Markdown Viewer

Secretary of State Rice, the president's right hand on all foreign policy issues, has resolutely blocked pressure from Rumsfeld and Cheney to grant key appointments, especially in the Bureau of Near East Affairs and Middle East diplomatic posts, to neo-conservatives.

She chose David Welch, a solid, widely respected professional Foreign Service Officer with immense experience in the Arab world as assistant secretary for Near East affairs. And State insiders say she and Welch are considering Richard Jones, another seasoned Middle East veteran and professional diplomat, who is Rice's current special advisor and coordinator on Iraq, for the crucial slot of ambassador to Israel.

...[snip]The degree to which Rice, backed by the president and the White House, has shifted direction on the Middle East is most of all seen on Iran. Last week, "The Hill" newspaper on Capitol Hill published an important article noting that strong pro-Israel activists in both Houses of Congress led by Republican Sen. John McCain of Arizona in the Senate and Republican Rep. Ileana Ros-Lehtinen of Florida for the Democrats were pushing for far tougher Congressional legislation against Iran.

This move was consistent with the theme of the annual policy conference of the American-Israel Public Affairs Committee, or AIPAC, last month. Around one third of the Senate and half the House of Representatives attended the conference's dinner in what has long been its annual ritual flexing of political muscle in Washington. AIPAC chose as its key speakers, former assistant Secretary of Defense Richard Perle, Wolfowitz's close friend and ally, and Michael Ledeen of the American Enterprise Institute, who have both campaigned tirelessly for aggressive U.S. action against Iran.

AIPAC's direct political clout on Capitol Hill remains as strong as ever. But what was striking, was that it needed its supporters in both Houses of Congress to push for Iran legislation and could no longer count on the clout of sympathetic neo-cons in the administration to push the policies through in the executive branch.

Also, as The Hill reported, Rep. Henry Hyde of Illinois, head of the House International Relations Committee, and Sen. Richard Lugar of Indiana, chairman of the Senate Foreign Relations Committee, were both determined to keep any new proposed legislation to punish Iran bottled up in their committees. The go ahead for both of them to do that has been coming from the White House and from Secretary Rice.

The strategic imperative leading the president and his secretary of state to move with caution over Iran flows directly from the continuing violence in neighboring Iraq. With nearly 140,000 U.S. troops still bogged down there and no improvement remotely in sight, the last thing the administration needs is to risk a conflict with neighboring Iran, especially that could dangerously alienate the 60 percent of Iraqis who, like the Iranians, are Shiite Muslim in their religious faith. Iraq in that case could rapidly become ungovernable even if half a million U.S. troops were poured into it.

None of these developments entirely removes the danger of a possible clash between Washington and Tehran. But the current tone in U.S. policy has certainly been striking a more cautious note, and is reducing tensions, at least for the moment.

I wonder what will happen when Iran makes its first nuclear weapons test.

I am now waiting to hear the first reports of Iran's and North Korea's testing. Either could make a test here in the very short future, though it appears to me that North Korea is closer to taking that step.

I will take neo-cons over seasoned diplomats anyday. True, the neo-cons are trigger-happy, but seasoned diplomats are dictator-happy. Their goal is to appease dictators. Why can't we have people in the State Dept who will represent the shareholders, ie taxpayers?

Our 140,000 troops are not bogged down in Iraq, they are on high alert for IED's, and still taking casualties from them, but they are not bogged down. You should go to work for Dan Rather, he needs saps like you.

So... are they giving Bush or Condi credit for not giving appointments to the dreaded neo-cons? umm wait... I thought Dubya was a neo-con? now im confused... :D

when you are an American socialist -- er, liberal - you have to take your small pleasures where you can find them. Like with 5th column reports written by socialist -- er, liberal reporters.

I just thought it was strange, how they have to say Condi is a
lap dog of Bush, like they say Bush is a lap dog of Cheney, but this article says Bush is going AGAINST Cheney... so who is ACTUALLY RUNNING THINGS? hmmm I'm totally confused....

Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice has frozen the neo-conservatives out of the power positions in the State Department. And the administration is standing firm against pressure from congress to turn up the heat on Iran, behind which many observers see the hand of the Israeli lobby. -MARTIN SIEFF, UPI Senior News Analyst

Sieff doesn't quite get it. Turning up the heat on Iran is exactly what needs to happen. I'm offended by the implication that only the "Israel lobby" could desire that.

The State Department has been deeply, institutionally opposed to imposing pressure on the world's evil regimes. Secretary Rice is working hard to reorient State - turning a big ol' ship around.

I've met Richard Jones. He's no dictator happy appeaser.
I don't know that he's a neo-con but I think he's great choice.

Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.

SteamshipTime

xmetalhead

FreeRepublic.com and it's 101st Regiment of Laptop Bombardiers are a disgrace to cyberspace. Nothing but paranoid cowards who live on propaganda.

MadScienceType

[QUOTE=xmetalhead]FreeRepublic.com and it's 101st Regiment of Laptop Bombardiers.[/QUOTE]

I'd call them the 101st Chairborne Division, bravely logging on to cyber-battlefields with no protection from enemy flames other than their pit-stained "Let's Role!" T-shirts.

xmetalhead

I'd call them the 101st Chairborne Division, bravely logging on to cyber-battlefields with no protection from enemy flames other than their pit-stained "Let's Role!" T-shirts.[/QUOTE]

Of course that Division works closely with the [B]3rd Infantry Anti-Appeaser Keyboardists[/B], who valiantly fight the moral evil of "appeasement" by ordering keystrikes from the Chairborne Division to [B]KAHALAD[/B].(Kill All Hajis Alive, Limping and Dead)

I got into a debate with a co-working FOXDROID neocon. I typically do not talk to this guy save topics of sports or wine & food but we got onto the subject of Iraq, since I mentioned about military recruitment shortfalls.

He responded, "We don't need more soldiers, we just need to drop thousands of tons of bombs on them and kill them all."

I replied "Well, in that case your calling for genocide, and if that happens, we owe apologies to the Nazis, Russians, Rouge, Idi Amin, Communist China, and maybe Milosevic and America might go the way of all those places."

Sertorius

He's been listening to Rush. A couple of months ago Field Marshal Limbaugh proposed that the US use the "neutron bomb" (Enhance radiation weapon) in the areas where the resistance is located. The only problem with that is you'd kill sizable number of the civilian population. There are something like 5 million people living near Baghdad.

xmetalhead

Ah, that explains it perfectly. From the soundwaves to the brainwaves, point to point indocrination by Field Marshall Rush and Lieutenant Hannity have their troops finely disciplined and ready for action......hit those computer keyboards boys an' give 'em hell, those appeasers!!

In any case, I wouldn't put past Our Dear Leader and His Supreme Courtiers using a "neutron bomb" in Iraq. They must save face in light of the unexpected Debacle they've instigated.

Okiereddust

[QUOTE=xmetalhead]FreeRepublic.com and it's 101st Regiment of Laptop Bombardiers are a disgrace to cyberspace. Nothing but paranoid cowards who live on propaganda.[/QUOTE]There's an old saw in advertising "No advertiser ever failed because he underestimated the intelligence of his audience". I think that must be Jim Robinson's official motto for political websites as well.

Sertorius

xmetalhead

[QUOTE=Okiereddust]There's an old saw in advertising "No advertiser ever failed because he underestimated the intelligence of his audience". I think that must be Jim Robinson's official motto for political websites as well.[/QUOTE]

Okie, the problem I have anytime I lurk on FR or come across Fox "Patriots" is that somehow they're deeply concerned about their own 3 year old kid getting blown up by Al Qaeda in Flyover, Kansas and Outskirts, North Dakota during school hours, yet cheerlead to the fullest the US policy of killing 3 year old Iraqi kids in their own houses or walking down the street because that's "protecting and defending Ammerikuh".

I'm sure there are those, amongst the guys in that camp of neocon philosophy, who are able bodied and within military age (like some I know), yet the bloody and dangerous job of fighting guerilla warriors in distant lands is the other guys' problem. Those who are anti-war are knee-jerk "appeasers" and are causing "our boys to lose the will to fight".

formerfreeper

[QUOTE=xmetalhead] I'm sure there are those, amongst the guys in that camp of neocon philosophy, who are able bodied and within military age (like some I know), yet the bloody and dangerous job of fighting guerilla warriors in distant lands is the other guys' problem. Those who are anti-war are knee-jerk "appeasers" and are causing "our boys to lose the will to fight".

I get a belly full watching these chest-beating posuers calling for the IRAN war to begin--and soon! I daresay that's an easy tack to take when some other persons son/daughter is going to be coming back in the coffin.

The 'our boys' line is what really gets me going--and is when I ask the if THEIR boy is in the thick of it. They give you a blank stare and call you un-American, a Traitor (something that gets them a couple of wrecked running lights and a busted snotlocker) and appeaser...etc.

They really clam up when I tell them my nephew came back with his left leg missing. I ask them (especially now that a Freak-a-thon is happening) if they might just NOT send Robinson some money--and instead send it to the families of the poor folks coming back in caskets or those missing major body parts. At least THERE it would be of better use.

They have the gall to say then that their money (in going to FR) is "going to good use"---as if helping those they helped get ruined isn't a "good" cause. Their politics aren't just unworkable---they are unreal

Gregz

Let's face it thinking is not one of the lemmings and sociopaths on Free Republic major preoccupations but rather unwaivering patriotism and mindless rhetoric.

I have had a lot of run in's with these morons in the past. Not only do they have no understanding of foreign affairs or practical experience of politics but are seemingly quite incapable of formulating any sensible coherent policies of there own.

Iran is far more fearful of being subjected to EU sanctions or falling fowl of Russia than a US invasion. Iraq is complete a disaster. They are now talking openly about the need to keep US forces in Iraq for another 12 years.

The Bush administration problem is that it belives that it needs to draft troops to make up the US Armies recruitment short fall in order to prosecute any further adventures in the Middle East. Needles to say that such a move would not go down well domestically.

xmetalhead

FF, great post, I agree with you all the way. Let me say that I'm not a pacifist and understand that war is sometimes justifiable and necessary, although conventional wars seem outdated these days. I respect and admire the men (and women) who have fought and/or died in America's battles throughout history, although I have [B]despised[/B] the politicians who've involved American forces in fighting in other nations' conflicts and have learned that the reasons for getting involved in the first place were pretty much....well, LIES.

That doesn't make me "anti-American" but according to the FoxNewsFreepers I am just that. It's pathetic and they are pathetic. I hate the Iraq war because it's hurts America so much more than it's helped our interests as a country. I was against it from before the beginning, like many here on OD, but furthmore, I was against it because [U]I am unwilling to fight in it[/U]. I cannot even try or think about cheerleading the Iraq war or future American wars of agression because I am unwilling to enlist and sign up to fight to defend a pack of lies belched out by chicken-hawk politicians who only serve their own inflated egos or offer the Armed Forces to defend Israel.

Like I say to young people, on the internet or in person, who cheerlead America's war on "Ay-rabs" or "Islamofascists" is: "when are you enlisting?"

Exelsis_Deo

I could care less what Condo Sleeza does. She is a New World Order whore and her mouth vomits her own guts. I am building up my armory and working towards escaping this night mare. I shall be just as I am, a true Christian. Some dog like Condo comes at my door , I will feed her papers into her mouth.

Rice reins in neo-conservatives on Iraq

Okiereddust [OP]

SteamshipTime

xmetalhead

MadScienceType

xmetalhead

Sertorius

xmetalhead

Okiereddust

Sertorius

xmetalhead

formerfreeper

Gregz

xmetalhead

Exelsis_Deo