Welcome Guest [Log In] [Register]
Welcome to The New Coffee Room. We hope you enjoy your visit.


You're currently viewing our forum as a guest. This means you are limited to certain areas of the board and there are some features you can't use. If you join our community, you'll be able to access member-only sections, and use many member-only features such as customizing your profile, sending personal messages, and voting in polls. Registration is simple, fast, and completely free.


Join our community!


If you're already a member please log in to your account to access all of our features:

Username:   Password:
Add Reply
Maybe Condi Is Doing Something Right
Topic Started: Jun 12 2006, 12:39 PM (223 Views)
Rick Zimmer
Member Avatar
Fulla-Carp
I am not sure if there is any greater endorsement of the Secretary of State's course of action than the fact that those who encouraged us into the Iraq War are against her.

Why would we listen to these guys again?

Rice's Offer to Iran Spurs Unease From Right
The move to hold talks on nuclear activities worsens fears that the secretary of State is leading foreign policy down a weaker path.
By Paul Richter, LA Times Staff Writer
June 12, 2006

WASHINGTON — While the Bush administration's offer to negotiate with Iran was winning praise from many quarters, conservative commentator Michael Ledeen sat down last week to write a column with a far different point of view.

Under the title "Is Bill Clinton Still President?" Ledeen compared President Bush's conditional offer to Iran to the Clinton administration's "appeasement" of North Korea in the 1990s. Then, he wrote, it won't be long before Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice borrows one of former Secretary Madeleine Albright's trademark big hats "and goes to Tehran to dance with the dictator" — an allusion to Albright's controversial trip to Pyongyang in 2000.

As Ledeen's column for National Review Online suggests, the Bush administration's Iran move has compounded many conservatives' concerns about the direction of U.S. foreign policy under the leadership of Rice's State Department. Many fear the administration has lost some of its forcefulness. They are unhappy with the normalization of ties with Libya, the proposed nuclear deal with India, the seeming slowdown in U.S. efforts to democratize the Middle East — which was a cornerstone of Bush's second inaugural address — as well as the handling of the Iraq war.

Bush's slide among foreign policy conservatives came as he was completing a round of attention to domestic base-voter issues such as same-sex marriage, flag burning and estate tax repeal. However, disaffection among his conservative foreign policy critics may not be as easy for Bush to address.

"In conservative circles there's an unease; I wouldn't call it a rebellion at this point, but an unease," said Marshall Wittmann, a former aide to Sen. John McCain (R-Ariz.). "There's an increasing fear that the State Department has taken over foreign policy, and there's been a retreat from first-term foreign policy tenets."

Last month, as Rice rolled out the Iran proposal, her senior staff contacted influential conservative editors and pundits in hopes that a full explanation of the deal would head off criticism from the right.

The effort helped mute reactions, commentators said. But the new initiative has drawn criticism, if not wholesale condemnation, from conservative opinion leaders such as the Wall Street Journal editorial page and the National Review magazine, and conservative stalwarts such as American Enterprise Institute scholar Michael Rubin and former Reagan administration official Frank J. Gaffney Jr., among others.

So far, only a few conservative members of Congress have joined the conservative foreign policy experts' complaints — in public, at least. This is partly because they believe Bush has a weak hand and few options, said Wittmann, now with the centrist Progressive Policy Institute.

Nevertheless, the discontent marks a challenge for Bush at a time when he is trying to rebuild conservative support. Wittmann predicted that elected officials would "eventually follow the lead of the intellectuals" in questioning the administration approach.

State Department spokesman Sean McCormack said the Iran proposal had strong support, with the "vast majority saying they favored it, or 'let's wait and see how it turns out.' "

Some conservative analysts say the underlying source of concern is the war in Iraq, which some fear America may lose. They say the administration seems to lack the energy or resolve to take tough positions with adversaries, and may become immersed in drawn-out negotiations with Iran that give Tehran more time to develop its nuclear capabilities.

Many are unhappy that Vice President Dick Cheney has been less of a force on foreign policy, and that Defense Secretary Donald H. Rumsfeld has also stepped back from his prominent perch during the first term.

At the same time, some conservatives have gone after Undersecretary of State for Political Affairs R. Nicholas Burns, who has been Rice's point man on Iran and India, contending that the veteran diplomat is too ready to compromise. But others say that Burns has become a target in part because conservatives don't want to publicly attack his boss, Rice, who is close to the president and one of the most popular Republican figures in the country.

Several of the conservative analysts say it's unsettling that the Iran deal resembles the stymied nuclear negotiations with North Korea under Clinton, including the offer of light-water nuclear reactors and the possibility of six-nation talks. In 2000, when Albright visited, she was whisked away by leader Kim Jong Il — to a dance exhibition in his honor.

Rubin, of the American Enterprise Institute, said in an interview that the offer of the reactors showed "we're doing the same thing" in Iran.

"We can try to put a nice patina on it, but it's rewarding intransigence" on the part of Tehran, which has refused to give ground on its nuclear activities, Rubin said.

He criticized the offer to Iran in part for its lack of explicit sanctions. "We're not really threatening them with anything," he said, calling the U.S. approach "abject surrender."

In an editorial this month, the Wall Street Journal suggested Bush might be allowing himself to be set up by less hawkish advisors in his approach to Iran.

"Perhaps Ms. Rice is right that direct diplomacy is essential to expose Iran's real purposes," the newspaper said. "But given Iran's track record, we'd say the secretary has walked her president out on a limb where the pressure will soon build on him to make even more concessions."

The unease besets not just neoconservatives, who believe the United States must assert itself in reshaping undemocratic regimes, but also more traditional conservatives, who tend to be dubious about such ambitious efforts.

The National Review, which expresses a more traditional conservatism, said in an editorial that the Iran deal would have been justified if it persuaded the ruling clerics to dismantle their nuclear program.

"But the reality is that we have probably given up more than we have gained," the magazine concluded.

Gaffney, a former Reagan administration Defense official who disagrees with the Iran policy, said drastic changes had taken place both in administration policies and the people in charge.

"This presidency is mutating before our eyes, in ways that will only exacerbate the president's problems with his base," said Gaffney, now president of the Center for Security Policy, a think tank.

In addition to their worries about Iran, conservatives have complained about the administration's civil nuclear deal with India, contending that overlooking India's past infractions will encourage other countries, such as Iran, to build nuclear arsenals in defiance of international norms.

Others have charged that the United States has been not moved strongly enough to halt Russia's trend toward authoritarianism. And critics have argued that the administration has done too little to stop antidemocratic moves by the governments of Egypt, Libya, Lebanon, Syria and China — despite the president's commitment in the second inaugural to spreading democracy abroad.

Rubin and Danielle Pletka of the American Enterprise Institute wrote in a recent Los Angeles Times op-ed piece that Libya alone changed everything. If the lofty, pro-democracy rhetoric of Bush's inaugural speech defined the president's second term precepts, the normalization of U.S. relations with Libya "marks an effective end to the Bush doctrine," they said.
[size=4]Violence is incompatible with the nature of God and the nature of the soul -- Benedict XVI[/size]
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
apple
one of the angels
she is considered the world's top negotiator.

:cool:
it behooves me to behold
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
Kincaid
Member Avatar
HOLY CARP!!!
Maybe she's developed a spastic Colin. That has happened before over at the State Dept.
Kincaid - disgusted Republican Partisan since 2006.
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
Kincaid
Member Avatar
HOLY CARP!!!
Irritable Powell Syndrome, perhaps.
Kincaid - disgusted Republican Partisan since 2006.
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
OperaTenor
Member Avatar
Pisa-Carp
I think it's also a hopeful sign that her name's never appeared under the PNAC letterhead.



Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
John D'Oh
Member Avatar
MAMIL
[Cynic]

Maybe she's thinking about the next election.

[/Cynic]
What do you mean "we", have you got a mouse in your pocket?
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
ivorythumper
Member Avatar
I am so adjective that I verb nouns!
OperaTenor
Jun 12 2006, 04:23 PM
I think it's also a hopeful sign that her name's never appeared under the PNAC letterhead.

I don't think she's Jewish....
The dogma lives loudly within me.
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
Rick Zimmer
Member Avatar
Fulla-Carp
OperaTenor
Jun 12 2006, 03:23 PM
I think it's also a hopeful sign that her name's never appeared under the PNAC letterhead.

No, but Exxon did name an oil tanker for her -- which was quickly changed when hse joined the White House staff.
[size=4]Violence is incompatible with the nature of God and the nature of the soul -- Benedict XVI[/size]
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
Rick Zimmer
Member Avatar
Fulla-Carp
John D'Oh
Jun 12 2006, 03:32 PM
[Cynic]

Maybe she's thinking about the next election.

[/Cynic]

Whatever her motivation -- and I don't mind if it is for possible elective office -- I am pleased with her recent attempt to negotiate with Iran.

Actually, my cynicism tells me her trying to placate Iran has more to do with our eneding their help to get out of the Iraq quagmire than it has to do with her running for President.

(Hmmm...third party idea......Hillary for Pres, Condi for VP)
[size=4]Violence is incompatible with the nature of God and the nature of the soul -- Benedict XVI[/size]
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
Rick Zimmer
Member Avatar
Fulla-Carp
Kincaid
Jun 12 2006, 03:12 PM
Maybe she's developed a spastic Colin.

Very good. :D

Quote:
 
Irritable Powell Syndrome, perhaps.


Even better!

:D :D :D :D
[size=4]Violence is incompatible with the nature of God and the nature of the soul -- Benedict XVI[/size]
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
OperaTenor
Member Avatar
Pisa-Carp
I'm of the opinion that almost anyone is redeemable, if they work towards peace and the general well being of everyone.

One of my favorite quotes is from William Penn: "To help mend the world is true religion."



Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
Mikhailoh
Member Avatar
If you want trouble, find yourself a redhead
Rick Zimmer
Jun 12 2006, 12:39 PM
Rubin and Danielle Pletka of the American Enterprise Institute wrote in a recent Los Angeles Times op-ed piece that Libya alone changed everything. If the lofty, pro-democracy rhetoric of Bush's inaugural speech defined the president's second term precepts, the normalization of U.S. relations with Libya "marks an effective end to the Bush doctrine," they said.

I'm not sure how normalizing relations with a formerly rogue nation that has disavowed weapons programs and terrorism is an end to the Bush Doctrine. It would look more like a victory, however small.
Once in his life, every man is entitled to fall madly in love with a gorgeous redhead - Lucille Ball
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
ZetaBoards - Free Forum Hosting
Free Forums. Reliable service with over 8 years of experience.
« Previous Topic · The New Coffee Room · Next Topic »
Add Reply