Monday, April 05, 2004

Fuel for the fire?
Granted, its the NYT, but, they have a rather negative portrait of Condi Rice in today's issue, pointing out the rock and hard place she's between as she attempts to defend the Administration's and her focus prior to 11 September 2001. They point out:

Indeed, Ms. Rice's biggest vulnerability may have been that when she came to Washington in 2001, she was determined to quickly tackle three tasks that had little to do with terrorism: refocusing the nation's diplomacy on big-power politics, chiefly Russia and China; fulfilling Mr. Bush's pledge of a missile-defense system; and steamlining the security council, getting it out of what she called "operational matters."

Those people that know me are well aware that I couldn't stand Condi Rice from the very beginning, long before El Presidente managed to steal the White House. She has long been a proponent of American unilateralism and is another one of the neocon hawks that I have found irresponsible and dangerous. I also believe she will say anything to help her friend, El Presidente.
Also enlightening is this:
Ms. Rice openly concedes that her world view, and her priorities, have greatly changed since Sept. 11. The N.S.C. is now larger and more operational than ever, particularly since Ms. Rice, unhappy with the way the Defense and State Departments were running occupied Iraq, pulled the issue back into the White House under a new organization that reports directly to her.

Now...correct me if I'm wrong, but doesn't that strike people as a bit arrogant? Particularly for someone who has little or no experience (prior to 11 September) dealing with Middle East problems?
I think this is a make or break week for the Administration and the so-called 'War on Terror.' Rice's appearance could help them in many ways, and can just as easily be like pouring gassoline on a fire. I suppose we'll find out Thursday...


Post a Comment

<< Home