Was I the only one who Cheshire smiled upon hearing that Rumsfeld didn't return Condi's phone calls (from Woodward's latest hash, State of
Resolve Denial. I take Woodward with a grain of salt ............... what took Woodward so long to disclose his role in Plamegate anyway? Fuggaboudit. Watergate? Don't even go there.)
Anyway, I can't imagine Rumsfeld being able to carry so much as a polite conversation with the duped appeaser. What I admire most in Rumsfeld is all that those that wish him gone (aka the left) is missing - clarity, resolve, integrity, reason, and the will to triumph over the enemy.
Condi is the opposite of Rumsfeld. Appease, appease, appease. The Europeans (according to my best well placed French source) said the following about her "Condi? Does she know that the French were lying about her every step of the way? And they hate her? And they trash her every chance they get? They are just one step behind the Pals in mocking her."
This best examines the question of appeasement and what approach America will/should/ought to take to a nuclear armed Islamic entity.From Robert Tracinski at TIA Daily;
The big question of the coming year is: will President Bussh attack Iran—or will he acquiesce in its development of a nuclear weapon? All of the signals I have seen coming from sources inside the administration indicate that the president is well aware of the Iranian danger, and that Bush sees preventing a nuclear Iran as an important part of his legacy.
But every action the administration takes sends a different message: that the US has all the time in the world to deal with the Iranian threat.
That is the contradiction that jumps out at the Wall Street Journal's Bret Stephens from an interview with Condoleezza Rice: a clear grasp of the Iranian threat, along with a detached, almost historical perspective that conveys no sense of urgency in dealing with Iran. It is a contradiction so strong that Michael Ledeen calls it "cognitive dissonance."
"Secretary of Turbulence," Bret Stephens, Wall Street Journal, September 30
She observes that her stint in the administration of George H.W. Bush took place at the end of one "great historic transformation," and that her current stint takes place at the beginning of another. Her goal for the next two years is to put "some fundamentals in place": "I don't think that this is a battle, if you will, or a struggle that's going to be won on George W. Bush's watch," she says of the war on terror. Maybe this accounts for her sang-froid—at times seeming to border on emotional detachment—in the face of all the reversals in Baghdad, Beirut, Cairo and Ramallah: she chooses to read the present as if it were already the past….
[I]mplicit in much of what Ms. Rice says is the idea that the US has the luxury of time.
And of course there is Iran…. During another point in the conversation, she observes that the Soviet Union tested an atomic bomb five years before the West thought they would have one. This raises the question of whether the West can afford to take its time with Iran. "Well, the problem is of course that you never know what you don't know," she says.
But that sits somewhat incongruously with her broader approach to the Iranian challenge. "The international system will agree on a level of pressure. I think it will evolve over time." She opposes measures such as barring Iranians from international sports events or a gasoline embargo (to which Iran is particularly vulnerable, since it imports 40% of its refined gas), because of their "bad effect on the Iranian people." Instead, she stresses the benefits of a consensual, UN-centered approach, says the Europeans have been "very strong on this," and adds that she's had "very good discussions" with the Chinese and the Russians about what a sanctions resolution would look like if the Iranians don't suspend enrichment. She thinks even a comparatively weak resolution would have "collateral effects on the willingness of private companies, private banks, to do business with Iran." She hopes it will have an effect on Iranian officials who "do not want to endure the kind of isolation that they're headed toward." Do these people even exist? "I do not believe we're going to find Iranian moderates," she says. "The question is, are we going to find Iranian reasonables?"