There were rumors flying around yesterday, but today it is official, Bush has named Rice as the person to succeed Powell pending confirmation. Stephen Hadley will take her spot and Armitage is expected to follow Powell out the door. The article had this to say:


The question to debate here is simple:
1. Is Rice the right person for the Secretary of State job? Why or why not?

1. Is Rice the right person for the Secretary of State job? Why or why not?

Well, the proof is in the pudding I guess. We'll know over the course of the next few months whether she can do the job or not.

My impressions of Rice however is that she is a Yes 'man', a bit like how Jack Straw is to Tony Blair. The sort of ally who never questions anything and who will basically always tell the President what he wants to hear.

A lot is made of her 'foreign expertise' but in almost every matter I've seen, read or heard her express an opinion on, she has seemed to me to be a rank amateur who once studied the Soviet Union and the rest of time is learning on the job. In fact those are the words by which she is often described, post 11 Sept 2001. It has been said that she had no idea or knowledge regarding the Islamic world prior to the attacks and was useless as a result.

She is also often described as a close personal friend of GW Bush which makes my warning bell go off as well. I don't like it when elected officials choose their friends for key positions. How do we know that the person chosen is the best for the job? We don't. I don't really believe Rice was chosen as NSA because she was competent but because she is in the 'in crowd'.

I don't like this neo con government. I don't like their attitude, either to the American people and certainly not towards the rest of the world. I believe Rice, like Cheney and Rumsfeld, Wolfowitz (sp?) and Bush are all dangerous for the same basic reason. They are rash, brazen and determined. Like fools they rush in where angels would fear to tread and they don't give a fig for the consequences o their actions. This world needs diplomacy, wisdom and and understanding that our global resources are limited.
Instead what we have is the same tired old realpolitik that gave us all these problems in the first place.

I also believe Rice is being groomed as a possible future president, but thats just a feeling I get from the way Bush supporters often describe her.

Powell will be a hard act to follow. He has been very successful under very stressful conditions. His service is to be admired.

1. Is Rice the right person for the Secretary of State job? Why or why not?

I think Rice is as good a choice as anyone. She is certainly qualified and has been on the national scene for the last four years.

If not Rice, than who would you pick?

I will miss the level of independence that Powell brought to the job. I have had the perception that he has done my views the service of trying to fend off the stronger neo-con element in the Bush administration.

Rice is qualified and I have a hard time seeing her get blocked in terms of the confirmation. I wouldn't vote against her if I was a Democratic Congressperson, but I would have some tough questions for her.

I think the President will get much less resistance from Rice than he did from Powell on foreign policy.

I am not sure I trust her credibility after her run at the NSA. I felt that she was a good choice as NSA and that she was smart enough to keep herself out of trouble, but several events caused me to distrust her while she served as NSA. I have to go, hopefully I will remember to bring in examples when I get back to the site.

this issue is one

and this is another

In summary I think she will be a step toward the neo-cons in terms of foreign policy and I am not a big fan of the PNAC approach to foreign policy.

Questions for the Rice confirmation:

Q: What are your plans for Secretary of State should you be confirmed?
A: Sir, I do not have plans; I have series of actionable items.

Q: Should a report come your way concerning, say, terrorism, do you plan on reading the title?
A: I would stipulate that all reports coming my way be stripped of titles. This way future Congressional inquiries will not use context against me.

1. Is Rice the right person for the Secretary of State job? Why or why not?

I dislike her intensely. But as much as i pains me to admit it, I think her "qualifications and experience" are fine for the job. And I have some grudging admiration for the adminstrations unapologetic stance.

The real question is what does this mean for Bush Foreign policy? Clearly she thinks like (or for) Bush and as such will do a fine job of aligning the state department with Bush's foreign policy objectives. Bush never appears to like the appearance of dissent, and now the bothersome state department will cease to be source of irritation.

The appointment sends a couple of messages:

1) the election has changed nothing: If you liked Bush I, you will love Bush II because like any sequel, it will simply be a charicature if itself: Louder, brasher, and unapologetic.

2) "Old Europe", which values tact, diplomacy, and subtlely can take a hike <previous cliché removed>. This is a war on terror, and we are not about to become pansy diplomats now. So all these nice "signals" coming from across the Atlantic the last couple of weeks about how they look forward to rebuilding relationships now has a response, which is "fine, as long as its on my terms"

What it boils down to is Bush is now firmly in charge of his diplomatic corps. I sure hope he knows what he is doing, since he will not get any alternate viewpoints.

Of course I could be wrong
Jacabo

Condoleeza Rice is a neorealist (not to be confused with a neoliberal or neocon), and that by and of itself makes her wildly inappropriate. Not because of her politics, but because neorealists have no interest in solving problematics, and the intangible elements of International Relations (such as people, and personal relationships) have no place in their theory. It's that simple for me.

Joe, while I tend to agree with you, could you perhaps give us some evidence that leads you to conclude she is a neorealist?

I think she is a bad choice. I recently watched some of the footage of her testimony before Congress, and my gut reaction was, this woman is a liar - and not a very good one. She stumbles, fumbles, and grasps at various rationalizations and justifications.

I commend Mr. Bush for seeking an ethnically diverse cabinet, and it plays well on Main Street, but I would rather see an ideologically diverse cabinet. One thing you had to hand to Clinton was that he appointed people from both sides of the aisle. As we saw evidenced in The Price of Loyalty, Bush does not like to hear all sides of a given issue. He only wants to hear the side that agrees with him. There are enough inside whistleblowers saying this that I feel comfortable believing it.

As the eternal optimist, though, I hope she wakes up to reality when she plays top diplomat, and decides to think independently instead of towing whatever ungodly line it is these toadies are all towing!

UJ, without going into any of the theories here, this is something of a concern I've heard mentioned for her. Whether it be ideological, or just her personality, I have heard she's not much interested in the social aspects of the job. Now, I don't know enough about what the SoS actually does to know how much impact that would have (neither Kissinger nor Albright struck me as people particularly into the social scene). So, we will see. While I like Rice, I do think the criticism's Moif raised as to her experience in these matters might also be a cause for concern. Essentially, she's an academic...whereas foreign politics is, I think, imminently pragmatic. So, I'm not sure that background best prepares one for the job.

I do however get the feeling that she's someone who is very capable at everything she does. So, I think she'll be a quick learner, if nothing else. She has been a long-time friend of Bush, which doesn't bother me at all...you don't poplulate your cabinet with people you don't like and can't work with.

Rice may not be quite the right person for that job. Powell wasn't all that perfect a fit either.

1. Is Rice the right person for the Secretary of State job? Why or why not?

Answer : "It depends..."

I believe she will carry out her mission dutifully, as she looks like the type of person who's focused and adamant on any job. In the meantime, I hope that she won't confuse the security of the US and actual diplomacy. I pray that American diplomacy isn't reduced to a mere "Ladies and gentlemen of the UN, fight terrorism in your countries so that ours stays safe".

Also, I hope that she will not put her words into action : "Forgive Russia, forget Germany, punish France". I'm not afraid of what she means by 'punish', but by the consequences of a threat against France, which is a nation state of the EU. That could cause harm to all parties and increase tensions between American and European people.

I don't doubt that Condoleeza will sail through confirmation without getting her hair mussed. She's a Bush loyalist and nobody's going to squawk too much about the President wanting someone he feels comfortable with in such a position of importance. What---you were expecting a reformer? Fat chance.

However, I doubt she's going to be getting any letters of congratulations from ex-CIA head, George Tenet.

The former spy chief "trashes" the national security adviser in his book proposal, one publishing insider tells us.

"He claims she was incompetent, that she didn't do her job" when it came to protecting the country from terrorists, the source says.

http://www.nydailynews.com/front/story/252949p-216383c.html

This is inside-the-Beltway kind of stuff. Who really cares who Bush tabs to replace Colin Powell? Though Powell was the star of the previous Bush Cabinet, Rice is hardly a surprise choice.

Anybody notice that 50 U.S. Soldiers have died in the last five days? Anyone?

1.Is Rice the right person for the Secretary of State job? Why or why not?

Though it pains me to criticize the appointment of a woman to a prestigious position like Secretary of State, and a minority woman at that, I think Dr. Rice is a horrible choice for the job. Frankly, I think the biggest reason she was chosen is that she is such a “yes-woman” and a Bush sycophant. (In fact, the whole batch of appointments is cronyism at its finest – ol’ Texas home week in DeeCee.) She has no diplomatic or people skills that I can see (taking the last 4 years into consideration), and seems just another politician spouting party line. I cringe at the thought of her at the helm of this country’s diplomatic relations. Can you picture her trying to hammer out a peace between Israel and the PLO? Yeesh.






How cozy.

WWIII here we come..............

Well I am very happy with it

I am not a Bush supporter and I don't feel that many of my own beliefs politically align with his so why would I expect his appointee to the Sec. of State to be in line with my own thinking.

I don't understand the admiration of Col Powell beyond the appreciation or his service to his country. Personally I was really disappointed with him. That day I listened to him at the UN..showing pictures of Saddam's version of "pimp your ride" was an embarrassment.

Powell said he would be leaving months ago..so I have been waiting for this day.

I think Condi will just be keeping with the current foreign policies..I don't feel they will change much. Yet I feel she is so symbolic of America....especially to those we are at war with.

Is Rice the right person for the Secretary of State job? Why or why not?

As a professor of political science and Director of Soviet and East European Affairs under Poppy Bush plus four years as National Security Advisor Bush II, she certainly has a decent enough resume for the position.

But the question was not is she qualified, but is she "right". I personally feel that she has done an appalling job in terms of National Security over the past four years. Given her position and what her concerns should have been, she is far more responsible than President Bush for having been asleep at the wheel prior to the September 11 attack. She also seemed to do pretty badly in terms of assessing the entire Iraqi adventure from the outset. The intelligence community doesn't seem to be any more together than it was four years ago, nor does America itself seem any more secure. Quite the opposite, in fact.

Further, she seems to be shockingly unpopular around the globe - and is extremely unlikely to make any positive advances on the the diplomatic front, which rather seems to defeat the purpose of the role: the Secretary of State is, after all, America's foremost diplomat - or should be. She will have a particularly difficult task in the wake of Colin Powell, one of the only members of this administration that the rest of the world even found tolerable.

I don't, however, see her as being a "yes-man". On the contrary, I have always felt she was more like the president's tutor - or nanny. It is Bush, in this relationship, who is the "yes-man". Either way, I don't think such a relationship is "right". I would much prefer such an important role to be given to someone who is a bit more moderate (like Colin Powell) - as a way of balancing the Departments of Defense and Justice, if nothing else, to say nothing of the office of the Vice President. To me, this is as bad as not having a bit of gridlock within Congress or between the White House and Congress. There is now no balance of power anywhere in the federal government. And that can only spell tragedy for us all.

Apart from Donald Rumsfeld, Paul Wolfowitz, or Richard Perle, I can't imagine a worse candidate for the job.

Looks to me to be a trend to move the administration farther to the right than in the first term. She's the "right" pick for moving to the right.

I'm putting a lot of small things together and coming up with this trend. We have paper-trailless voting machines, a more conservative Attorney General coming up, a Congress that wants to jam a sword into the guts of the minority party (eliminate filibuster), federal judge appointments to the right, and soon to come a farther right Supreme Court.

Trying to imagine Rice playing peacemaker in the world is a stretch for me. The realist stance has been brought up, so I guess we'll have some real action going on in world politics. Will that realism include compromise? Give and take? Or will it be the US way or the highway?

I'm expecting to be surprised, and maybe in ways that make me throw fits. Seems I've said this a lot over the past years -- sure hope not.

On an up note, and has been pointed out, it is very easy to tell when Rice is lying. I'm trying to imagine her giving the UN justification speech for liberating Iraq. Yep, nobody would have bought it. She's not a salesperson. Not sure if this transparancy is an asset or problem for working diplomacy. I'm, um, hoping it turns out to be an asset and leads to less violence in the world, better international relationships, and cooperation among nations.

Or is this a holiday season prayer? Yeah, that's it. Please make the movement to the right the right thing to do, and can I have a little help here with my anxieties? Thanks.

I agree Wertz..in fact she was his hired Tutor wasn't she? I think President Bush relies a lot on Condi's interpretation of the world..and I think she probably is his main source of information on all things foreign.
I too have not really understood the claims she will be his yes-man...as opposed to Powell? How will this differ? How did Powell tell the president no?

Is Rice the right person for the Secretary of State job? Why or why not?
Depends. Right for whom? If you mean this present administration, sure. She's qualified, though per Hobbes' comment I wonder if she is cut out for all the "protocol" based activities she will be stuck doing. I hope she likes working with Cheney.

In general, however, I think she is a poor choice. While qualified, she is a clear indication that Bush has zero intent of making an effort to mend some of the bridges he has torched in the international community over Iraq and his crusade against his worldview of the war on terror.

The picks of Gonzalez and Rice in these key positions is a clear indication to me that Bush is pulling his loyalists closer to him, making him prone to even more mistakes as he will continue to avoid the voice of dissent in his next 4 years. Rest assured, skilled moderates like Powell, Whitman, O'Neill, and Clarke will have no place in the 2nd administration. Ideology will rule for the next 4 years, more so than ever. Whether that's good or bad I suppose depends on which side of the fence you sit.

Doc

Doclutus, I think your post summarizes a couple assumptions about the Bush administration that I don't necessarily think are true. One being that Bush has such a 'hard-line' foreign policy position. On terrorism, this is certainly true...but I think that has been extrapolated to his generic foreign policy, which I don't think is correct. North Korea is a very good example. Bush has been handling that completely differently than Iraq...pushing for multi-lateral talks, and the need for all the concerned countries to participate. Bush had also done good work establishing relationships with China and Russia prior to 9-11. I think this is more typical of his foreign policy, and does not indicate a general 'hard line', at all. So, as there seems to be agreement that Rice has been behind many of his foreign policy decisions, I don't think the 'hard-line' yes-man criticism really applies.

Also, Bush has announced plans for a 'mend the fences' European trip next year. I don't want to get into a discussion of the likely outcome of this trip here...but I do think it will at least be an opportunity to put a new face forward. Having a new SoS will probably help in this regard...and should certainly be very beneficial on the job training for Rice.

Bush is definitely pulling his loyalists close to him. I'm not sure what this really means. There are certainly those in that group who do have a hard line stance...but I don't think Bush is one of them, nor do I think we should assume all his loyalists are, either. So, this falls into that 'wait and see' category, I think.

I would agree completely. Bush is surrounding himself with yes men and women in his second term. Powell moderated the neo-cons, now there is no moderation.

I am curious also, in backwards parts of the world where women are not viewed as having equality, how will she be viewed? I wonder if Madeline Albright had the same problem.

There is no doubt Condi is sharp. However, in this job you need to have someone stand up to the President when necessary and tell him the truth, not what he wants to hear. I wonder if that will happen.

Is Rice the right person for the Secretary of State job? Why or why not?

I am not a Pat Buchanan fan by any stretch of the imagination, but I think Buchanan’s thinking on recent Bush appointments is correct. Alison Stewart was sitting in for Keith Olbermann on last night’s Countdown. What Buchanan observed is a continuation of the pattern noted by former Treasury secretary Paul O’Neill’s on the Bush administration lacking “honest brokers”—a theme found throughout Ron Suskind’s The Price of Loyalty: George W. Bush, the White House and the Education of Paul O’Neill.

According to Buchanan:



CountdownTranscript 11-16-04

Newsweek’s Howard Fineman had this take on Hardball had these words:



<snip>

Dana Priest of The Washington Post was also on last night’s Hardball.

She said:


Hardball 11-16-04 Transcript

For the reasons Buchanan, Fineman and Priest have given, I find this consolidation of power in the hand of cronies a dangerous practice. Given that Rice has been Bush’s workout partner, we might call her nomination “bench press diplomacy.” Rice is absolutely the wrong choice for the job.

George W. Bush, any President for that matter, needs people who will tell him things he doesn’t want to hear--needs the "honest brokers" O'Neill found lacking. I don’t think Rice can or will provide that.

1. Is Rice the right person for the Secretary of State job? Why or why not?
This position deals so much with foreign policy and with the leaders of other countries that it would have been a beter move to put a Democrat in place. This would have also started his plan to 'reunite America'.

PS. Does anyone else find it annoying and degrading how he refers to her all the time as 'Connie' yet refers to the male members of admin as 'Secretary Powell' or 'Vice President Cheney'.

Yes, it is annoying just how patronizing the President can be (or maybe he's just being "Condi-scending"! ) It fits right into a quote from his campaign rhetoric that sounded something like, "And now women have to work outside the household too to make ends meet!"* Oh, the terrible burden of being rich and out of touch with the mainstream!

National Security Advisor Condoleezza Rice's testimony before the 9/11 Commission was largely an exercise in denial. To attempt to discredit Richard Clarke's testimony by saying that he wasn't even in the Administration staff meetings merely pointed out a glaring error of omission on her part. Why wasn't Richard Clarke there? He wanted to talk to the President--where were Rice's priorities at the time?

She's smart, she's pretty, she works out, she has an impressive curriculum vitae. These are all good things. But the fact that she has not put forth any ideas that could run against Bush's aggressive policies to remake the world in his own image does not bode well for the way the USA will conduct foreign relations with Rice in charge.
-------------------------------------
*Here is the actual quote (thanks, Curmudgeon!) with my emphasis in red:“I understand the world we live in today is a changing world. Think about what happened in the workplace. Years ago our fathers and grandfathers worked for one job, one company; they had one pension plan, one health care plan; today people change careers and change jobs often. And the most startling change of all is that women now work not only in the house but outside the house.”--President George W. Bush

She is obviously right for the Bush, but not really for the job- several poeple here have mentioned her "credentials" as an "expert" on Russia- then why has Russia been able to play this regime so well?

Not trying to go off target here- but to make a point about the focus and supposed "expert" brains of Condi- right now, Russia has eliminated all reforms dating back to Kruschev. Putin is more powerful in his position than Kruschev was.

Putin may very well be an able and benevolent leader of Russia, but his succesor may very well be another Stalin, and all the reforms for freedom started under Gorbachev are gone.

Where was Condi Rice during all of this? A Russia without constraint perhaps in even 4 years, is far more dangerous to the world than any other threat we face- if the wrong person succeeds Putin.

This basic butt-kissing of GW while ignoring some things (like she testified about in the 9/11 hearing) and what I mentioned above tells me she simply does not have the focus for the job.

But hey, this regime doesn't want folks to do the job RIGHT- they just want them to be RIGHT WING.

Rice is an extreme hawk with a very set point of view, this does not make a good diplomat. She is bright and intelligent but not openminded.

I cannot imagine her having the where-with-all to begin to comprehend the complexity of global relationships in order to broker or mediate unless from a one sided point of view, the strongarm. She could do well if she is backed 100% by the Admin, unlike Powell who was constantly undermined and exploited to the extent of vulgarity.

I dont think she did a very good job as NSA, but we seem to be rewarding people who do lousy jobs higher rewards in this country of late, the Peter Principle I suppose.

I certainly agree with Artemise and others on Rice. The position she is migrating to is one of supreme diplomacy. She must be the voicebox of the USA, as Powell and the others before him. I have seen very little of Rice other than her 9/11 comission testimony which was ridiculous. Publicly she seems apt to repeat the usual tired Bushist party line, which has done us wonders diplomatically. The loss of Powell from the Bush regime shifts the balance of reason even further into chaos, Im sure that Big Oil will have a good four years.