggle we’re in. What should worry the country is that the Bush [Read More]

Tracked on August 15, 2006 11:29 PM

Comments

I am saddened by the corruption of Condi Rice by the entrenched America haters at Turtle Bay. We have been so poorly served by the elite know-it-alls that haunt the halls there.

We are in a war against islamo-fascism - the real problem however is we have a fifth column in this country actually entrenched in our own government!

I had wished that Dr. Rice has gone and kicked some butt in that nest of America hating vipers, instead she has been poisoned and undercut by the career diplomats. Picture Joe Wilson the self described former diplomat for the type that inhabit those posts.

Posted by: Skeptic at August 15, 2006 12:56 PM

Certainly the world situation is frightening, if not downright apocalyptic. I can't defend Condi, but it's fair to ask how much she can do. We've long had North Korea sanctioned as much as we can. They get aid from China and South Korea, and they trade with our enemies. Likewise, we're not trading with Iran. Yes, we need global sanctions, but we see how we're not getting cooperation from Russia or China, and inadequate cooperation from Europe. It's an ugly situation, in that it seems we need to compromise to the point of impotency in order to get international cooperation, and at that point the cooperation does no good because there's no game plan with teeth. That interview with Ahmadinejad is a sign of the times. What exactly do you do with a world that has no moral compass?

With respect to the Israel/Lebanon "truce", it obviously doesn't look good. Then again, I'm not sure how it could. The only satisfactory situation would be the elimination of Hezbollah as a military and political power, such as was done to the Nazis after WWII. There was no realistic scenario under which this could happen, because it would involve the occupation and control of all of Lebanon. So Hezbollah's strategy is simply to survive and then declare victory. It's a big psychological game, and part of it is that the bad guys are going to take this moment to gloat loudly, no matter what the reality is. Certainly heavy damage has been done to Hezbollah's infrastructure in southern Lebanon. This may, or may not, do some good in the period to come.

Posted by: Talkin Horse at August 15, 2006 12:56 PM

With the Israel and Hezbollah conflict, both sides are claiming victory (well, Bush is claiming it for Israel). Personally, I don't feel either side achieved a 'victory', but I do think the end result is going to be good for Israel. For one, support for them was only waning with their invasion of Lebanon (exacerbated by the media bias). Though more importantly, now with a new (and hopefully emboldened) UN peace keeping force installed, the site is going to be in the public eyes. Now when the side that breaks the peace agreement fist (and we know who that will be), there will be no mistaking who the bad guy is (and no skirting or distorting the events). IMO this whole thing needed to happen. Israel should now get a fair shake.

As far as the Iran nuke issue, right before the Lebanon crisis the last thing I recall happening was that the EU3 seemed to be getting on board with us - voicing strong disappointment with Iran's failure to enter negotiations - and readied for the next course of action. (I honestly think the kidnapping of the Israeli soldiers was a plot of diversion).

And with the N. Korea issue, there too, it seemed Russia and China finally came on board with our (and Japan's) stance. No? They collaborated in the resolution - though NK announced noncompliance immediately, the next step was imminent. Then the whole Lebanon crisis happened.

These issues are all very delicate and I think - as a world power - our leaders are trying to do their best to do things within the support of the international community. The Iraq issue proved very divisive (especially when no WOMDs turned up). I think we want to be cautious not to disrupt relations and further alienate ourselves. Plus, if WW3 emerges (and it seemed possible there for a bit), you want allies as opposed to adversaries.

As far as Darfur, I blame the UN there more than anyone. The UN was established to prevent and contend with just such issues. Their blatant failure to do anything there has been pathetic! Krookie Anan is the one who should be bowing his head in disgrace, not Condi IMO.

But again, to reiterate my point on the Lebanon crisis - I think having the world’s unification and attention, and a new, revised UN peace keeping force involved in southern Lebanon - is the best thing that could have happened for Israel. I don't think Hezbollah could have been completely eradicated anyway. It's an organization that has deep roots and is supported by many in the arab world (no matter how much sense that doesn’t make). It is more an ideology that needs to be defeated over there, and unfortunately that doesn't seem like it will ever happen. So the next best thing is getting the world leaders of civilized nations involved so that they are forced to see evil when it rears its ugly head (wrapped in a burka). After that recent muslim ‘Religion of Peace’ demonstration in England, along with the thwarted terror plot, I think the western world may start waking up.

Posted by: Mr. G at August 15, 2006 01:37 PM

I share your disappointment, but I'm not sure if it's Rice, as opposed to Bush, is responsible for all those decisions to do nothing.

I don't see how the previous Secretary of State was doing a better job. I think the problem is not so much with Rice, but with the whole institution of diplomacy: Western diplomats's aim these days seems to be their own personal or institutional empowerment - as opposed to welfare of their nations.

So if diplomacy fails, and the government admits it, that means war - not the GWOT that Bush keeps talking about, but a real war, with diplomatic relations going down the toilet, and stock markets too. Is Bush ready for this? Is the US as a nation ready for this?

The State Department seems to be the worst US government agency, in terms of how much damage to the country they cause. But the underlying problem, I'm afraid, lies with the government as a whole, and the American public. We are still not really prepared to fight this war.

We're prepared to complain about our politicians - often with good reasons, but we're not prepared to lose our jobs and give up our comfort. Most of us don't realize the magnitude of the danger, and we'd rather believe in democratization of the Middle East and other miracles that will get the job done without much sacrifice on our part.

Posted by: Ivan Lenin at August 15, 2006 02:44 PM

I have to agree with Talkin Horse on this. Except for the fact that I do defend Condi in light of everything he mentioned.

The world is in a very fragile state right now, with everything teetering on everyone else's move. I'll take Condi for these times we are living in right now.

Posted by: ShesTheOne at August 15, 2006 03:00 PM

Well, it seems things picked up where they left off. Iran has replied to the UN Security Council's demand that it cease its uranium enrichment by August 31...

"Today, we are fully mastering the nuclear fuel cycle for our peaceful atomic activities. It is a native technology... No one can take it away from us," Ahmadinejad said.

We (the US) are back to being in a very precarious situation. Let's see what happens with the 'diplomatic means'. But if they get nuclear weapons capability over there civilization is surely doomed. I hope the world realizes that. I think those with right minds do, lets just hope that corruption, alterior motives and back-alley dealings don't lead the next course of events.

Posted by: Mr. G at August 15, 2006 03:50 PM

Compliments to Mr. G fot two very interesting and intelligent posts! Thanks!

Posted by: ShesTheOne at August 15, 2006 04:17 PM

Isn't it a little premature to be calling Condi (and Bush) a failure at this time? She has only been Secretary of State for less than two years. If I remember right the Berlin Wall did not fall until after Reagan left office. The Cold War lasted for decades without any apparent success until it finally collapsed on its own dead weight. We cannot be the world's policeman in every situation. There isn't much we can do about N. Korea, they already have nuclear weapons, and the only option is war, which is not really an option. It's pretty much the same with Iran, the only option is war and we would have to go it alone if we decided to do that. My recommendation would be to follow the Reagan example and do what we can to oppose them but allow them to rot and die a long natural process, which they eventually will. We need to maintain a strong military presence in the Middle East to counter balance Iran and contain them. We also need to reduce our dependance on foreign oil to the maximum extent possible.

Posted by: SteveOk at August 15, 2006 04:28 PM

I understand your points about Rice, but there is a but.

While someone else may or may not have done a better job, it is a mistake to believe it could have been a much better job.

Even if State was cleaned out, it would be only marginally more usefull. International relations are inherently anarchic. It is silly to complain about the ineffective U.N., and then be upset when Bolton can't make stuff happen. Same with State.

The U.N. will never be an effective body without taxation and policing capabilities, and then it would be effective only in a totalitarian sense.

It's not Rice. Its us.

We are in an existential fight, and we don't want to admit it. I think it has been grossly unfair to the people of the middle east when we fail to deliver decisive blows. It is folly to play this game of an enlightened society above the fray.

If we are attacked by WMD, we will go midevil. We will become barbarians. Not only are we capable of it, but there will be no stopping it.

It is dangerous for all of us when fascists think we cannot be evil.

Posted by: LiveFreeOrDie at August 15, 2006 04:57 PM

I have been reading Pat Buchanan's "Where the right went wrong" of late. He out lines his reservations with the Bush policy early on. This hesitation could be a reflection of his point in this book.
We may be right in our assertions of what is the right thing for this or that country to do. However, we need to look at the limitations of our ability to control the actions of other soverign nations as well as our right to. There is a fine line between rightous and self-rightous.

Posted by: ahwatukeejohn at August 15, 2006 05:15 PM

ahwatukeejohn - it's really not a matter of rightous or self-rightousness. It has to do with peace, and security. That's one of the biggest problems with the left, they totally underestimate and/or refuse to acknowlege the threat to civility the radical islamic extremists pose. If their years of well-planned acts of murder of innocent people in the name of their god, along with their call to "eliminate supporters of zionism", is not enought to make you see it, I am not sure that you ever will.
That is, until it's too late.

Posted by: Mr. G at August 15, 2006 05:48 PM

Points above are well taken -- however, I feel the full Israeli-Hezbollah scenario is still playing. There will be subsequent resolutions. I would grade Condi's first resolution "A" for diplomatic achievement. Her greatest challenge will be in the second phase -- after the UN's oil-stained K. Annan does his pro-Arab song and dance. I want so badly to be optimistic -- to see Condi Rice and the Israelis succeed in stemming violence and achieving peace -- sans the afterglow of mushroom shaped clouds .....

Posted by: gull at August 15, 2006 06:05 PM

Good point Mr G. My concern is not that we are attacking these groups, but that in doing so in a fasion that is too broad, we attack a large institution (a sovetign nation and all its people) when elements whithin it are the problem. Irish Americans have sent millions of dollars of support to the IRA. England has not bombed New York in response. Some of my best friends were born in Dublin and Belfast. That does not mean I support at all the individuals that have tried to bomb Buckingham Palace.

Posted by: ahwatukeejohn at August 15, 2006 06:21 PM

Seems like standard State Department procedure to me. That's what they all do, talk and make nice. Wasn't it Reagan's own State Dept. that wanted him to take "tear down this wall!" out of his speech?

Has there been an American State Dept. in recent history that could handle so many enormous problems any better? Remember Warren Christopher and Albright and things won't seem so dim. Speaking of... part of the trouble with our current State Dept. is it's still chock full of Clinton hold-overs.

Also, Secretary Rice could probably get more done if she didn't have to spend so much time babying our so-called allies in Europe and the Middle East.

Tammy's points are all valid, but I wouldn't lay them all at Sec. Rice's feet. The President is ultimately responsible.

Besides, she's the best we've got since the ultimate combo of asskicker/peacemaker, Dog the Bounty Hunter, is unavailable.

Posted by: Tink at August 15, 2006 07:45 PM

Rice's hands are tied by Bush's need to coddle the Oil World. The Oil World is the countries that provide the crude, as well as the companies that refine and distribute it. Until we become energy self-sufficient, it may be the unfortunate reality that falls to every president, Republican or Democrat.

Posted by: Craig C at August 16, 2006 04:22 PM

By Category

By Month

Heartbreaker: The Failure of Condi Rice

Trackback Pings

Comments

Post a comment