Condoleezza Rice Fails in the Middle East, Again

July 31, 2007 at 10:36 am | Posted in American politics, Bush Administration, condoleezza rice, conservatives, corruption, Foreign Policy, Middle East, Military, Saudi Arabia, secret combinations | 24 Comments

As if that is any big surprise to anyone who has closely followed the utterly inept Ms. Rice as she does a dog and pony show across the Middle East. But yet again, she has failed to produce any result from her current trip to the Middle East. Sure the Saudis are going to gobble up the $20 billion dollars of advanced weaponry; after all we’re just giving it away with nothing to show in return.

Has there been a worse Secretary of State than Condoleezza Rice?


RSS feed for comments on this post. TrackBack URI

  1. Well, at least she’s not on the verge of being impeached, as is Mr. Gonzales over in the DOJ…

  2. I guess if that is any consolation.

  3. How does anyone expect Condi to succeed when she is doing the bidding of Israel and the evil US empire? Anti-US sentiment is at an all-time high over there right now and for a good reason.

  4. A statement issued following a nine-nation meeting promised only “to continue to support Iraq and expand their financial and political support,” and restated a general commitment to blocking would-be terrorists and financing that supports them from entering Iraq.

    How appropriate: Egypt has essentially promised to put magnetic “Support Our Iraq” signs on the backs of their cars.


  5. I guess if that is any consolation.

    I’ll take what I can get. My expectations are pretty low these days.

  6. It’s just a shame, because it appears that even Condoleezza Rice fell victim to the worship of the man rather than the Constitution. Remember Sara Taylor?

    Leahy: And then you said, I took an oath to the President, and I take that oath very seriously. Did you mean, perhaps, you took an oath to the Constitution?

    Taylor: Uh, I, uh, yes, you’re correct, I took an oath to the Constitution. Uh, but, what–

    Leahy: Did you take a second oath to the President?

    Taylor: I did not. I–

    Leahy: So the answer was incorrect.

    Taylor: The answer was incorrect. What I should have said is that, I took an oath, I took that oath seriously. And I believe that taking that oath means that I need to respect, and do respect, my service to the President.

    Leahy: No, the oath says that you take an oath to uphold and protect the Constitution of the United States. That is your paramount duty. I know that the President refers to the government being his government — it’s not. It’s the government of the people of America. Your oath is not to uphold the President, nor is mine to uphold the Senate. My oath, like your oath, is to uphold the Constitution.

  7. Here, click this link, actually read it, and then explain to me why I linked it this morning and why I considered it relevant.

  8. Kurt,

    I did read the link you sent. It was not what Ms. Rice’s mission to the Middle East was about. Did you even read the article I linked to in my original post?

    And just so you know, from now on, I will edit any inflammatory comments out of your comment, so that we can actually discuss the issue at hand.

    So please answer my question. What was Ms. Rice’s mission to the Middle East about?

  9. and in regards to the defense tech article you cite, I recommend reading the comments on the blog. It seems this news of Iran purchasing this or that from the Russians is pure speculation, intended, it seems to justify the military-industrial complex selling more weapons and making more money.

    There is indeed an arms race in the Middle East. The ironic part about it is that we’re propping up these corrupt dictatorships while we speak of spreading democracy. Heh, we most certainly do NOT want democracy in Egypt and Saudi Arabia. Somehow I highly doubt Republicans want Saudis to choose for themselves how to govern their country.

    But as far as the arms race is concerned, it should be noted that Saudi Arabia leads the Middle East in terms of defense expenditures. According to Global Issues Saudi Arabia is ranked 9th in the world in terms of military spending, and the highest in the Middle East, at $21 billion dollars. As a comparison, Iran spends $5 billion. Israel spends $10 billion. The United States spends more money on black projects than those three countries spend on all their military budgets combined! (The United States spends $40 billion—just under 10% of our entire budget—on black projects).

    This should put into perspective the report you cite, Kurt. Just how can Iran afford billions of dollars to buy 30 advanced jets when their overall budget is a mere $5 billion? Secondly, why wouldn’t something like this be played up by those pressing for war with Iran?

  10. And you STILL don’t answer my question Kurt. You really are a Republican. What was Ms. Rice’s mission in the Middle East?

  11. Kurt,

    you used a swear word, and as such it went automatically into akismet. Chill dude.

    And I still wait for your answer.

  12. My only use of a “swear word” was in quoting you from a deleted comment from yesterday.

    As stated in previous comments, you will not get the answer you wait for because I will not give you what you want. What you want is for people to agree with you, and that is all.

  13. I don’t want you to agree with me. I want you to answer the question. What was Ms. Rice’s mission in the Middle East? It is a fairly simple question.

  14. Dan,

    Holy cow, you didnt delete my last comment! In the shock of that, I will actually respond, and point out the fallacy in your position, and lets see if you will leave that without deleting it.

    She was in the middle east to shore up support for Iraq and against Iran, and she succeeded in doing so. Your test, that there be some formal public policy statement on the behalf of these various friendly Arab governments is absurd in the current political climate. The simple fact that these governments are looking to purchase arms from the US and not from Russia and that Iran is so angry about it , is proof positive that the mission was successful. But, since you rely on some other people’s thoughts and just parrot them, and they have manufactured some impossible and unreachable standard, you pronounce her mission a failure. Such a failure that Iran is laughing at her? No, not even close. So successful that Iran is enraged. Iran is causing a lot of problems in the middle east, Daniel, and in Iraq. That is what the mission was about.

    Now, lets see if you will delete this or not.

  15. I guess first you will have to let it past moderation.

  16. No, that comment is not worthy of deleting. It actually was a good comment, finally. See, it wasn’t that hard to be somewhat respectful, now was it Kurt? Secondly the reason your comment went to moderation is because you had two links. The system is set up to hold in queue any comment with more than one link in it. I only delete comments I feel are not worthy of our debate.

    Now, to your links. The first article states right at the beginning the stated goal of the mission:

    Before arriving in the Middle East to sell her administration’s peace initiative to Arab allies

    “To sell her administration’s peace initiative to Arab allies.”

    Now, what peace initiative is that? Arming countries in an arms race is not a peace initiative. So what peace initiative was Ms. Rice there to sell? Well, let’s read the AP article I quote in my initial piece:

    But at a press conference with her Egyptian host, Rice pointed to no fresh commitments from the Arabs. A statement issued following a nine-nation meeting promised only “to continue to support Iraq and expand their financial and political support,” and restated a general commitment to blocking would-be terrorists and financing that supports them from entering Iraq.

    “The … commitment was always to help a united Iraq to reach that point of full stability, and that we have been trying to do over the last four years,” Egyptian Foreign Minister Ahmed Aboul Gheit said following the joint meeting.

    President Bush’s top diplomatic and military managers have a tough assignment to convince skeptical, mostly Sunni-led Arab nations that they have more to lose if Iraq fails than they stand to gain by waiting until the U.S. leaves or Bush’s term ends.

    The Cabinet secretaries are also trying to solidify what the U.S. sees as a bulwark of generally moderate Arab states against an increasingly ambitious and unpredictable Iran.

    “We have also been calling for the noninterference of any foreign powers into Iraq,” Aboul Gheit said. “That is something we would renew.”

    Unity against Iran is not a hard sell. But Washington has had far less success in rallying Arab help for Iraq that goes much beyond words.

    Arab money and diplomatic support has lagged behind Europe’s, and some of Iraq’s neighbors quietly tolerate, or may secretly support, attacks inside Iraq. Some of the violence targets U.S. forces and some of it Shiite militias and neighborhoods.

    For their part, Arab countries may be worried that escalating opposition in the U.S. to the war in Iraq may signal a declining commitment to security in the region.

    Hours before Rice and Gates embarked on their diplomatic mission, the Bush administration announced Monday a proposed U.S. arms package to Arab nations worth more than $20 billion. The sophisticated weaponry, according to U.S. officials, would strengthen relatively moderate Persian Gulf regimes against extremist regimes and ideologies, chief among them Iran.

    Rice said the arms deal, along with an aid package for Israel and Egypt, was not a trade-off for assistance.

    So let’s see, the arms trade is not tied to the actual mission, which was to sell a peace initiative. And Rice and Gates got no new support for their peace initiative. So let me ask you, Kurt, if the mission that Ms. Rice was in the Middle East for had nothing to do with the arms deal, then why do you bring up the arms deal in a debate on Ms. Rice’s mission to the Middle East? Ms. Rice herself said the arms deal had nothing to do with her mission. Is she a liar?

  17. Give it a rest, Dan. You original premise is she is the worst ever and the whole thing is a complete failure. Dont change the subject. She accomplished what she set out to do, the lack of new public statements notwithstanding, which is nothing but diplomatic doublspeak. The Arabs are on our side against the Persians. Like it or not, Dan. Have a nice weekend listening to Ann Coulter and Rush.

  18. So in other words, when presented with evidence, the best you can do is go away. Sounds good. Ciao.

  19. Dan,

    You have no substantive evidence to support your original accusation, so you have changed the accusations when challenged.

    Dan, what middle eastern government is the the biggest source of instability in the middle east? Which middle eastern government is using Hezbollah as a proxy to attack Israel? Which middle eastern government is using Hamas to disrupt the Palestinian peace process and attack Israel? Answer: the same government Condi irritated by striking arms deals with Arab neighbors and shoring up support against said government on her allegedly failed mission. Condi succeeded on her mission, whether you like it or not. You can change your criteria and accusations when pressed, but the ones up top there that you started the post out with are demonstrably wrong.

  20. Actually the government that is the biggest source of instability in the Middle East is the one that invaded and destroyed Iraq. That would be America. It is the government that provides funding and weaponry to both Sunnis and Shi’ites, to both Israelis and Saudis. It is the government that provided weaponry and money to both the Iranians and the Iraqis in the 1980s. That is the government that is the biggest source of instability in the Middle East. If we’re going to lay blame for instability in the Middle East, let’s point the finger in the right direction.

    As far as Condi Rice’s mission, you still avoid accepting that her mission this time to the Middle East was to try and shore up support for Bush’s actions in Iraq. It was a failure of a mission. As such, Condi Rice is a failure.

  21. Dan,

    And you criticize me for not answering the questions you pose.

    Since you are loathe to answer the questions, I will give it to you: Iran. Yup, the same guys who are shoving EFPs into Iraq to insurgents can kill our soldiers.

    Guess what, Dan? Condi met with the Arab states to deal with Iran, and she was successful in maintaining the Arab commitment against Iran. The biggest fundamental problem in Iraq right now is Iran, just ask the Saudis whom Condi met with.

    She is only a failure in the sense that she has not met a set of absurdly unrealistic criteria you keep changing.

  22. So her mission was about Iran, even though publicly she stated that her mission was about Iraq. Hmmmm…..

    The biggest fundamental problem in Iraq right now is America, not Iran. Just ask the Saudis who support and aid the Sunni insurgency. Just ask the Saudis who make up half of the foreign fighters in Iraq. We and our allies are our own worst enemy in Iraq. It’s such a shame really. Quite tragic. Shakespeare would have a field day with this story.

  23. Shakespeare would no doubt come to your blog for source material.

  24. word

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in: Logo

You are commenting using your account. Log Out /  Change )

Google photo

You are commenting using your Google account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )

Connecting to %s

Blog at
Entries and comments feeds.

%d bloggers like this: