From around the blogosphere, here’s a round up of how folks feel Dr. Rice will perform as Secretary of State.
Rice seems to me to have two major drawbacks as Secretary of State beyond her inability to challenge Bush’s pet projects. One is that she is an old Soviet hand who still thinks in Cold War terms. She focuses on states and does not understand the threat of al-Qaeda, nor does she understand or empathize with Middle Easterners, about whom she appears to know nothing after all this time. The other drawback is that she is virtually a cheerleader for Ariel Sharon and will not be an honest broker between the Israelis and the Palestinians. Powell was much more fair on such issues, though he wasn’t exactly pro-Palestinian either. Of course, with Elliot Abrams as the national security council staffer in charge of Arab-Israeli things, you might as well have Sharon just run US Middle East policy himself.
I think she’s a good choice, notwithstanding the bipartisan appeal of the Lieberman idea (which was probably a nonstarter anyway, as I don’t think the Dems want to lose any Senators). I wonder if she’s being groomed for a Presidential or Vice-Presidential slot in 2008?
Upside: She’s up to speed on the issues. Downside: She’s been working awfully hard for the past 4 years. She’s probably tired. But hey, when Cheney steps down, she can be moved to the Vice Presidency and get a little rest. . . .
Yay Condi Rice. I want her to go to Saudi Arabia, and I want her first words upon getting off the plane to be “I’ll drive.”
Is it really a paradox?
The lede from a piece in tomorrow’s Post …
Condoleezza Rice, who will be named as Colin L. Powell’s replacement as early as today, has forged an extraordinarily close relationship with President Bush. But, paradoxically, many experts consider her one of the weakest national security advisers in recent history in terms of managing interagency conflicts.
I’m gonna assume there was a smirk on someone’s face.
Rothkopf makes some points that have been stressed here at danieldrezner.com:
David Rothkopf, who has written a forthcoming history of the National Security Council titled "Running the World," said that much of the success of a national security adviser is defined not by the adviser but by the president. He said Rice "could not be more effective" as a top staffer to Bush because of the closeness she has had with him.
But Rice’s management of the interagency process has been lagging, according to Rothkopf and former and current officials. In part, this is because Rice not only had to manage two powerful Cabinet members with sharply different views — Powell and Defense Secretary Donald H. Rumsfeld — but also to deal with a player distinctive to the Bush administration: Vice President Cheney, who weighs in on every major foreign policy question.
Rothkopf said Bush undercut Rice in her running of the interagency process because he has allowed Cheney and Rumsfeld to operate outside the control of the NSC. "The president has to put his foot down and say, ‘This has to stop,’ " Rothkopf said, but Bush never did.
Personally, I’m thrilled at the domestic implications of a woman of color holding that position. The message it sends internationally, as well, is one that I’m proud as an American to have sent.
I don’t like how much Condi seems be a "yes-woman" to the President however. I was much more comfortable with the idea that at least Powell would share alternative views with him, even if he didn’t have the political capital to get the President to heed his advice. Rice, like Gonzales, seems much more likely to tell the President what she knows he wants to hear. As far as I’ve seen, as well, she’s never owned up to the mistakes she made in declaring the WMD in Iraq a definitive threat, especially as regards the question of whether or not her office had seen this or that intelligence before signing off on this or that statement. She seemed a bit overwhemled, at best, or sloppy at worst.
UPDATE: More indepth analysis from WaPo
But she will have to work hard to build bridges to State Department career officials, current and former officials said. Powell was considered a hero to the State Department bureaucracy because he won increases in funding and personnel, and many State Department officials are furious that the Bush White House frequently undercut Powell.
"State Department officials dislike her intensely because they love Powell and believe her staff demeaned the State Department," said one former State Department official who spoke on condition of anonymity because he frequently interacts with Rice.
To me, the “message” behind the appointment of Condi Rice is:
“Yes, we are still the same disaster-area administration that ignored the threat of terrorism in the months before 9/11, and did our level best to make excuses rather than launch an investigation after 9/11. And there’s not thing one you can do about it.”
I’ve got liberal friends who keep getting excited when bad, incompetent, and/or radically conservative women and/or minorities get high positions in government. I question them about this, and they say “Yeah, but they’ll be a [black/hispanic/gay/woman]!” Which leaves me scratching my head. Don’t we want the first black woman Secretary of State to be capable, intelligent, and competent, and not, in other words, Condi Rice?
Iron,
I believe Bush has faith in Condi. So I don’t believe he’s doing this for the PR value. What that says about his ability to judge competency (or what it says about my ability to judge the qualifications for the post) are up for debate, but I don’t think he’s choosing her because she’s black.
I’ve got liberal friends who keep getting excited when bad, incompetent, and/or radically conservative women and/or minorities get high positions in government.
I do too, but only when they’re competent to hold that position. (Which is wholly differemt from agreeing with them politically.)
Don’t we want the first black woman Secretary of State to be capable, intelligent, and competent, and not, in other words, Condi Rice?
Yes, but the Bush administration evidently disagrees. Condi Rice is incompetent but loyal, and now and for the next four years, loyalty is way more important than being competent, intelligent, or capable.
Colin Powell goes: Donald Rumsfeld stays. What’s wrong with this picture?
Of course Dr. Rice is a yes woman to the President. Otherwise she’d be leaving with Colin Powell. Cognitive dissonance will not be tolerated. In fact, she maybe the inner circle’s glue to the whole “vision thing” where the Iraq invasion is concerned.
Excerpt from her speech to Vanderbilt graduates this year:
“…Your third obligation is to work to further the same democratic progress here and abroad that has made your own opportunities possible. All people are bound together by several common desires. Never make the mistake of assuming that some people do not share your desire to live freely’to think and believe as you would like to see fit, to raise a family and educate children, boys and girls. Never make the mistake of assuming that some people do not desire the freedom to chart their own course in life.
In my professional life, I have listened as some explained why Russians would never embrace freedom, that military dictatorship would always be a way of life in Latin America, that Asian values were incompatible with democracy, and that tyranny, corruption and one-party rule would always dominate Africa.
Today we hear these same doubts about the possibility of freedom in the Middle East. We have to reject those doubts. Knowing what we know about the difficulties of our own history, knowing the history of Alabama and Mississippi and Tennessee, we should be humble in singing freedom’s praise, but our voice should never waiver in speaking out on the side of those who seek freedom. And we should never indulge in the condescending voices that allege that some people are not interested in freedom, or aren’t ready for freedom’s responsibility. That view was wrong in 1963 in Birmingham, and it’s wrong in 2004 in Baghdad.
The need for idealists eager to do the hard, yet necessary, work of furthering peace and justice and democracy has never been greater, but neither has the opportunity to do good and change the world. With all of the images of troops and tanks and military operations, it’s hard to remember that this is primarily a war of ideas, not armies. It will be won by visionaries who can look past the moment to see a world in which freedom is not only the birthright of all but a reality for all and who will work to make that day come true.”
I wouldn’t care if Condi were purple, green, or bright orange: she’s an incompetent and a liar. Expect four more years of tragedy.
Let me be another one to add my general sense of underwhelmed-ness to the news of Condoleezza Rice being tapped as our next SecState: leaving aside the “first-Black-woman” thing for the irrelevancy (thankfully nowadays) is; the important factor here is, IMO, that the Bush 43 Administration is finally cementing down complete and total control over the country’s foreign-policy apparatus, by the simple expedient of making certain that ALL positions of power are filled by “insiders” and “team players”: i.e., committed yes-people, ideologues and toadies – honesty and ability being a far-distant second in the rank of virtues.
I find the prospect of Team Bush being in charge of the nation’s foreign policy for another four years a FAR more depressing outlook to contemplate than anything that might transpire on the domestic front: on the latter; there are at least some political and legislative counter-moves that can be mobilized – in foreign policy, the Executive rules supreme – and as we have seen over Bush’s first term, they have their own notions of what “rule” means.
“Expect four more years of tragedy.”…
from posters at this website.
I just heard this rumor: Tom Ridge is stepping down for….wait for it….Douglas Feith.
I never meant it about moving to Canada, but I’m probably stupid to even consider moving to Manhattan.
Playing the Devil’s Advocate…
Let’s assume a contrary position to the above line of opinions, namely, Bush believes Condi to have proven herself equal to the challenges to the task of being the Sec of State.
Let us further accept that Bush, who took office believing that he could become a historically noteworthy President by taking bold actions and making major changes in the status quo of Washington, believes that moment is upon him.
Consider, from his view, that the world is radically different and the opportunity ripe for significant change.
To wit: a post-9/11 mandate, Saddam removed, Arafat dead, Libya divorcing itself from its past, Iraq blinked, NK blindly and ineffectively jabbing and landing no punches, Europe and the UN discredited in the eyes of the voting public, and Democrats a minority party who are largely ineffective as an opposition force in all chambers.
Now would be the time to implement “the vision” of change. To do so effectively means removing all obstacles of entrenched “old thinking”. Remove those who “don’t get it” and are out to protect the status quo and incremental change. Place into key positions those who do “get it” and are willing and able to make the necessary changes. Purge the disloyal and obstacles to implementing the vision. And above all do everything possible to maximize the historical opportunity now available to the President.
Will it work? I don’t know. I doubt it. But that’s not the point, since I don’t run the Oval Office. But, my guess is that’s how the see it.
y’all need to give Condi a chance.i’ll cut her some slack-up until the time she talks about “democratizing” Iran…
Take up the White Man’s burden–
And reap his old reward:
The blame of those ye better,
The hate of those ye guard–
The cry of hosts ye humour
(Ah, slowly!) toward the light:–
“Why brought he us from bondage,
Our loved Egyptian night?”
All this sounds pretty funny coming from Condi… 🙂
Jay C: The idea of Condi at State is bad, and the idea that Rumsfeld will stay on at Defense is worse, but I don’t agree with this: “I find the prospect of Team Bush being in charge of the nation’s foreign policy for another four years a FAR more depressing outlook to contemplate than anything that might transpire on the domestic front.” Consider the possibility of a serious economic crisis brought on by the deficit. (I will, shortly, in a post.)
Just your cheery thought for the day …
Rice was WMD and the degrees at CIA. She was also the strategy for the Iraq War. She cost way too much already. ‘The Country Needs Her?’ It’ll be neat to see what happens to Bio Sheild!
I really believe she takes advantage of alcoholics!
hilzoy:
Please believe me when I say that I too find “…the possibility of a serious economic crisis brought on by the deficit” to be as depressing a propspect to contemplate as anything our foreign policy can engender: I too read plenty of economics-related news, and economics-related blogs, and know enough about the subject to be able to smell the decomposition starting to waft up.
But given the present Adminstration’s well-documented first-term aversion to “reality-based” reactions to any circumstances that do not fit their preconceived notions of “how things are” (i.e., how they “should be”); and with the Republican-dominated media so hideously averse to airing ANY substantive criticism of Administration policy – do you think that any post you (or I, or ANYONE in the blogosphere – or the MSM< for that matter) will have ANY effect whatsoever in shifing Bush Adminstration policy one iota from its pre-determined path? THAT'S the truly depressing bit....... * sigh *
Do I think anything I post will have any effect on Bush’s policy? No, and that would be true even if we had a different President who was more open to other ideas. I do think there’s something to be said for each of us trying to convince as many people as we can of certain basic and (as it seems to me) non-partisan points, like for instance that the idea of further tax cuts is, in our current circumstances, a clear sign of either irresponsibility or culpable ignorance, and that, in our current circumstances, calling for tax increases should be seen as necessary, not a sign of addiction to big government etc. I assume that to the extent that I or any other (non-expert) blogger has any impact whatsoever, it will come via the educational effects of conversations about policy, not via members of the Bush administration reading ObWi and thinking, “Eureka!”
Plus, blogging is fun 🙂
the possibility of a serious economic crisis brought on by the deficit
Call me a cynic (not to much of a stretch for some readers, I’m sure…probably have “Edward, you’re a cynic” saved as a macro), but I believe that phrase should be restructured
the possibility of a serious economic crisis engineered via the deficit
I watch the rightwing pundits ranting on about the ills of entitlement programs and I can’t believe for a second this is not part of a VRWC to strip away the safety nets.
Edward: probably true of Grover Norquist, but in Bush’s case I think there’s a simpler explanation. Owing to the peculiar nature of Boston area suburbs and private schools, I grew up not only with a number of alarmingly intelligent faculty brats, but also with a fair number of rich kids. They seemed to me to divide (to oversimplify) into two groups. One was aware of the extent and sources of their privileges. In an earlier era, these would probably have been the kids who instinctively saw their fortunes as having been painstakingly built up by their predecessors, and as conferring on them an obligation to pass them on undiminished, if not enhanced, to their descendents; when I was growing up, this had been replaced, for the most part, by a sense of social obligation. And then there was the other group, who just took it for granted. Hey, money! And deference, and never getting into trouble that someone doesn’t get you out of! Cool! they seemed to say. When Bush appeared on the political scene I watched him for a bit and thought, oh no, one of them in charge of my country? Please, God, no. — The crucial point as far as this is concerned is: people like this have no sense whatsoever that things like their wealth, or the country’s, are the deliberate creation of people who worked very hard for it, and that they can be squandered. Thus they do not tend to spend a lot of time worrying about the prospect that anything they might do could cause it to disappear. I really think Bush is like this.
And Cheney, as we know, thinks that “Reagan showed that deficits don’t matter”. Right.
Is it okay to blog-ho if it’s on topic? Last night I finally formed a coherent opinion on the “why” behind Bush’s 2nd term appointments and wrote them up here.