In an interview with this weekend's Wall Street Journal, Condoleeza Rice said, commenting on the war on terror, "I don't think that this is a battle, if you will, or a struggle that's going to be won on George W. Bush's watch."
That's an interesting bit of information to add to Bush's promise that we will not pull out of Iraq on his watch.
Add it up and you get a failure to defeat terrorism and a failure in Iraq for the whole duration of the Bush presidency and the republican control of the congress.
We've seen the seriousness with which Condeleeza Rice has taken her job, shopping for $600 shoes during one crisis, take the time to play piano while cancelling, for lack of time, visiting Viet Name, where a US citizen has been held captive since summer of 2005.
This WSJ interview article begins,
The conversation begins with her describing herself as an academic and ends by saying how glad she'll be to return to Stanford "and do something else."
Maybe Condi should just go, since she doesn't seem to be taking her job very seriously. Of course, with Bush's month long Crawford vacations as her example, who can blame her for her blase attitude.
On the other hand, maybe the detached Bush-Rice approach is part of a systematic strategy to "stay the course," to stay in a state of war, to stay in Iraq, to keep the orange and red alerts going because that's what keeps the base in line. Drop the fear, drop the threat and where's the reason to support the party that is supposedly better fighting terrorism?
Maybe that's why the WSJ says,
Thus, implicit in much of what Ms. Rice says is the idea that the U.S. has the luxury of time.
Ask the families of the half million plus GIs who have rotated through Iraq and Afghanistan how they feel about the "luxury of time."
You have to wonder. Bush won't leave Iraq on his watch, won't defeat terrorism on his watch. What makes him so good at fighting terrorism? Maybe it's his ability to keep the fight going. Maybe it's his ability to look for and create conflict, his ability to engage with violence.
Of course there are other approaches. Diplomacy, economic pressure, building good will through investing in education and health care instead of shock and awe destruction and bombing.
Diplomacy, school building medical missions don't have the dramatic effeect of a good explosion, of the report of the capture of the second in command Al Qaeda leader, even if that event keeps happening, like a deja vu event.
The Democrats want to get out the message that Bush and the Republicans not only misled us into the war, and are doing a terrible job, fraught with misjudgments and bad planning, but also that they are misleading us, distorting the facts and lying about the realities of the Iraq and Afghan occupations and the "war" on terrorism.
For example, the WSJ, cites Rice's attitude towards the role of moderates in Iran,
Do these people even exist? "I do not believe we're going to find Iranian moderates," she says. "The question is, are we going to find Iranian reasonables.
Most tellingly, the WSJ, usually a friend of the republicans, comments on her remark,
That's an interesting way of framing the matter, although perhaps not quite in the way Ms. Rice intends. There are, in fact, iranian moderates; They are the 80% of the people who oppose the regime. The house has just approved the Iran Freedom Act, which says the U.S. should "support peaceful pro-democracy forces in Iran," and mirrors the 1998 iraq Liberation Act that became a precursor to regime change there.
There it is. Rice ignores the 80% of the Iranian people who oppose their leaders. That's the kind of groupthink that led the US into war with Iraq-- failure to see reality.
Then again, Condi's observation "I don't think that this is a battle, if you will, or a struggle that's going to be won on George W. Bush's watch." was buried in the WSJ's article. This is an example of how the mainstream media are failing to even see the problems, or, worse, are intentionally ignoring them.
Whatever the reason for this "gift" fromt he WSJ, informing us that Bush's closest confidant basically reports that Bush will be a failure at fighting terrorism during his presidency, it is something we can be thankful for learning.
Rob Kall is executive editor and publisher of OpEdNews.com, President of Futurehealth, Inc, inventor . He is a frequent Speaker on Politics, Impeachment, The art, science and power of story, heroes and the hero's journey, Positive Psychology, Stress, Biofeedback and a wide range of subjects. He is a campaign consultant specializing in tapping the power of stories for issue positioning, stump speeches and debates. He recently retired as organizer of several conferences, including StoryCon, the Summit Meeting on the Art, Science and Application of Story and The Winter Brain Meeting on neurofeedback, biofeedback, Optimal Functioning and Positive Psychology. See more of his articles here and, older ones, here.
The framed magazine cover, with the word "IDEAS" spelled out in lightbulbs, is based on an article Rob wrote for Writers Digest, telling the magazine's quarter million readers how to come up with and pitch article ideas.
To learn more about me and OpEdNews.com, check out this article.
and there are Rob's quotes, here.
To Watch me on youtube, having a lively conversation with John Conyers, Chair of the House Judiciary committee, click here Now, wouldn't you like to see me on the political news shows, representing progressives. If so, tell your favorite shows to bring me on and refer them to this youtube video
My radio show, The Rob Kall Show, runs 9-10 PM EST Wednesday evenings, on AM 1360, WNJC and is archived on www.whiterosesociety.org Or listen to it streaming, live at either www.wnjc1360.com or here.
Or check the archived interviews at:
whiterosesociety.org
A few declarations.
-While I'm registered as a Democrat, I consider myself to be a dynamic critic of the Democratic party, just as, well, not quite as much, but almost as much as I am a critic of republicans.
-My articles express my personal opinion, not the opinion of this website.
Rob made his analytical comment
"Add it up and you get a failure to defeat terrorism and a failure in Iraq for the whole duration of the Bush presidency and the republican control of the congress."
Which is factually inaccurate and misleading unless you considers Clinton's position in Iraq to also have been a failure.
Nevermind that, how about ignoring what GWB has said about the War On Terorism, that it was an ongoing process that might not be "winnable" in the classic sense. And the progressives did not understand this statement either it seems.
//Rob if you applied the same criteria to WWII and FDR, he would have been a failure given your logic and should not have been reelected
// But then again FDR's admin actually killed american citizens in their pursuit of defeating the Axis.
by
Vulture (0 articles, 0 quicklinks, 0 diaries, 153 comments)
on Sunday, October 1, 2006 at 1:13:51 PM
This is the very first effort by this neocon to actually debate on the issues. I believe we should give credit for this attempt.
Whereas Clinton fired over 60 cruise missles at AlQaeda targets during his Presidency, whereas the incoming Bush administration was briefed thoroughly on the threat of AlQaeda and bin Laden by the outgoing team, and chose to ignore the briefings ( and then deny they had occured), whereas Richard Clark, who served under four Presidents was simply demoted and forced out because of his opposition to the Bush administrations failures to take this threat seriously I believe we can determine which of the two Presidents fought terrorism and which simply used it as political capital and as a profit center for his cronies.
by
ardee D. (6 articles, 4 quicklinks, 1 diaries, 2388 comments)
on Monday, October 2, 2006 at 7:16:04 AM
Condi Rice is Right!!
_____________________
There was an advertisement included with this comment. This is an abuse of the commenting system and won't be tolerated.
by
Daniel H (0 articles, 0 quicklinks, 0 diaries, 28 comments)
on Sunday, October 1, 2006 at 1:23:39 PM
The global war on terrorism (a concept), can be twisted any way one wants. HR 6166 has proven that. The deciders that determine what terror is can change their definitions on a whim. Depending upon what point of view is taken, the whole concept of GWOT is beyond idiotic. These "wars" are almost as stupid as waging war on wind and rain.
For people that have lived under colonial rule or puppet regimes for the last several hundred years, the terrorists have always been those countries that are now beating their war drums for GWOT.
by
Jim Reinhart (0 articles, 0 quicklinks, 0 diaries, 60 comments)
on Sunday, October 1, 2006 at 2:16:51 PM
Bush is not going to win the War on Terror, just like Clinton didn't win the WOT, and whoever occupies the office next won't win the WOT. These people send their CHILDREN to commit suicide, willingly. There is a whole generation+ that has lived with this mindset since birth in the Middle East.
by
sbaker (0 articles, 0 quicklinks, 0 diaries, 95 comments)
on Monday, October 2, 2006 at 4:57:05 PM
I do not believe it for an instant. There is a battle for human rights, dignity, control of their own nation and their own destiny, a battle for economic freedom from the tentacles of the western powers, a battle that will surely and certainly be won and not by us.
We have enslaved the third world for far too long, they now seek to throw off their chains and are willing to use whatever means necesary to do so. Noone who lives in the west, who lives in a luxury these people cannot even imagine, can understand a suicide bomber, I cannot understand them, but they understand very well indeed.
by
ardee D. (6 articles, 4 quicklinks, 1 diaries, 2388 comments)
on Monday, October 2, 2006 at 5:42:07 PM
Ardee you should have stopped at "I cannot undersstand".
You can't understand that unfettered third world countries don't unite with their brothers in harmony but form power cliques and commit genocides routinely. You don't understand that blaming their oppressors (ie the Palestinians) is the losers way and and creates nothing but misery. You don't understand that US actions abroad if curtailed would only be replaced by other nations (France, China, Russia).
But let's face it , you can't understand other people who don't think like you and that's sad.
by
Vulture (0 articles, 0 quicklinks, 0 diaries, 153 comments)
on Tuesday, October 3, 2006 at 8:58:28 AM
How do you manage to type anyway? I would have thought that, with your head so firmly up Cheney's ass that it would be impossible.....
Understand this oh gullible tool of those who dont give a flying f**k about you or yours, most of the regimes about which you prattle were installed by the CIA, and propped up by much graft and weaponry in order to provide stable and safe platforms for our business interests. Most of the worst dictators in this world are our firm allies, and the time is rapidly coming when the Chavez's of the world are going to tell your heroes to perform an anatomically impossible act upon themselves.
by
ardee D. (6 articles, 4 quicklinks, 1 diaries, 2388 comments)
on Tuesday, October 3, 2006 at 6:42:13 PM
