The Rice Factor

Someone asked me after W. Was re-elected which was worst, Gonzales taking over the Department of Justice or Rice taking over as Secretary of State. Without hesitating I answered Rice taking over as secretary of state. He looked befuddled and disagreed. He thought Gonzales would be much worst then Rice. What I think he failed to realize is that anybody is better than Ashcroft. Ashcroft led one of the largest infringements of our constitutional rights since the Civil War. What is even more disturbing is that none of these rights have been restored yet. The Patriot Act is still infringing on every aspect of our lives. Gonzales only affects the citizens in the United States. Rice has a far greater reach and her actions will have a lasting impact. Anything that Gonzales does can be restored with the next administration. Rice's actions abroad will be remembered for generations. These generations may not forget what she may do either.

Why is Rice so bad? Politically, our image abroad has never been worst. Powell was thought to have brought some independent thought to the Bush administration. He had many leftovers in the state department from the Clinton administration. There was no "cleaning house". Rice is without question a yes woman. She is W's sidekick. There is no independent thought outside of the Bush doctrine. Rice is very likely to clean house and put in yes people below her. Little W's pushing paper and making policies. It is a scary thought. All of these cowboys running around making proclamations, speaking bushisms, doing incredible harm. Cowboys do not make good friends. They are loners, self-determined individuals who believe that there are three ways of doing things, my way, my way, or my way. No ifs ands or buts. What the United States needs is an policy makeover. That will not happen with Rice. It will certainly not happen with Bush still in office.

What really gets my goat is the way the republicans do not want to hear any dissident voices. In the article the Democrats Slam Rice, But Senate Approval Assured "A group of Senate Democrats opposing the nomination of Condoleezza Rice as U.S. secretary of state on Tuesday accused her of deceiving Congress and called her an architect of blunders in the Iraq war.

But Republicans, jumping to Rice's defense, said Democrats were grandstanding since Rice was certain to be confirmed in the post by a full Senate vote on Wednesday." What I don't understand is why shouldn't the Democrats have their voice? What is wrong with them going on record and publicly asking Rice the tough questions that should have been asked before going to war. Before 1000's of soldiers lives were lost. Before billions and billions of dollars were spent abroad instead of at home. There was not a person in the Clinton administration that was not hounded or grilled incessantly when they went to capitol Hill to be confirmed by the republicans in office. The surgeon general had to step down over comments on masturbating, yet in the Bush administration, no heads have rolled at all (unless you said NO to Bush, then you were politely showed were you can speak). Not over 9/11, not over the war in Iraq, not over the greatest budget deficits in our history, not over the election, not over the Patriot Act; no heads rolled. All of these things are seen as positives in Bush world, although each of them has had dire consequences in our lives today and we will be living with these consequences for years to come. No one knows the impact that Bush will have on our republic or economy or world presence. The fact is we are loosing ground quickly. The falling dollar, high debt, and lack of a moral and political compass is eroding the United States power and prestige. Even Blair, Bush's lap dog so the U.K. press have said came out today and said, the "U.S. Needs to Integrate With World." Four more years of Bush and his cronies may do enough damage to bring our great republic to its knees. Lets hope that I am wrong.

As an afterthought, Rice was confirmed today. 13 senators voted against her. There has not been that many senators against a Secretary of state since Henry Clay was appointed in 1825. John Quincy Adams was elected president via the House when Clay was the Speaker of the House. There has always been rumors that a silent deal was brokered, likely so Clay could be the speaker. Ironically, John Quincy Adams was the son of John Adams our 2nd president. Much like Bush I and Bush II both Johns had mediocre presidential at best. John II tried desperately to accomplish something, anything to make up for his father's failed presidency. However, John II's presidency was even worst. Nothing happened for 4 years. It is true, history repeats itself.....