Comments

Some analysts say: Condi gets a C- overall. Albright was a D & Powell not much better since he didn't like to travel & didn't have respect @ State from front line staffers.

And Hillary - how shall sheeeeeeeeeeee do? Deals - we need deals that promote US/free world interests with radicals & Russians & Chinese alike! :>]

Posted by Aiko at December 10, 2008 1:09 PM

Point taken, really. However, this statement looks forward from 9/11 and doesn't take into account the responsibility of those with authority to do something with the overwhelming amount of information that had at their disposal. So, to give more context to her statement, one needs to also complete the following sentence:

"If you were in a position of responsibility on August 11, then every day since has been...."

Posted by Tom Ehrenfeld at December 10, 2008 2:01 PM

I wholeheartedly disagree! September 12th was an opportunity to unite the world to fight against terrorism and radicalism and they BLEW it.

Posted by Andrew Hayden at December 10, 2008 2:24 PM

As Victor Frankel wrote, "Between stimulus and response there is a space. In that space is our power to choose our response. In our response lies our growth and our freedom."

Posted by Tom Asacker at December 10, 2008 3:05 PM

I would agree with Andrew, though I think Dr. Rice is a brilliant woman (and a fine classical pianist.) History will also have a say.

Posted by Judith Ellis at December 10, 2008 3:12 PM

Seems naive to think that the world will unite against terrorism & radicalism per anyone's leadership. Each country has their own issues with terrorist Islam, as shown in yesterday's London Times about Islamic teachers beating their children students in the UK.

Imagine little innocent Angel kids getting that perversion along with how "immoral the West is" time and time again in the UK; and Condi or Andy or anyone is going to resolve that and similar widespread "teachings"?

http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/comment/faith/article5315021.ece

Posted by Aiko at December 10, 2008 4:50 PM

"It doesn't matter where you came from, it matters where you’re going."

In the end, it is this idea that's going to break terrorism - that everyone stands a chance to be what she or he wants to be. This is the message that made the United States what it is, and the international coalition against terror deserves to be built around a message of hope like this.

One question - 99% of the roots of terror are in Saudi funded Islamic schools where they teach a very narrow interpretation of Islam. Why not use "other means" to take out the funding channels that sustain these schools?

Jay, from Bangalore

Posted by Jayakumar Hariharan at December 11, 2008 12:15 AM

Clearly such an appalling event will overshadow most other things but I think this really touches on one of our old friends: legacy. If President Bush had a clear vision and set out, with tenacity and determination, from Day 1, to implement this legacy then September 12th wouldn't have lasted 7 years.

Posted by Mark JF at December 11, 2008 4:32 AM

Yes Tom,
She has got many damn good points other wise she just can't work with "Giant Wild Bush". She is trying to become "Basmathi Rice"(the most expensive rice to eat) from ordinary raw rice.

J.K

Posted by J.Kannan at December 11, 2008 7:18 AM

Completely unfair statement, JK. Dr. Rice is, in many regards, better than Basmathi Rice. I got some rice the other day in a small Arabic specialty shop that topped Basmathi Rice. (Sorry not to know the name of the rice; it came loose in big barrels.) Dr. Rice in many respects is this rice. She's a brilliant public servant, though some of the policies of the adminstration may have not always been the best. The Secretary of State acts at the behest of the President.

Posted by Judith Ellis at December 11, 2008 7:47 AM

The future will decide.

Posted by Patrick at December 11, 2008 8:35 AM

Its a general rule and policy for a secretary to work at the behest of the President and in this case I can only say the Secretary works at the behaviour of the President and not at his behest, and even if one has to act at the behest, that behest should be acceptable and lawful.

And if you do not remember the name of the rice it has got to be "Basmathi" only

Regards to you.

J.K

J.K

Posted by J.Kannan at December 11, 2008 8:52 AM

The final judgement of the Bush administration can't be written for many years but many have felt the ability or need judge now - and I find this more than a little troubling by the willingness of these critics to judge so quickly. We have no way of know what would have happened had Bush not taken the road he did. There is a non-zero probability that things today would be much worse (as there is a non-zero probability that the would be better). Bush would have been wiser to have had Condi Rice on stage more - explaining the dilemma and the risks and the challenges as well as she did last Sunday.

Finally, I will be very interested to see how quickly our new President moves to change the rules of interrogation - and the holding of hostiles. How quickly will he close down Gitmo - and get our troops home - not just from Iraq and Afghanistan - but from around the world. I believe we have the best military in the world - but that it can be significantly reduced in size - while increasing it's ability to strike quickly against our enemies by concentrating them in the US - let the Germans and Koreans and the Japanese fend for themselves.

Posted by Bruce Humbert at December 11, 2008 9:26 AM

I agree with much of what Bruce Humbert has said. I also relate to the spirit of his comment. History will indeed have its say and perhaps tell a different story. It is, however, also a matter of how we do what we do when we do it. (What-When-How.) When may indeed be the most essential component of this equation. (Of course, we were told that the need for immediate action was necessary and lead to believe that global diplomatic efforts had been exhausted and resolutions disregarded.) Some may also say that there is a missing component: why--as in why did we really go to war with Iraq? (No need to rehash this.) Regarding reducing our military presence around the world, we should probably do this. Why are we even still in these countries?

Posted by Judith Ellis at December 11, 2008 10:10 AM

Thanks Judith - and I think wnat Dr. Rice was talking about Sunday - and on other occasions was how to do what is best for one's country on each of your three dimensions - and there is a fourth where - very important - and a fifth why in the classic model of this sort of thing. These decisions are always much easier looking backward - and as Dr. Rice knows from experience much more difficult when we lack perfect information - 9/11 made us much more risk averse as a nation - for a while - post 9/11 it gets easier and easier to question the choices. My point on what Obama will do is based on a guess that once he sits through a few of those intelligence briefings thing like interogation - gitmo - Irag - will become more complex.

Posted by Bruce Humbert at December 11, 2008 3:06 PM

Bruce - Thank you. I appreciate your comments.

Posted by Judith Ellis at December 11, 2008 4:19 PM

Bruce, Judith - I felt like I was in an alternate universe reading your comments on home-basing US troops so as to be able to "strike quickly against our enemies". That mentality would work well if, say, Illinois invaded Indiana. But the vast distances between the American homeland and likely hot spots around the globe, and the incredible speed of hardware and software (ours and theirs), make home-basing troops on American soil a nirvana-like dream. Any idea how long it takes to forward-deploy a fighter wing or combat division? Bottom line is, if we're not nearby, an enemy can achieve a fait accompli and we'd have to fight our way in to set things right...as opposed to our overseas presence deterring enemy actions or, if necessary, being brought to bear.

Posted by Chuck at December 11, 2008 4:32 PM

Thanks, Chuck. You make a good point. I have no understanding at all what it will take to deploy an American Airline commercial jet, let alone a military fighter jet. But I am all for reviewing policies of all kind even when they appear to be best and have worked for many years.

Posted by Judith Ellis at December 11, 2008 4:47 PM