AI-Jane Political, And Economic Forums

Full Version: Republicans criticize Rice
You're currently viewing a stripped down version of our content. View the full version with proper formatting.
Pages: 1 2 3 4
AP: Republicans criticize Rice over Iraq, Iran, Hamas

Quote:WASHINGTON (AP) -- Republican senators criticized the Bush administration Wednesday over its policies in Iraq, Iran and the Palestinian territories, as Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice's first testimony on Capitol Hill in months exposed her to a tough grilling from some members of her own party.

"I don't see, Madame Secretary, how things are getting better. I think they're getting worse in Iraq, they're getting worse in Iran," Sen. Chuck Hagel, R-Neb., told Rice as she appeared before the Senate Foreign Relations Committee.

Rice also had a tense exchange with moderate Republican Sen. Lincoln Chafee, R-R.I., over the pace of progress toward Israeli-Palestinian peace and the implications of the Hamas victory in Palestinian legislative elections last month.

"We will continue to insist that the leaders of Hamas must recognize Israel, disarm, reject terrorism and work for lasting peace," Rice said.

Though the moderate Chafee and Hagel, a frequent GOP maverick, are less conservative than many of their Republican colleagues, their criticism underscored a widespread frustration in Congress with the difficult problems the United States is facing across the Middle East.

...............................

This is probably the first time something good is coming out of Chafee...

Of course, as I have previously noted, Rice' policy in Central Asia and Russia is just as ill-conceived.
mv Wrote:Of course, as I have previously noted, Rice' policy in Central Asia and Russia is just as ill-conceived.

That, of course, is your opinion, and we all know what opinons are akin to, right?

Let's see here: Hagel; Chaffee? Boy, you are in Great Intellectual company here. Of course, as an Independent, I can more easily criticize these Stupid Republicans than loyal Repubs. And as for McCain, I will not even lower myself to compare this Turkey to anyone.

Yes Sir! Great company. As a comparison, I will gladly stick with Rice any day. Wink1
John L Wrote:Let's see here: Hagel; Chaffee?

Well, if you read the article to the end, you will find three more senators... probably republicans, as the article's title promises.
These other three are Biden, Boxer and Kerry. S7

Still, jokes aside, what is coming from Hagel and Chafee is quite valid.
I did read further down, and noted the others. Somehow, I thought them to be certified Jackasses. Perhaps I am wrong here. This is another reason not to take the article too seriously.

Somehow, I suspect there to be another reason for your ire with Rice. Since I am not at liberty to say, upon pain of something or other, I will let things go at that. Wink1
What exactly are their criticisms of Rice?
Anonymous24 Wrote:What exactly are their criticisms of Rice?

See the article, it is all there.

----------------------------

Haaretz gives a different title to basically the same story:

U.S. lawmakers: Bush's Mideast policy led to rise of Hamas
Yeah, remember how the people who said that a country needs an established middle-class, free press, and physical security to become a successful democracy, were branded as 'naysayers'?

:roll:
Anonymous24 Wrote:Yeah, remember how the people who said that a country needs an established middle-class, free press, and physical security to become a successful democracy, were branded as 'naysayers'?

:roll:
Admit I haven' read the article, but notice which country DIDN'T participate in the recent and ongoing loonitic violence over Moohamed's cartoons? With their history, they'll not be as "democratic" as we would like, but there is a CHANCE for some helpful differences.

Let's see..........how far along the path to our present democracy/republic were we after.................two or three years? [Image: g.gif]

Glad we weren't written off by the naysayers at that point. Sortuv simplistic and short-sighted to do that, isn't it?
The big difference is that our democracy was homegrown. It wasn't imposed by outsiders.

Besides that, another big difference is that our security situation was under control. Americans in revolutionary America weren't fighting guerilla battles with each other.

Besides that, we had an educated population and middle-class, who could make wise decisions because they weren't dodging gunfire or struggling to make ends meet.

Besides that, the Americans at the time did not hate each other because of millenium long conflicts.

on and on and on...


History is full of examples of aggresor nations invading other, weaker nations to 'liberate' them and give them democracy. One example is the Japanese during WWII, who believed they had a duty to democratize and industrialize Asia.
Anonymous24 Wrote:The big difference is that our democracy was homegrown. It wasn't imposed by outsiders.

Besides that, another big difference is that our security situation was under control. Americans in revolutionary America weren't fighting guerilla battles with each other.

Besides that, we had an educated population and middle-class, who could make wise decisions because they weren't dodging gunfire or struggling to make ends meet.

Besides that, the Americans at the time did not hate each other because of millenium long conflicts.

on and on and on...


History is full of examples of aggresor nations invading other, weaker nations to 'liberate' them and give them democracy. One example is the Japanese during WWII, who believed they had a duty to democratize and industrialize Asia.
How can someone "impose" democracy in a country where there is restriction of freedom by the present government if the people aren't willing? Do you go in and brainwash them into wanting it? How is that desire any different from the beginning of our country?

We had help from other nations.
Its different because, quite frankly, if there desire for democracy isn't strong enough to the point where they'll fight for it themselves, they're probably not going to be strong enough to fight for one we give to them.

We fought for our democracy, by ourselves(with the help of the French, but we asked for that help), so it makes sense that our democracy was successful - because if we were willing to fight the British, we were willing to fight through the troubles our democracy experienced during its early existence.

The Iraqi people didn't want freedom enough to overthrow Saddam. Yeah, I know, they lived under an environment of extreme terror and depravity - but did you ever think maybe the long decades living under such an environment has traumatized them to the point where they're not going to be able to fight for the democracy we're trying to give them? Besides, people over the ages have lived under similar terror and depravity yet managed to overthrow their respective dictators.

Conservatives are supposed to be the 'realistic' ones and we liberals are the idealistic wusses. Yet conservatives are unable to face this basic truth: if the Iraqi people didn't want freedom enough to overthrow Saddam, they are not going to be able to pull this democracy together.
Wait and see.

It may fail, but They have a chance now to make choices. It probably WON"T, as I said earlier, be in the same manner in which our "experiment" has turned out, but who says how things are supposed to be happen or be instituted?

This is the first time they have had that choice to make. And, I repeat. Iraq wasn't among the loonies burning and looting over the manufactured outrage of the cartoons. I consider that worth a smile or two.

So, you are in favor of just averting your eyes when we are being attacked by an insane person like Hussein who was making threats against us, and not allowing the UN to inspect his arms as he had agreed to do? He did have a hand in the previous attacks upon us, you know. And, if we topple his government, we are supposed to walk away and let the next insane person(s), like one of his sons or some member of AQ, take over to continue the same path?

How would you handle that, Anon? I'm curious. And, please answer my question, without diversion. Please?
How on EARTH can you blame Rice for the fact that Palestinians chose to elect a Neo Nazi President?? That is about the most ignorant accusation I ever heard.

Hagel's charge that Iran is getting worse while complaining to the US sec of state means Hagel believes Iran's polity is the responsibility of the United States government I assume? Does Chuck mean we need a war there? A colony?Is Chuck prepared for his extended family to camp in Iran with M-16s? Who exactly is supposed to make Iran better,who's kids does Chuck have in mind?

As for Iraq,I don't see evidence we are farther from success rather than closer. IN this type war,metrics aren't easily come by,but I have a few

We created X amount of FOBs in Iraq,we have now turned over dozens to them,we have evacuated several provinces and some FOBS in the Sunni triangle are now theirs entirely and have been now for about 3 months,I have not read where they cannot hack it without us. Maybe Chuck has and keeps it secret?

The political game is about as good as reasonably expected.

The IA grows in quality and quantity every day,there is absolutely NO evidence the bad side grows in quantity. To date,we have had 1 POW taken. Our casualty rate is down by 25% since 11-2005.

The demographics of Iraq aren't changing,there are still 80% non Sunni Arabs to 20%,so what did Chuck think was getting worse? Fuel prices? I'll hand Chuck that one. He's become a bitter man like Murtha.

As far as Chaffee goes,I respect Lincoln,but what the he.ll is this blaming Rice for Hamas????
Containment was working against Iraq. The poor state of their military, which we discovered when we invaded them, speaks to that. Saddam did not pose a threat to us or those in the region.

Why else would the Muslims living in countries which surround Iraq oppose our invasion? If Saddam really posed a threat to them, they would have welcomed his oust. As it is, we pose a greater threat to them than Saddam did.

As for Saddam having a hand in 9/11, I don't know what you're talking about. If you're talking about his 'relationship' with al-Qaeda, you should know that every country in the region used to have some kind of relationship with the group. Stratfor would argue that the main reason for the invasion of Iraq was to scare other countries into severing those relationships and position U.S. troops to invade those that didn't; and that Saddam had the least relationship with al-Qaeda in the region. During the Gulf War, Osama bin Laden actually offered Saudi Arabia al-Qaeda guerillas to fight Iraq. Saudi Arabia's relationship far surpassed that of Saddam - in fact, they were the primary funders of the team that executed 9/11, and without them the operation wouldn't have been possible. If we really invaded Iraq because Saddam had a hand in 9/11, we would have invaded Saudi Arabia as well.

You ask how I would have handled Saddam. I would have handled him by maintaining sanctions on items would could be used in the construction of WMDs, but opening the sanctions to allow all other goods. Nothing would have weakened Saddam's regime more than contact with the outside world, because such contact would have empowered the Iraqi people, just as it is empowering the people of Iran.
It's Rice's Fault, It's Rice's Fault, It's Rice's Fault.

Quick, discredit her before she changes her mind and decides that she really wants to take the step higher in 2008. and anyone with a Russia policy like her's is criminal. Why would anyone in her right mind want to push Democratic values around the world, when she can play the politician within the politician, within the politician, just like her Russian counterparts.

Doesn't that make perfect sense. Of course you have to be severly jaded, and look at live from a Machavelian Lense. But isn't that the way the diplomatic world is supposed to work? Shock
Palladin: They are blaming Rice because they think the Palestinians should have never gotten the chance to elect their own leaders in the first place. No one will say it aloud, but that is the implication - that we should have dealt with Palestinian leaders we preferred, even if the Palestinians didn't prefer, until the peace process moved along.

If you ask me that doesn't make much sense, though. How can a leader be effective if he doesn't have the support of the people themselves?
Anonymous24 Wrote:Palladin: They are blaming Rice because they think the Palestinians should have never gotten the chance to elect their own leaders in the first place. No one will say it aloud, but that is the implication - that we should have dealt with Palestinian leaders we preferred, even if the Palestinians didn't prefer, until the peace process moved along.

If you ask me that doesn't make much sense, though. How can a leader be effective if he doesn't have the support of the people themselves?
Ask Abraham Lincoln and Harry Truman. Might add Eisenhower....not sure about that one.
John L Wrote:It's Rice's Fault, It's Rice's Fault, It's Rice's Fault.

Quick, discredit her before she changes her mind and decides that she really wants to take the step higher in 2008. and anyone with a Russia policy like her's is criminal.

Cool off a bit, please, before replying.

Nobody but Rice discredits Rice.

Russian policy is only one of several major errors and I have previously said that I cannot judge which one is the worst one. She screwed up elsewhere too.

Now, Russian Policy is indeed a major disaster. She made Putin *much stronger* and *much more active* than ever before. She is a godsend for Putin, and given that Russia is very far from being a free state she is creating a major nuisance for now and a major opponent for the future. Putin's current interference with Syria, Iran, and --- finally -- Hamas is the direct result of her policy.
Lincoln had the support of the people. Harry Truman didn't at times, but he also found his hands tied on Korea. So the people not supporting him hurt his effectiveness. As for Einsenhower, I always thought he was popular for most of his term.

mv: How has Rice helped Russia? She's an expert on Russia...
Anonymous24 Wrote:mv: How has Rice helped Russia? She's an expert on Russia...

I'm not sure she helped Russia....but she surely helped Putin's gov.

It is really all very simple: you never play hardball with another major state unless your hand is strong enough and you are willing to go far enough. She started pressuring Russia with a very weak hand and the instant disaster in Central Asia shows it -- the US had no way to counterplay there. The situation in Ukraine is tilting Putin's way too, but slower.

What she achieved so far is
* NO geopolitical advantages for the US
* Loss of the positions (and mil bases) in Central Asia
* Putin attempting counterplay in other areas (Mid-East but not only) that weakens the US positions in these areas too.
* Considerably stronger Putin's positions inside the country and weakening of the pro-West forces.

An expert on Chess is not always a good player...
Pages: 1 2 3 4