In defense of Condoleeza

By Aziz P. -


How typical of Code Pink. To be honest, I'm pretty disgusted it. For one thing, Code Pink is a typical activist organization that is very big on public displays but offers very little in terms of actual policy (other than "capitulate immediately to our extreme agenda"). For another, Secretary Rice is probably the sole reason that we haven't invaded Iran (at least until the NIE was released). And Rice is maintaining a diplomatic relation with Syria despite recalcitrance from the Boss.

I'm not a big fan of Ms. Rice's performance overall - she arguably lied to the 9/11 commission - but at State she is a voice of relative moderation in the Bush Administration and that should be recognized. Granted, Rice has not been very effective - she's the inspiration for the term, lecondel, after all - but she has had her moments, notably recently in Egypt. Imagine how much energy that the Secretary of State normally would expend on diplomacy, that is wasted merely to swim against the Cheney current in the Bush Administration. Then scale expectation for Condoleeza's performance accordingly. Soft bigotry of low expectations? Yes, in this case, since that's the best we can hope for. It's far better to have Ms Rice around than the alternative - which is basically anyone else Bush might appoint.

Meanwhile, cheering on Code Pink is simply counterproductive. All Code Pink achieves wit their antics is furthering the politics-as-spectacle atmosphere that undermines our national debate, rather than politics-as-process, which is what this nation sorely needs to solve our numerous issues with principled pragmatism. Genuine criticism of the Bush Admininstration's various policy failures is not blunted in any way by refusing to stoop to Code Pink's level.

Comments

Ron Coleman said…
Aziz, you really think Condoleeza Rice is strong enough within the Administration to have stopped them -- this cabal of world-destroying, warmongering savages -- from "invading" Iran if they otherwise had wanted to do it?

There's not a shred of proof that they did or do want to do this, or believed that doing so could be successful, but I'm even more skeptical that if they were who you think they are that they wouldn't steamroll right past the little lady and unleash their genocidal fury.
9:54 AM
Aziz P. said…
Ron, since I havent referred to the Bush Administration as either world-destroying, warmongering, or savages, nor have I alluded to their genocidal fury, I dont see much value in replying to your comment. Maybe you'd like to rephrase.
4:07 PM
Dave said…
It's sort of funny to see the people who support the UN criticizing the concept of "to come and go for meetings that produce few results." Hell, isn't that essentially the basis of American left foreign policy?
6:17 PM
Aziz P. said…
no, but it is the basis of right wing stereotypes of foreign policy.
9:27 PM
Anonymous said…
And what do you think of Obadiah Shoher's arguments against the peace process ( samsonblinded.org/blog/we-need-a-respite-from-peace.htm )?
12:33 PM
Post a Comment

Popular posts from this blog

A fair solution to Jerusalem

By Aziz P. -
I remember reading one of the books by Tom Clancy in which Jack Ryan was credited with coming up with a solution for Middle East peace which was pointedly never actually detailed in the novel. It was just a way to give his character some foreign policy cred, but ended up like that mysterious suitcase in Pulp Fiction. I couldn't help but be reminded of that, though, when I read former New York mayor Ed Koch's innovative solution to resolving the status of Jerusalem . Instead of putting the hot-button issue of Jerusalem last on the agenda, the issue should be addressed first. If the Jerusalem question is solved, everything else should fall into place more easily. I believe there is a way to keep Jerusalem unified. I am talking not only of the old walled city, which is a very small part of the city of Jerusalem, but the whole city, east, west, north and south. [...] My suggestion is to situate the new Palestinian capital in that part of East Jerusalem that is occupied overwhelming...
Read more

Conservatism's shari'a, liberalism's ijtihad

By Aziz P. -
An interesting meta-debate by intellectual conservatives over conservatism's future is playing out. It started with David Frum's Waterloo essay, which led to his political excommunication. Julian Sanchez observed that this represented an epistemic closing of the conservative mind , a thesis that was validated by the retribution visited upon Jim Manzi for daring to suggest that conservatives will achieve more persuasion by using honest, strong arguments instead of weak, emotional ones. All of this has led John Quiggin at Crooked Timber to argue most wisely that as conservatism implodes, liberalism needs to find its own rationale that is more than just "not conservatism". Quiggin has a list of priorities for the liberal movement to address, and closes with the general plea, ...the left has to stand for something more than keeping the existing order afloat with incremental improvements. We need to offer the hope of a better world as an alternative to the angry tribali...
Read more