And just when I thought I couldn’t get anymore disappointed, any more furious at Rice, take a gander at her new comments regarding the disarming of terrorist thugs Hez:
“I don’t think there is an expectation that this [UN] force is going to physically disarm Hezbollah,” Rice told USA Today. “I think it’s a little bit of a misreading about how you disarm a militia. You have to have a plan, first of all, for the disarmament of the militia, and then the hope is that some people lay down their arms voluntarily.”
One would hope??!! Yes, you do have to have a plan–it’s called war. We did have that and you stopped it. And the last time I checked, Madame Secretary, terrorist savages don’t disarm voluntarily. At what point in the history of Hez have they ever disarmed “voluntarily?”
What planet is this woman on? And since when is Hez a “militia”? If they’re now designated as one, we need to call al-Qaida a “militia.” Militias can be important forces for good in society. Our nation has been made safe and strong because of militias. Each one of us who owns a firearm is a tiny personal militia. Militias, of course, don’t exist to murder civilians. They don’t salivate at the slaughter of children Terrorists do. With comments like hers, how can she justify our continuing efforts to destroy al-Qaida?
Resignations are needed here. Rumsfeld needs to resign. I never thought I would say that, but here it is. And now Secretary Rice needs to resign. Plain and simple. This is outrageous.
Joe Lieberman, while I would love for him to defeat Lamont in November, I want first and foremost what is best for this nation. Right now we need someone in at the least the State Department who will not revert to Chamberlain-style appeasement, retreat and failure. Lieberman would be a very good Secretary of State. The time to act is now while we can still catch ourselves from falling to far..
Need more? Consider this lovely sentiment from Rice. Apparently our State Department goals have declined from defeating terrorists to getting everyone on board with the labels we’re using. Yeah! That’ll show ‘em!
If Hezbollah resists international demands to disarm, Rice said, “one would have to assume that there will be others who are willing to call Hezbollah what we are willing to call it, which is a terrorist organization.”
We have to assume!!?? I’m speechless that this is her new goal. Word games. Label agreements. I’m speechless. Besides this monumental failure and what must be considered a deliberate strategy on her part to end the WoT as we know it, I lay out in this post from just two days ago additional reasons why it is time for Rice to make room for someone who understands the tactics of the past only lead us to more war and more death. It’s time to stop this Death by a Thousand Cuts. It’s time to act decisively, something which clearly is not in Rice’s playbook when it comes to any of the world’s genocidal despots.
What can you do? Contact the State Department and tell them, very respectfully, that it’s time Secretary Rice resign, for the good of our nation. Write, call or email. Also let the White House know how you feel.
State Department Contact Info:
Main address:
U.S. Department of State
2201 C Street NW
Washington, DC 20520Phone Number:
Main Switchboard:
202-647-4000
TTY:1-800-877-8339 (Federal Relay Service)
Website page for an email/form question, with a subject line like “Please resign Secretary Rice” or “When Will Secretary Rice Resign?”
White House Contact Info Page
Mailing AddressThe White House
1600 Pennsylvania Avenue NW
Washington, DC 20500Phone Numbers
Comments: 202-456-1111
Switchboard: 202-456-1414
FAX: 202-456-2461TTY/TDD
Comments: 202-456-6213
Visitors Office: 202-456-2121
Please send your comments to comments@whitehouse.gov. Due to the large volume of e-mail received, the White House cannot respond to every message. For further up-to-date information on Presidential initiatives, current events, and topics of interest to you, please continue to use the White House website.
{ 19 comments… read them below or add one }
I agree with your criticism of calling Hezbollah a ‘militia’. The word has a positive connotation, but I think most will assume it was meant and percieved as the more appropriate negative reference. I still think we should just stay with the “islamic extremists” label, there is no need for creativity.
I still think ‘defeating’ Hezbollah would simply be impossible – barring dropping an A-bomb in the whole region. They are so intertwined with the government and culture, and their ideology goes beyond Lebanon their particular group. Look at what is happening in Iraq with the contined insurgent attacks and sucide bombings after we’ve been there for over three years. That says something, no?
I think the best thing to do is get the international community involved, because we all know the extremists won’t leave Israel alone. So when the bad guys act up, this time it won’t be just Isreal and us reacting. The international community (via the UN) will be right in the middle of it. If you notice, I think that is what Condi is saying. It’s a strategy in the war on terror. The situation is a bit more complex than Israel and/or us being able to just go in an destroy all islamic extremists, as much as many of us would like for that to happen.
As much as I love Condi, I have to agree with you, Tammy… This is a fire in the closet, and Condi has closed the door on it rather than fight it. As a result, it will burst into the bedroom soon and we’ll have a larger problem. Condi is a nice diplomat, but without a carrier task force and several American divisions landing on Iranian soil, things will only get worse. It’s time to replace Condi Rice with BlackJack Pershing! And once we’ve rescued surviving Muslims from the 7th Century, we can invite them for tea & crumpets.
I used to think that the GOP could have a great presidential ticket in ‘08 with somebody like Giuliani running for president along with Rice for V.P. Now I’ve pretty much given up on Rice. I had my first big reservations about her when she made comments a while back which seemed to be playing the race card: in discussing the messy development of Iraqi democracy, she criticized our Founding Fathers because they allowed slavery to continue with the compromise that was necessary to get our Constitution adopted. This belittled how our Constitution, from its beginning, very arguably enabled the most freedom for its citizens compared with other countries in the world at the time.
Rice is clearly a very intelligent woman, and while she was growing up she saw injustices in our society with segregation, etc. While I don’t think she meant her comments quite this way, her statements about the Constitution also reminded me of the kind of sophomoric arguments made by many ignorant college students, who see some imperfection in society and therefore claim that our system is wrong, when actually we have a great system compared with other countries.
Her recent statements regarding the Israeli-Hezbollah “cease-fire,” and those about Iran which were made within the last few weeks, have lessened my confidence in her further. I was glad that she seemed to be much more active as Sec. of State than Colin Powell, and that she had the reputation of someone who was going to enforce tough foreign policy measures in a State Department that was dominated by Clintonites and Carterites. Have the latter swung her around to their side? Or are she and GWB caving on their own?
This blog has really turned into a Rice-bashing site!
[Actually, it's a site that is committed to the truth of the matter, and if that happens to involve being honest about Condi Rice or anyone else, then so be it. I don't hear She'sTheOne complaining it's a "left-wing bashing site" when I take plenty of shots at a whole host of people and issues from that side. Let's try to be consistent folks--A message from Tammy via the ed.]
It almost resembles those liberal sites that want to blame Bush for everything under the sun. It’s Bush’s fault if it rains, and it’s Bush’s fault if it doesn’t. And of course, all of these world concerns began within the last two years and so should be resolved within that time frame as well.
Here is where I have a problem with your criticism of Condi, Tammy. The only answer that you have for all of her failures is full-blown war. In other words, if YOU were in her position, you would fight the terrorists in an all out war.
Fair enough. I agree with you that that is the thing to do. But we cannot even get an overwelming majority in our country to agree on that, and be united in the effort, let alone get other countries of the world to go along with us. Do you think that by merely deciding to fight this thing all out is going to make it over with in a matter of days?
What are you going to do, Tammy, in Condi’s position, when after a month or so of non-stop, all-out war, the worldwide opinion of this country (and most of all you) is that you are the villian in this whole story? What effectiveness do you hope to have, Tammy, when even those in your own country are calling for your head?
I agree with you wholeheartedly about what SHOULD be done. But I am cautious about it at best. I don’t have all the information that Bush, Condi and others have. So for now, I’m sticking with both of them on this one. They both have my full support.
[Actually, it's a site that is committed to the truth of the matter, and if that happens to involve being honest about Condi Rice or anyone else, then so be it. I don't hear She'sTheOne complaining it's a "left-wing bashing site" when I take plenty of shots at a whole host of people and issues from that side. Let's try to be consistent folks--A message from Tammy via the ed.]
Tammy, what you are sharing is your OPINION about matters that are truthful. Yes, Condi said the things that you said she did, and that makes it the truth. Responding with your opinion about her comments is being honest. There is a difference between truth and honesty.
I do not in any way think I am being inconsistent with my point. I work a lot of hours and so do not get the opportunity to visit this site all the time (as I would like.) So I really don’t know about everything that you cover all the time.
My point was not at all about you being consistent about whomever it is that you find disagreeable. My point was that in just a few visits over the last couple of days, it seems that there is a lot of remarks derailing Condi. It’s just an observation.
Here’s another observation that I will repeat again. I agree with you, Tammy, about the fight we are up against and how we should fight it. I support this war. I support Israel in theirs.
I’ve also made this observation and will repeat it again also. Tammy, you are amongst my favorite personalities. I have loved each of your books, and eagerly await opportunities to see you on C-SPAN and other TV appearances.
Someone once posted that it would be great if you were to run for President. I commented that I think you are doing more for this country, and are more effective, doing just the thing you are doing now.And I think you do it very well.
But isn’t it a fair question to ask a person who is calling for someone else’s resignation what they would do in light of the challenges that that person faces? You called me out for my supposed “inconsistancies” but never took the time to answer my questions for you.
I’ll take the “folks” remark as a term of friendship.
Keep up the great work!
Like many conservatives I am not thrilled with the way the Bush Administration has executed the War on Islamo-fascists, but I think is somewhat unfair to single out Condi as the source of the problem and demand for her resignation. Condi’s comments must be placed into context to understand why the Bush Administration seems to be on slippery slide into Jimmy Carterville, since Paul Wolfowitz, architect of the Bush Doctrine, left State. His departure has left the Administration without a philosophical rudder and sliding back into a more traditional conservative camp.
After 9-11 Condi, Cheney and Rumsfeld were converts to the Bush Doctrine but without it’s main engine, Wolfowitz, they have reverted back to their roots of realist conservatism. My hope is, that Time Magazine’s reports on the death of the Cowboy Diplomacy have been greatly exaggerated and the Cowboy decides to ride again, that is if the Republicans survive the midterm elections.
EXLIB:
Put me on the list of people who don’t want to loose millions of American lives rescuing people who are doing nothing to even indicate a desire to be rescued.
And Tammy. I have never seen a woman turn on some one so quickly. In my experience, women tend to be a little fickle, but my God. Run her for president one week and fire her as Sec. of State the next. I can see you are one woman a lover would never want to dissapoint.
When we look at this situation, I think we have to look at a broad picture of a situation where Israel has weekened its own position whith its West Bank pull out. The world press and MSM allow Hez. to shell Israeli civilians with impunity and make a case of one attack on the part of Israel. An over streached American military with little world support.
Under those circumstances it may be prudent to create a situation where under close scrutney by people trying to be anti-American and anti-semetic, Hez is put in an obvious possition of being the a-hole.
Actually, WHAT I REALLY want to know is how Tammy has time to do radio, TV, find all the info for this blog, AND reply to emails…
I would like some of whatever it is she is taking…
Though disappointed in how the Lebanese have responded/shirked their obligations RE: the UN Resolution — I certainly don’t blame Condi Rice.
Remember that Russia and China had threatened to abstain in that vote? (Remember the aside between Condi and a Russian official during the G-8 Summit?) Condi Rice is the reason the Resolution was passed unanimously.
We need Condi Rice’s temperament and resolve to deal with Russia and other Middle East shadow players. (After all — no SoS has successfully or effectively dealt with them previously! And Russia may very well be the darkest shadow of all ….)
I, too, was disappointed in the Resolution wording, the lack of a stronger UN role and a failure to demand the disarmament of Hezbollah. I’ve had no expectation that Lebanon could disarm the Hezzies without Hezbollah’s cooperation — even if Lebanon wanted to.
With Lebanon totally wimping out, approx. 16 nations have now either reduced and/or reassessed their peace-keeping roles in Southern Lebanon. Does anyone actually think Condi have averted these reactions? Come on — armchair quarterback the collective results if you wish, but give the woman credit for what she has actually achieved! And how many times did she refer to this resolution as “the first phase” of the ME peace process??
In spite of my disappointment(s) — I’m certainly not giving up on Condi Rice as being instrumental in bringing about a more united global front against terrorism and subsequent Israeli-Hezbollah/Lebanese resolutions.
By the way — It was a Lebanese official who first referred to Hezbollah as a militia. Possibly Condi was diplomatically (or sarcastically?) reflecting his reference. After all, Lebanon will allow Hezzies to keep their arms — in that context, those scum-bags are a militia!
Now more than ever, we need a person of insight and intellect — not another bull in the global china shop — to garner support for the battle(s) ahead. If Lebanon allows Hezbollah to take control militarily and politically, don’t be surprised if there is a civil uprising before the Hezzies regroup to attack Israel again.
Fortunately for Israel and other allied “peace-keeping” interests, the US will send a flight of surveillance planes to monitor the Lebanese and Syrian borders. Even France’s 200 (as opposed to the 2000+ originally promised) troops should feel [a tad more] secure.
Replace Condi Rice? If she leaves — there also goes the [global] neighborhood ….
I don’t know what I can add to the other excellent posts here but here are someramblings from a die hard conservative:
While I’m not happy with the way the battle ended (notice I didn’t say war because it ain’t over yet) we need to realize that it is Israel who dropped the ball. The Bush Admin is reeling from this because they never imagined that Israel would balk when given the green light.
And I think it is VERY unfair to say she doesn’t know what she’s doing, compare her to Chamberlain and say she is single handedly ending the war on terror. There is absolutely no proof that any of those things are true.
I think we all just need to take a deep breath and let this thing play out. The bottom line is that unless the US is ready to launch an attack on Iran, there’s not much we can do until the government of Israel gets it head straight. Rice stated she did not want to go back to the status quo. I believed her then and I believe her now. But again, it is Israel who has push us back to that position, not Bush or Rice.
It’s very easy for us to “quarterback” from our Pc’s when we really ahve no idea what may be happening behind the scenes (and I’ve done it before too, so I’m pointing the finger at myself also).
I am curious about one thing though. Why do you want Rumsfield to resign? You didn’t give a reason.
An aside. Is the forign policy we are racing to here, a sell out to the long term policies espoused by the neo-concervatives feared and loathed by Reagan concervatives like Buchanan?
Tammy is right on target.
It looks like the Bush Admin. got cold feet.They knuckled under to international pressure and the leftwingers in the USA. They wanted to get some kind of resolution, no matter how absurd, just so that they could say they achieved a ceasefire.
Apparently Condi Rice didn’t care about the details of UN resolution 1701 or whether or not it actually accomplished anything, as long as she could get everyone to sign. In other words; “Don’t worry about the fine print, just sign on the dotted line.”.
When I heard Tony Snow say that 1701 was a “Victory for Diplomacy”, I was reminded of Neville Chamberlain’s “Peace For Our Time” speech.
At least Chamberlain got a piece of paper to wave around at the Airport. Condi Rice didn’t even have a piece of paper that she could wave around.
Responding to David who said: “… compare her to Chamberlain and say she is single handedly ending the war on terror. There is absolutely no proof that any of those things are true.”
There was no proof that Chamberlain had sold out the world and condemned millions of people to die because Britain failed to act. Athe time he came home and declared “Peace in our time” there was no proof. But we have our proof now, don’t we. The proof you seek in Condi’s case will be a mushroom cloud. Read the Herman article Tammy references in another post.
Responding to something-john: “I have never seen a woman turn on some one so quickly.”
Well, I’ve never seen a Secretary of State take such a turn-about so quickly either. One minute she is saying all the right things, saying that we will take this or that action, and we will never allow blah-blah. Then the next minute, she is allowing those things to happen with no response, she’s calling terrorists a militia (and the subsequent legitimacy that brings), and saying “Gosh, I HOPE everything turns out OK.” That’s weak knees, boy. That is realizing that you can talk tough, but when it comes time to throw the punch you just don’t have it in you. We’re not paying her to hope, we’re paying her to do.
For my own take on this, my theory is that Bush has folded to Saudi pressure. Believe me, I have been a huge supporter of GWB and the War on Terror. But here is what happened: We almost turned the corner on the Middle East; with Israel, we almost started getting to the root cause of the problem over there (Iran’s mad mullahs.) Take them out, and the problems in Iraq go away and Israel makes peace with her neighbors. And the Arabs got scared, because the despots over there like things just the way they are. Without the US and Israel as an enemy, and with democracy spreading, the Muslims would have to turn their anger on somebody, and it would be the despots who get rich while their people suffer.
My theory is that somebody threatened $200/barrel oil, somebody who could deliver on that threat, and the administration folded. Either that, or the White House just plain wet their pants.
Steve in Ohio, you said it better than I did! There sure seems to have been some kind of caving-in and turnaround on the part of Rice and Bush. A lot of people are saying its Israel’s fault that they didn’t finish the job while we gave them cover. There might be some truth in that, but there’s also something wrong in the Administration, judging by the recent rhetoric of Rice and, to a lesser extent, Bush. I’m starting to feel as if Stansfield Turner, Warren Christopher or Madeleine Albright is in charge of State again. I’m still grateful we have Bush in charge, considering the Dem alternatives, but maybe we need the spirit of Curtis LeMay to go in there and give them a pep talk!
Thanks Steve, from a fellow Ohioan!
Tammy, you are being too hard on Condi, I think she is doing a good job. She and the Bush Administration supported Israel in its attempt to destroy Hezbollah while the whole world was pressuring us to force Isreael into an immediate cease fire. Her job was to help negotiate a cease fire that was acceptable to Isreal first, and then to people like France and Russia. I think she did a great job.
Israel agreed to the terms so why won’t you? Any other Administration would have been pressuring Isreal into an early cease fire. I think the impatience that you have in this war on terror reveals your inability to accept the fact that this is going to be a very long war. There will be no easy or quik victory. This could go on for decades just like the Cold War. We need to pick our battles carefully and not jump into every little skirmish.
I, too, am confounded by the change in the administration’s tone and position on recent events. In fact, colonizing the moon is becoming more appealing with each syllable uttered from the State Department these days.
You know, I assume many on this blog were not fond of Madeleine Albright’s performance as Secretary of State – and for good reason. Albright was ineffective and capitulated to the UN among other enemies (including Islamic Fascists). So how is Condi Rice’s recent performance any different than what Madeleine Not-At-Albright ‘accomplished’ during her tenure?
Though absolutely thrilled when Rice was confirmed as Secretary of State, I have to say I am not at all impressed with her current imitation of Albright. I don’t think many of us expected or wanted to relive even a fraction of that era and have it compounded with a post-9/11 world.
Therefore, it is necessary for Rice to step down before the very real threats we face become insurmountable. My young niece and godchild do not deserve to pay for the woeful negligence, ineptitude and irresponsibility coming from those at The Top who wish to appease dictators, fascists and the stupid UN.
Anymore when I read or hear Rice’s latest statements, I am patient, albeit unnerved, until the end hoping to hear her say, ‘PSYCHE!’
Guess all one can do is sit around, hope and wait to see if Condi comes around at some point…
…NOT!
I am speculating here:
The 1701 resolution is a wonderful deal for the Israelis. It is wonderful based on the absolute certainty that the other parties aren’t going to do anything like the resolution calls for, which means that, not only is Israel excused from ceasing fire, the excuse is UN-authorized. It isn’t a matter of lining up ambiguities and saying they justify a limited cross-border action.
It’s pointing out quite clearly that the other guys are doing what the UN says they shouldn’t and so Israel is in no way restrained by the agreement and no less a moral authority than the UN says so.
You may recall Bush’s ultimatum to Afghanistan–hand over al Q . It was clear the Afghans wouldn’t do it because they couldn’t. Still, it was a justifiable demand, considering 9-11. The Afghan government failed to comply. Presto, we’re justified.
Then there was Iraq. Several last-minute demands. One is show us the weapons and the other was for SH & Co. to get out of town. They couldn’t do either, which was obvious, but, considering the situation, they should have. Presto, the war’s on.
This time, Hezbollah and Lebanon and Syria and Iran are all supposed to do things (the UN says so) there isn’t a chance they’ll do. Presto. Israel’s hands are untied. The point is that there isn’t anything illegitimate about the requirements laid on the Hez side. Perfectly natural.
But nobody, including the US, expects them to do it. They don’t expect so, themselves. Like 1559. And the UN isn’t going to do it. So it won’t get done and the Israelis are justifiably free to do what needs to be done. Says so right in the agreement. Contract law says if one side breaks the contract, the other side is no longer bound.
So all the pants-wetters got the precious UN action, and the Israelis got their free hand.
In the meantime, the admin is trying to sell this by moving the goalposts. But they do so knowing the bad guys are going past the goal posts, anyway. So, even with having been given some slack after the fact, the bad guys are breaking the agreement. I fiugre eventually there’ll be an administration shrug and an admission, “There’s no hope with these guys, especially all the chances they got, so the Israelis will do what they have to do.”
Best cover the Israelis have had in a long time.
I see this as a deep game. I hope.
Tammy,
You hit it on the head. Way ahead of you; when I heard about the acceptance of 1701, I wrote a scathing email to Ms. Rice demanding, among other things, that she resign. She’s sold her soul to the careerist “negotiate-no-matter-what” traitors at Foggy Bottom. We have a right to expect better. I’m neither Israeli nor Jewish, but it takes neither to understand the importance of that country to America’s own security in the world.
She’s shown the world that America does NOT stand by her allies, and can be relied upon to kowtow to U.N. opinion rather than to stand up and do the right thing regardless of what the losers at Turtle Bay think. Ms. Rice MUST go. It became clear to me that 1701 was all about her when she ‘elbowed’ Bolton out of the way to sign it herself. She MUST go; she has failed her president and her country.
And Olmert! That one MUST go. As Charles Krauthammer said a couple of weeks ago, ‘he’s a small man in a big job’. He also is more interested in his ‘legacy’ as the Israeli Prime Minister to draw the final Israeli border than in standing against evil becuase it’s the right thing to do. He’s delivered Israel her first military defeat, and in so doing, has left her even more naked in the face of those who would destroy her.
I am utterly disgusted with them all, from President Bush to Condi Rice to Olmert, and as usual, it’s the grunts on the line that bear the consequences of their folly.
You must log in to post a comment.