Feb. 25, 2007: Rice, Levin Hint at Iraq Debate

Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice and Armed Services Committee chairman Sen. Carl M. Levin (D-Mich.) previewed on the Sunday shows the upcoming debate on Capitol Hill over Democratic plans to try to take control of President Bush's war policy.

Rice on "Fox News Sunday"

In a provocative comparison, Rice said on "Fox News Sunday" that adopting a Senate resolution that repeals the 2002 authorization for war in favor of one that restricts the military's role and orders a start to withdrawal, "would be like saying that after Adolf Hitler was overthrown, we needed to change ... the resolution that allowed the United States to ... [create] a stable environment in Europe."

RICE: We don't need to do anything but to allow the commanders on the ground -- General [David] Petraeus, who's gone out there as the new commander -- to pursue the course that he and other commanders have put together. ... We are in a different situation, even, some would say, a different war. But the consolidation of a stable and democratic Iraq after the overthrow of Saddam Hussein is a part of what America owes to the Iraqi people, owes to the region and owes to ourselves so that our own security is there.

Meanwhile, Levin's appearance on NBC's "Meet the Press" made clear that Democrats face formidable challenges in getting the Senate plan passed but will press forward anyway. The efforts come after a nonbinding resolution that criticized the president's plan to "surge" 21,500 combat troops to Iraq passed in the House but failed to come to a vote in the Senate.

LEVIN: [The 2002 resolution] told the president that he had authority to do basically whatever he wanted to in Iraq. ... Things have changed in Iraq. We don't believe that it can be possible to remove all of our troops from Iraq because there's going to be limited purpose that they're going to need to serve. ... So we want to transform, or we want to modify, that earlier resolution to a more limited purpose.

Levin said, under the new resolution, most of the 130,000 to 150,000 troops in Iraq would come out over the next year. "The key issue is, do we want American troops in the middle of a civil war?" he added.

He acknowledged, however, the many challenges Democrats face. In the Senate, they don't have the 60 votes necessary to overcome an all-but-inevitable Republican filibuster. They are also under pressure from some members of the party to cut funding for the war, a strategy being touted by Rep. John P. Murtha (D-Pa.). Levin indicated that Senate Democrats will not seek to use spending authority as a tool in the debate.

On CNN's Late Edition, Mowaffak al- Rubaie, Iraq's national security adviser, was asked how the debate in Washington is affecting the debate in Baghdad.

AL-RUBAIE: What happened in Iraq was a paradigm shift from the old order to a new order, ... And this paradigm shift, this huge departure from the old order to a new set of rules of democracy, federalism, rule of law, human rights, this is new for this part of the world and it needs from us a strategic patience. We cannot fit this strategic patience in the election cycle of Washington, D.C. It is very difficult to fit it.

Iran: Crossed metaphors over nuclear hopes

With locomotive metaphors, Rice and Iranian president Mahmoud Ahmadinejad battled today over the country's nuclear development program. Ahmadinejad told Iranian state radio that Iran "dismantled the [reverse] gear and brakes of the [nuclear] train and threw them away sometime ago," prompting Rice to respond, "They don't need a reverse gear. They need a stop button."

On "Fox News Sunday," she continued: "They need to stop enriching and reprocessing, and then we can sit down and talk about whatever is on Iran's mind."

On Monday, Britain, the United States, France, China, Russia and Germany are meeting in London to consider more sanctions against Iran, which claims its nuclear program is to develop energy sources. International diplomats suspect it is part of a weapons program.

Rice struck a positive chord in her comments, though, saying she is willing to work with Iranians directly if they agree to stop their nuclear program. And she said there was going to be "steadfast" political and financial pressure on the Ahmadinejad government to do so.

RICE: We're leaving open the track of negotiations because the best way to resolve this would be to have Iran come to the table. ... I think you have to look at what is happening in the debate in Iran and there are people who are questioning whether the policies that Iran is pursuing are indeed isolating Iran. People are looking hard at investment in Iran, at the reputational risk, the investment risk.

Politics: The Governator blasts partisanship

California Gov. Arnold Schwarzenegger (R), the Hollywood action hero who became a star in American politics, discussed on CBS's "Face the Nation" how Washington can copy his governing success.

SCHWARZENNEGER: When you have two parties, you have to compromise. It's that simple. It's never our way or the highway. It is working together and finding common ground and finding solutions. The ultimate goal should always be what is best for the state, or what is best for the country, rather than what is best for my party. That is the key thing.

After his ballot proposals were rejected by voters in 2005, Schwarzennegger turned around his political fortunes in 2006 and won reelection with a healthy margin of victory. He credited his success to a willingness to work with the Democratic-controlled state legislature on such issues as climate change and universal health care.

It was noted, as it is always is, that the Austrian-born former bodybuilder cannot run for president. Nevertheless, Schwarzenegger weighed in on national affairs, saying that he supports a timetable to withdraw troops from Iraq and that Congress should decide whether to cut funding for the war or let the president do what he wants. "To micromanage a war is the worst thing," he said. "It's the ingredient for a loss."

2008: Edwards and Brownback

While the 2008 presidential campaign colored most of the talk, former North Carolina senator John Edwards was the only Democratic candidate to appear on the shows. That's good for him, because he's been trying to take away some of the attention from the domineering campaigns of Sens. Hillary Rodham Clinton (D-N.Y.) and Barack Obama (D-Ill.)

On "Face the Nation," Edwards returned to his position on the Iraq. Edwards has frequently said that his vote in 2002 to authorize the war was a mistake -- something Clinton has declined to say.

EDWARDS: I also think it's important for those of us who were responsible for voting on the resolution in 2002 to say whatever the truth is for us about that vote. For those who voted for it, including me, if we believe we were wrong -- and I believe I was -- I think it's important to be honest about that and to say it. But I think that's an individual decision to be made by those who were responsible.

On the Republican side, presidential hopeful Sen. Sam Brownback (Kans.), who appeared on "Late Edition," stands out for being critical of Bush's "surge" strategy.

BROWNBACK: I don't think this is the way to go. I think we have to get to a political solution and that we cannot impose a military solution.

Brownback has also distinguished himself in the GOP field by being a committed social conservative. The Christian-dominated right wing of the Republican Party has been wary of the three leading contenders: McCain, former New York mayor Rudolph W. Giuliani and former Massachusetts governor Mitt Romney. Yet Brownback has not registered strong numbers in opinion surveys.

BROWNBACK: I've been in this kind of race before, where my poll numbers are lower than some of the other candidates', but my positions are consistent with where the base of the party is. I'm an economic conservative. I'm for pro-growth and an alternative flat tax and personal Social Security accounts, restraining federal spending.

Harsh words for Carter

On ABC's "This Week," former president Jimmy Carter said the nature of the criticism he received in response to his recent book "Palestine Peace Not Apartheid" was a first for him.

CARTER: I've never before been called a liar or ... anti-Semite or a plagiarist or a thief or a coward. These personal epithets against me have been a surprise.

Apropos of tonight's Academy Awards, Carter also made clear who he is encouraging to run for president:

CARTER: My favorite Democrat, for a number of years now, has been Al Gore. ... His burning issue now is global warming and preventing it. He can do infinitely more to accomplish that goal, as the incumbent in the White House, than he can making even movies that get Oscars. ... I've put so much pressure on Al to run that he's almost gotten aggravated with me.

Professor Rice speaks

Rice, a Soviet Union scholar, took a moment to show she's a policy wonk at heart. In the wake of Vladimir Putin's recent tough speech criticizing the United States for having "overstepped" internationally and one of his generals threatenting Poland and the Czech Republic if U.S. missile defenses are installed there, "Fox News Sunday" host Chris Wallace asked whether a new Cold War was beginning.

RICE: Russia is not the Soviet Union, and we have to recognize that. It's a different place, and we have a different relationship. ... The expansion of NATO and the expansion of the European Union is, in fact, one of the great stories of the post-Cold War time. It is one that has helped to consolidate a democratic and secure Europe. ... And Russia has nothing to fear by having democracies on its borders ... When it comes to missile defense, no one would suggest ... that somehow 10 interceptors deployed in Poland are going to threaten the thousands of warheads in the Russian deterrent. ... I used to do this for a living, arms control -- you know, how many warheads could dance on the head of an SS-18. It's a ludicrous claim.

By Zachary Goldfarb |  February 25, 2007; 3:18 PM ET
Previous: Feb. 25 Preview: Setting the Stage for Iraq Debate | Next: March 4th Preview: Democrats Target Iraq Funding


Please email us to report offensive comments.

Enough talk. Show some cahones. Cut the war funding and bring the troops home. Americans can talk about who is right abd wrong afterwards and nothing will have changed except that ourtroops will not be dying for an inept administrations failures.

Posted by: Edward | February 25, 2007 4:11 PM

Clueless smiling Rice needs to know WWII was a real war with a real commander in chief and competent secretary of state.

Posted by: Leonardo | February 25, 2007 4:14 PM

The media, which is the propaganda arm of the corporate masters, will never allow the occupation of Iraq or the perpetual "war on terror" to end. They, and the rest of the cabal that, cheerled the attacks and have too much too gain financially and politically to permit it to end!

Posted by: Michael | February 25, 2007 4:19 PM

Not only do we want to stop all Congressional funding for the glorious (sic) invasion in Iraq-nam, but we're beginning to question support for the troops. When is it not appropriate to support the damn troops?

And why should we belive Ms. Rice, the lawyer lobbyist for Exxon after the Exxon Valdez tanker crashed in Alaska?

Posted by: GUY FOX | February 25, 2007 4:25 PM

Consider this...the Iraq adventure will eventually have added 1 Trillion dollars to the national debt, and who knows how much interest. That's more than $3,000 for every U.S. citizen. Do you feel good about what we got for your $3,000? What else could the government do for you with $3,000? In ancient Rome, Tiberius was a boring emperor because he hardly ever sent the Legions out, but Rome's treasury increased 20-fold during his reign. To pay down our national debt we need to deal with real issue, and refrain from swinging at phantoms. We need to invest in our relative economic advantages, not money-squandering machismo.

Posted by: Sunshine | February 25, 2007 4:31 PM

It takes only tiny "cajones" to thump one's chest and demand that Congress cut off funding...perhaps some people ought to think about that before they flap their lips about it, because the hurdles are pretty darned high in order to do that.

Cutting off funding means passing a law to do it...and such a law would only take effect if Bush *signs* it--or if there is enough support in Congress to override Bush's veto. And right now, UNFORTUNATELY, an inadequate number of Republic senators aren't there to pass a non-binding resolution, let alone the 2/3 needed to override a veto. The House passed a resolution, but with no where NEAR enough support to override a veto. So I'd like to know how exactly the loudmouths suggest Congress "cut off funding" under those circumstances? It's nice to rant and rave about it, but reality on the ground at the Hill and at the other end of Pennsylvania Avenue don't exactly make it easy to accomplish unless someone has a magic wand to wave.

Idea! Instead of aiming temper tantrums at the Democratic majorities in Congress for not being able to accomplish by themselves what we ALL want to happen--the fast and safe homecoming of our military men and women from Iraq--maybe the loudmouths should focus on the Republic minorities in Congress and twist their cajones to DO what their constituents are demanding. Failing that, put your energy into replacing those Republic senators and representatives in 2008 with people willing to do what the Nation wants. Let's be constructive instead of unrealistic.

Posted by: Dean | February 25, 2007 4:36 PM

Our government continues to miss the opportunities presented in the Middle East to negotiate; Rice comes off as a horrible Secretary of State because she simply does not engage in any substantive negotiation. I understand she faces serious constraints, due to the fact her boss eshews diplomacy, but that does not change the facts: she has demonstrated no capacity to reach any accords with the major players in the region. Iran poses a challenge, but one not insurmountable, given their interests in seeing a stabilized Iraq. Saudi Arabia has been funneling weapons to the Sunni insurgency, though you certainly do not hear the Bush administration honestly address this reality. The key to any resolution of the Shiite-Sunni conflict in Iraq runs through both Iran and Saudi Arabia. If you could broker a deal with those players, al Qaeda would find themselves isolated and would no longer have a place in Iraq. These stand as the facts: unfortunately, Rice and her diplomatic team have demonstrated neither the commitment or the wherewithal to advance any negotiated settlement.

Posted by: clembo | February 25, 2007 4:40 PM

The "war" has no further justification, and itself was started on a pretext now proved false. The continuing expansion of the war itself endangers America because there is no compelling reason for it. Bush, Cheney, Rumsfel and Rice are like China's gang of 4 (i.e, the sponsors of the cultural revolution) whose ideological assertions and adventures brought great harm to China. On an international stage, the American gang of 4 has done tremendous harm to our image internationally, damaged the essence of our concept of liberty at home, and run a loss of life that exceeds that of 911 itself. The only reaons the war continues is that our Congress has about as much power as the Imperial Senate in Starwars to stop the emperor. The war must be stopped before the Gang of 4 expands it to Iran. There should be impeachment proceedings or criminal trials instituted to bring the four rogues to justice for high crimes against the American people.

Posted by: Paul Nolan | February 25, 2007 5:04 PM

Wasn*t Hitler the invader in WWII? It is not so much how many troops, and how they are deployed, it is the White House mission in Iraq that is in question here. You tell me that the terrorists want to destroy my way of life, and I say *You sure are seeing to that, aren*t you?*

Posted by: Mark Skudlarek, Planet Earth | February 25, 2007 5:13 PM

Saddam and Hitler, where is the outcry in the Jewish world? Well, Iran is waiting? Anyway, it is belittleling Hitler and Hitler was not alone anyway, lots of Drs and Profs etc were involved, a lot of little and big Eichmanns. Comparing Saddam to Hitler is much like comparing Hitler to GWB.

Posted by: Fisch, BN, Germany | February 25, 2007 5:14 PM

I completely agree with the above comments, the gang of 4 should be brought to justice as they have committed crimes against this country and what it stands for.

Posted by: Anonymous | February 25, 2007 5:17 PM

Edward at 4:11 pm meant to say "cojones," of course. i've never doubted that Condi Rice has a large set, figuratively speaking.

Posted by: carlos | February 25, 2007 5:18 PM

Please stop making comparisons between the end of WWII & the ongoing war in Iraq. Rice does this on purpose assuming no one is interested in history. Show me all the stories of 3 years after WWII where it was unsafe for people to go out in large cities in Germany. How can we trust people who make these types of comparisons.

Posted by: Tom | February 25, 2007 5:22 PM

i think it's hilarious that this fool is destroying the future of this country and y'all can't do nothing 'bout it!

y'all got so comfortable bein' overfed and drivin' y'all fat asses everywhere that y'all didn't bother to question who killed your president, hijacked your government, and sold y'all out for money, or why.

guess what? it's too late now! this illegal war has cost "America" its future!

some of us ain't cryin' at all!

Posted by: laughing | February 25, 2007 5:33 PM

our country is in a sad state. we are in a war that wasn't necessary. there were many ways to deal with husean than going to war. now we can't get out of irauq because our administration wants to be able to control 3what goes on in irauq for what i don't know. bush will never leave iraq unless he gets what he wants and that is complete control for him and his rich friends. the only way to leave iraq is by getting rid of bush.

Posted by: j milton | February 25, 2007 5:37 PM

Cynicism has finally set in. I am firmly of the belief that nothing will be done about Iraq until late 2009. And that makes me so angry...

Posted by: farmasea | February 25, 2007 5:39 PM

Democratic Iraq?

1) Iran looks like the winner of the Iraq war
The Islamic Republic's clout in the region, confirmed by the Iraq Study Group, could cost the United States. By Alissa J. Rubin. December 10, 2006

Far from spreading democracy through the region, the Iraq war has strengthened a theocracy in which unelected religious figures make many of the crucial decisions.

2) THE CONFLICT IN IRAQ; Islamic Law Controls the Streets of Basra; Enforcers patrol the city and Shiite militiamen have taken over the police. Residents accused of infractions are beaten or killed. By Louise Roug. Los Angeles Times :Jun 27, 2005.

Physicians have been beaten for treating female patients. Liquor salesmen have been killed. Even barbers have faced threats for giving haircuts judged too short or too fashionable.

Religion rules the streets of this once cosmopolitan city, where women no longer dare go out uncovered.

"We can't sing in public anymore," said Hussin Nimma, a popular singer from the south. "It's ironic. We thought that with the change of the regime, people would be more open to singing, art and poetry."

Unmarked cars cruise the streets, carrying armed, plain-clothed enforcers of Islamic law. Who they are or answer to is unclear, but residents believe they are part of a battle for Basra's soul.

In the spring, Shiite and Sunni Muslim officials were killed in a series of assassinations here, and residents feared their city would fall prey to the kind of sectarian violence ailing the rest of the country.

Instead, conservative Shiite Islamic parties have solidified their grip, fully institutionalizing their power in a city where the Shiite majority had long been persecuted by the Sunni-dominated rule of Saddam Hussein.

3) Can Democracy Stop Terrorism? F. Gregory Gause III From Foreign Affairs, September/October 2005
Summary: The Bush administration contends that the push for democracy in the Muslim world will improve U.S. security. But this premise is faulty: there is no evidence that democracy reduces terrorism. Indeed, a democratic Middle East would probably result in Islamist governments unwilling to cooperate with Washington.

4) Iraq: Bush's Islamic Republic
By Peter W. Galbraith. NYRB Volume 52, Number 13 · August 11, 2005

SCIRI and Dawa want Iraq to be an Islamic state. They propose to make Islam the principal source of law, which most immediately would affect the status of women. For Muslim women, religious law--rather than Iraq's relatively progressive civil code--would govern personal status, including matters relating to marriage, divorce, property, and child custody. A Dawa draft for the Iraqi constitution would limit religious freedom for non-Muslims, and apparently deny such freedom altogether to peoples not "of the book," such as the Yezidis (a significant minority in Kurdistan), Zoroastrians, and Bahais.

This program is not just theoretical. Since Saddam's fall, Shiite religious parties have had de facto control over Iraq's southern cities. There Iranian-style religious police enforce a conservative Islamic code, including dress codes and bans on alcohol and other non-Islamic behavior. In most cases, the religious authorities govern--and legislate--without authority from Baghdad, and certainly without any reference to the freedoms incorporated in Iraq's American-written interim constitution--the Transitional Administrative Law (TAL).

[Keywords: George W. Bush, Dr. Rice, Al Maliki, Bayan Jabr, Moqtada Sadr, Al-Hakim, Al Dawa, Supreme Council of the Islamic Revolution in Iraq, Islamic fundamentalism]

Posted by: Homer | February 25, 2007 5:45 PM

Ms/Dr Rice(University of Denver)could hardly differ from the Bush-Cheney line of reasoning-she must put a Bush face on just about everything which comes from State. I ask, what has Ms. Rice accomplished during her term in the WhiteHouse? They do not have a clue, in fact, few can really speculate what will likely happen when US forces begin to redeploy to the border areas, assume a new mission, that being surgical strikes against terrorist and/or continued training of the Iraq Army (now on its 3rd year). Everyone must face the fact, Iraq is already a divided country-there is no way for national unity government to function with control over Kurds, Sunni and Shia-no way! No matter what the US tries to do, the momentum was started along time ago. So, frankly, Ms. Rice and the rest have absolutely no responsible voice in what might happen in the future. After all, it was the current crew who at best lied, were negligent or manipulated the "facts" reference weapons of mass destruction...and so on! the long term damage to the Middle East political scene will be the Bush-Cheney legacy. The American people need a new voice and fact in the Oval Office-and soon!

Posted by: Randall | February 25, 2007 5:46 PM


Start with the lead up to the war with selected intelligence.Cheney. Contractors and fraudulent spending, Torture of Americans and prisoners. generate headlines and TV coverage!

Start holding hearings on IRAN now!

Posted by: monadnock | February 25, 2007 5:47 PM

If Dr Rice wants Iraq to become a Democratic republic why did she help thrust the reins of power into the bloody hands of Al-Dawa, a well-known terrorist organization with long and extremely close standing ties to Iran?

1) Large Turnout Reported For 1st Iraqi Vote Since '58 The Washington Post, June 21, 1980

In another development today, Al Dawa, a clandestine Iraqi fundamentalist Moslem organization, claimed responsibility for yesterday's grenade attack on the British Embassy here in which three gunmen reportedly were killed.

An Al Dawa spokesman told Agence France-Presse by phone that the attack was a "punitive operation against a center of British and American plotters."

2) Iraq Keeps a Tight Rein on Shiites While Bidding to Win Their Loyalty The Washington Post, November 30, 1982

Membership in Dawa, which means "the call," is punishable by execution. Dawa guerrillas were known for hurling grenades into crowds during religious ceremonies, and attacks claimed by the party were frequent until the middle of 1980.

3) U.S. HAS LIST OF BOMB SUSPECTS, LEBANESE SAYS Detroit Free Press, October 29, 1983

The source said the drivers of the two bomb-laden trucks were blessed before their mission by Sheikh Mohammed Hussein Fadlallah, leader of the Iranian-backed Dawa Party, a Lebanese Shiite Muslim splinter group.


Secretary of State George Shultz said Tuesday that there "quite likely" was a link between the U.S. Embassy bombing in Kuwait and attacks on American facilities in Lebanon. He warned of possible retaliation.


The sources said the investigators matched the prints on the fingers with those on file with Kuwaiti authorities and
tentatively identified the assailant as Raed Mukbil, an Iraqi automobile mechanic who lived in Kuwait and was a member of Hezb Al Dawa, a fundamentalist Iraqi Shiite Moslem group based in Iran.

The Miami Herald, December 19, 1983

Kuwait Sunday announced the arrests of 10 Shiite Moslems with ties to Iran in the terrorist bombings that killed four people and wounded 66 last week at the U.S. Embassy and other targets.


Hussein said fingerprints from the driver who died in the blast at the U.S. Embassy in Kuwait identified him as Raad Akeel al Badran, an Iraqi mechanic who lived in Kuwait and belonged to the Dawa party.

6) 10 Pro-Iranian Shiites Held in Kuwait Bombings, The Washington Post December 19, 1983

Kuwait announced yesterday the arrest of 10 Shiite Moslems with ties to Iran in terrorist bombings that killed four people and wounded 66 last Monday at the U.S. Embassy and other targets.

"All 10 have admitted involvement in the incidents as well as participating in planning the blasts," Abdul Aziz Hussein, minister of state for Cabinet affairs, told reporters after a Cabinet session, United Press International reported.

Hussein said the seven Iraqis and three Lebanese were members of the Al Dawa party, a radical Iraqi Shiite Moslem group with close ties to Iran.

7) Beirut Bombers Seen Front for Iranian-Supported Shiite Faction, The Washington Post, January 4, 1984

The terrorist group that claimed responsibility for the bombing of the U.S. Marine compound and the French military headquarters here may be a front for an exiled Iraqi Shiite opposition party based in Iran, in the view of a number of Arab and western diplomatic sources.

Authorities in Kuwait say their questioning of suspects in the recent bombing there of the U.S. and French embassies indicates a clear link between Islamic Jihad, a shadowy group that says it carried out the Beirut attacks, and Al Dawa Islamiyah, the main source of resistance to the government of Iraqi President Saddam Hussein.

Al Dawa (The Call) has been outlawed in Iraq, where it wants to establish a fundamentalist Islamic state to replace the secular Baath Socialist government of Saddam Hussein, who is a Sunni Moslem.

It draws its strength from the large Shiite population in southern Iraq. Thousands of its most militant members were expelled to Iran in 1980 before the outbreak of the Iranian-Iraqi war and joined Al Dawa there. But it also has a large following in Lebanon among Iraqi exiles and sympathetic Lebanese Shiites.

While Al Dawa operates out of Tehran, it is not clear whether its activities abroad are under direct Iranian control or merely have Iran's tacit acceptance.

8)Baalbek Seen As Staging Area For Terrorism, The Washington Post, January 9, 1984

Al Dawa, according to Arab and western sources, is believed to have had a role in the Oct. 23 suicide bomb attacks on the U.S. Marine and French military compounds in Beirut.

Posted by: Fonzie | February 25, 2007 5:54 PM

Mondadnock is right, unless the Democrats do something soon, Bush will throw the country into any expanded war with Iran to try and go "double or nothing". He knows the end game in Iraq is stalemate at best. So its logical for him to try and change the playing field. Instead of revoking the Iraq war resolution, how about passing one to prohibit military action in Iran? Preempt the decider. Surely all the knuckleheads in the GOP who are holding onto resolutions about supporting the overused troops would support a resolution to forbid extension of the war to Iraq. As for the Dems, maybe even Hillary would vote for it, lol, so she doesnt have to confess error this time!

Posted by: Paul Nolan | February 25, 2007 5:54 PM

Where was the anti-occupation resistance in Germany in 1945, Dr. Rice?

Posted by: underfed | February 25, 2007 6:21 PM

Good God! This woman is unbelievable! First she helps Bush/Cheney lie the country into their criminal war, jumping into colin Powell,s place when he quit in disgust. Then she has the effrontery to compare their war, their naked, unilateral act of aggression with America,s role in leading the alliance that won World War II. Congress passed the Iraq War Resolution - which Bush/Cheney used as their excuse to invade Iraq - ONLY because the senators and reps bought the WMD myth - it did not authorize Q]regime change]Q for any other purpose. But bow that the WMD,s have vanished inot thin air, they, B/C and Rice, have to find another excuse for the disaster they have brought upon both Iraq and this country. So now they,ve changed their story, now they,re telling us Q[Forget about those WMD,s - that was just kind of a mistake. Y,see, all we really wanted to do was overthrow Saddam.]Q And that, in fact, is the truth. That and getting hold of his oil. They just didn,t bother telling us so at the time. Because, of course, they knew that they,d never get Congress to pass their War Resolution if htey told the truth....pg...
What impudent, shameless liars they all are!

Posted by: Ralph Chernoff | February 25, 2007 6:31 PM

I'm able to be somewhat philosophical abut most of the overheated rhetoric surrounding the conflict in Iraq, which I suspect was undertaken with largely honorable intentions, but badly misguided strategy.

But surely Secretary Rice is aware that throwing down the "Hitler card" is almost never a wise move!?

Posted by: Bob S. | February 25, 2007 6:37 PM

What I can't get is why is everybody so surprised that Iraq turned into what it now is? I coulda' told u b4 the "experts" went w/their plans and there ain't any Dr in front of my name. There is only one direction and that is to get the hell out of there soon as possible. The only possible police for the Islamic world is caliphate. Only then would we have a possible partner in controlling haphazard and freelance "terrorism" and internecine fighting. Democracy is for somebody else.

Posted by: seems2me | February 25, 2007 7:01 PM

Despite believing that the Iraq war was a stupid, tragic idea in the first place, I still feel pangs of guilt about leaving the place in the shambles it is now. What kills me is that Republicans get away with rhetoric that ignores half of the Iraq Study Group/Democratic plan, i.e. the diplomatic part, and instead pretends that all we want to do is pull troops out. Why doesn't the media call them on this EVERY SINGLE TIME they try it? The other thing is, as infuriating as their rhetoric is, the Bush administration's incompetence and wrongheadedness make it impossible to believe they could be trusted with ANY course of action, whether it's a surge, a removal of combat troops combined with diplomacy, or serving every Iraqi an egg salad sandwich. You KNOW those sandwiches would be laced with salmonella, even if it wasn't intentional!

Posted by: jonfromcali | February 25, 2007 7:18 PM

Rice said she did arms control for a living. Now I'm nervous just imagine how many flaws there are in those treaties.

Posted by: Anonymous | February 25, 2007 7:29 PM




Posted by: Anonymous | February 25, 2007 7:34 PM

The Bush adminstration invaded Iraq based on false information. We thought they knew what they were doing. We trusted them without verifying, thinking or asking for alternatives, and we have ignored what could go wrong.

We now know that the adminstration had been selectively feeding the nation only those information that supported their case, but information that turned out to be false, perhaps to their surprise as well.

So, we are looking for a way out of this hole. A question before us is that the adminstration is again asking us to trust them that they know what they are doing, that we should give their latest plan forward a chance, and that it will work.

Would you give any money to such people? whether to invest in stocks or to fix your roof. I won't. Why should the country entrust the lives of our troop to these people. These are gamblers hoping to win when they may not even know who should the soldiers be fighting with. I wish I know how to get us out of this hole, but following these people is not the solution.

Posted by: LBLamb | February 25, 2007 7:41 PM

COMMENT ON 2008: EDWARDS VS. BROWNBACK - I can appreciate John Edwards admitting that he had made a mistake in authorizing the war in 2002, but I would like to hear more details of why he thinks it was wrong and why he thought he was right at the time.

Were not there two votes? One vote to give the President the authority to go to war without Congresses approval and another to authorize the Iraq war itself? Which vote is Edwards talking about?

I think Congress needed to be more careful about giving the President Constitutional authorization to go to war without some restrictions on that power. Is that what Senator Edwards thinks? Does the President actually need that authorization to enact the Army in case of another attempted attack on U.S. Institutions?

When the Senate voted for the authorization of the Iraq war it was based on the exaggerated information the White House had given the Senate. So was it so wrong under those circumstances and why would it be so wrong either way?

The same with Hillary Clinton, what are the detailed reasons of why she thinks she was justified in her votes at the time?

We need to hear these details from the 2008 Candidates in order to understand their judgment as far as decision making goes. It also may help the international community to better respect America underneath all this mess. Where did we go wrong and why did we think we were right at the time?

Posted by: Elizabeth J W | February 25, 2007 7:45 PM

We are forgetting already the real reasons we went to war against Iraq,Karl Rove and Haliburten.We here in Hayseed Iowa believe Bush was too dumb to stand on his own two feet.

Posted by: roland schmidt | February 25, 2007 7:59 PM

Why is this woman still talking?

Posted by: smokinmike | February 25, 2007 8:07 PM

The ever smiling Bushes Secretary needs to admit the historical blunder. They used our blood and resources to hand out Iraq to to Iran. Our glorious media perhaps will notice this truth some time along

Posted by: Paquito | February 25, 2007 8:14 PM

It is dismaying to be a tame client state of tiny Israel. Rice*s playing of the Hitler card is a clearly coded message to her Likud base, not a debating point for American consumption.

Posted by: H5N1 | February 25, 2007 8:14 PM

As noted somewhere above--name one significant thing that Condi Rice, the pitiful little lapdog who adores the Bubble Boy, has accomplished as secretary of state. One thing. I dare you . . . .

Posted by: mikeasr | February 25, 2007 8:14 PM

The last refuge of a scoundrel has to be Hitler comparisons.

Posted by: Bartolo | February 25, 2007 8:19 PM

General Patraeus has entered the fray about 3 years too late. The enemy that was in disarray 3 years ago is no longer disorganized. The Shia are slowly realizing that they must unite with the Sunnis to combat the West. Now is the time for diplomacy not more force. If we had brains instead of brawn in charge of American policy we would realize that the entire Middle East will join against the west in order to remain soverign. The longer the fight goes on the less worried the forces we face become. A calculated retreat at this time will not be looked upon as a defeat but as a wise move to stop the killing. The longer we exert force the less time we will have to gain victory.

Posted by: Jim | February 25, 2007 8:23 PM

Rice says, "...But the consolidation of a stable and democratic Iraq after the overthrow of Saddam Hussein is a part of what America owes to the Iraqi people, owes to the region and owes to ourselves so that our own security is there."

Maybe. But is such a goal achievable by military means? Is it achievable at all by the United States at this time in history? Is it what the people of Iraq want?

More than one "democratic" government in this world rules horribly. Some are embroiled in terrible civil wars where "democratically elected" politicians can do whatever they want, kill whomever they want. A clearer definition is needed here.

Is "democratic" simply another word for "ally of the United States"? If so, are we going to make any country an ally by killing tens of thousands of its civilians and destroying its infrastructure?

The current administration may have a plan, but it is not working. I have great respect for Condoleeza Rice, but I feel she is trapped in a terrible position, and I hope that after 2008, she will have an opportunity to redeem her integrity.

Posted by: M. Trawick | February 25, 2007 8:36 PM

Americans and US are much better off if the White House and the Capitol Hill have enough honest people to not to use dirty politics.

Posted by: v8 | February 25, 2007 8:49 PM

How can you hate so much ? Hatred is an acid that destroys the vessel that contains it. WE DO NOT NEED A PRESIDENT, JIMMIE CARTER PROVED THAT. WE DONT NEED A CONGRESS. THE PRESENT ONE WILL PROVE THAT. Why get upset about Dem or Rep when both hid a pedifile until the election. what a waste of time.

Posted by: Paul Grewell | February 25, 2007 8:49 PM

What happened to the "nuclear option" that the republicans were treatning the Democrats of doing if they filibustered the Supreme Court nominee?
Are the Democrats to pussy to reciprocate? And yes for crying out aloud, INVESTIGATE!!
What is the subpoena power for?

Posted by: the unc | February 25, 2007 8:51 PM

Good Christ -- it's now apparent that Rice is in even FURTHER over her head than I had imagined. I didn't think her reputation could sink any lower -- but then she opened her mouth.

Posted by: sglover | February 25, 2007 9:44 PM

Cant we all see The Hitler bomb, is the desperate act of a desperate (wo)man? As stated earlier, mentioning Hitler is a coded matrixed message for Israel.

Israel and Iran (formerly Persia) are coming to a head... Israelites feel that the end of days are near, so they are concerned with strong, (borderline insane) rhetoric from the Irainian Prez.

Can Israel best Iran? Stay tuned...

Posted by: Movado | February 25, 2007 9:47 PM

M. Trawick -- there's nothing keeping Rice from resigning. Yet she keeps on aiding and abetting this criminal and dangerous administration. She isn't *trapped*. She's an adult, with far more options than most. Her chance for redemption is long past, and when history gives its judgement -- it will be damning -- she will have nobody but her precious self to blame.

Posted by: sglover | February 25, 2007 9:49 PM

"Ahmadinejad told Iranian state radio that Iran "dismantled the [reverse] gear and brakes of the [nuclear] train and threw them away sometime ago," prompting Rice to respond, "They don't need a reverse gear. They need a stop button."

Te question is not if the train will stop or go - it is where is the train going? Power or weapons?

Until we prove to the world that we even know the difference, there will be no way to solve this problem. Of course Korea does show the way.

Posted by: Gary Masters | February 25, 2007 9:50 PM

This woman should be arrested for committing and advocating crimes against humanity.

Posted by: FM | February 25, 2007 9:51 PM

I am really nervous. Dr. Rice is from the south, roots, heritage, et al.

This is the same south that suffered under Katrina. Dr. Rice has shown us in the African American community that her allegiance lies squarely on her crony rewarding boss family.

When securing shoes become more of a concern than that of the safety and security of the U.S., which is part of her title, and core responsibility, What does one expect?

Posted by: Movado | February 25, 2007 10:06 PM

I don't think I've ever come across such a ludicrous statement; that is, the analogy Rice drew between some hypothetical action Congress might have taken calling for the withdrawal of American forces from Europe at the close of WW2 and then equating it with a proposed resolution to restrict the approval Congress gave Bush to conduct the War in Iraq as he saw fit. WW2 was a war that was won; everyone recognized that the continuing American presence was necessary to reconstruct the county. The war in Iraq is a war that never should have been fought and will never come out the way we want it--so is effectively lost, no matter how much blood, sweat, and tears we will pour into it. Only the Iraqis can save Iraq for the future of Iraq and all the Iraqi people. The longer America stays, the worse the problem will become.Face it, there never will be a victorious march through the Arc de Triomph for American troops--an analogy with the close of business in Saigon at the close of the Vietnam war would,I'm afraid, be more appropriate! When lives can be saved, the "stay the course" policy--which this troop build up entails--is sheer folly and morally reprehensible. Only the blind in America will continue to allow themselves to be led by the blind.

Posted by: Harry Colquhoun | February 25, 2007 10:28 PM

There they go again. It's the mushroom cloud talk all over again. This is like watching Rocky 17. This White House is so intellectually bankrupt, they'll do anything, say anything to save face. And, guess what, we probably will buy it, yet again. These last few years, I've lost faith in the American voter. It's as if we don't learn, don't understand, don't see.
The irony, of course is that WE are the reason Iran insists on pursuing nuclear weapons. It is our reckless and somewhat indiscriminate projection of military power into Iraq (and therefore, potentially anywhere) that makes us 1. irresponsible, and 2. dangerous to any regime, particularily one like Iran. Nuclear weapons, therefore, are the only guarantee against the implications of our "Axis of Evil" policy.

Posted by: curtisscalleo | February 25, 2007 10:55 PM

i have said elsewhere, and i will say again, that i cannot believe that condi rice is associated with both stanford university and her "husb," one of the least thoughtful / least mentally capable men i have ever heard of, let alone as a head of state. stanford should be convening its trustees as we speak to put some distance between themselves and condi, lest their reputation as one of the top institutions in the country suffer. she is supposedly one of the nation's top scholarly minds on international affairs - if that is true, we're in even deeper $h*t than i had feared. and yet some people want her to run for president. are you out there, tina?

Posted by: meuphys | February 25, 2007 11:05 PM

Ms. Rice is the most unqualified secretary of state I could think of. What a team of incompetents...

Posted by: tired | February 25, 2007 11:51 PM

We are on the front end of a generational war. Republican and Democratic administrations will deal with the probabilities of attacks as great or greater than 9/11 for as far as the eye can see. We've been on the receiving end of attrocities since the 1970s. Fight these killers in Iraq and they will use every means to kill us. Slowly disengage from Iraq and they will use every means to kill us. Withdraw completely, and they will use every means to kill us -- especially within our own borders. A certain percentage within Islam is committed to an apocalyptic vision for which they will use any means and as many lives as needed to realize their Koranic dream -- and they will readily kill other Muslims who stand in the way. Agree or not with how we got here, but we're here. Our ultimate line of defense is an indiginous Islamic population fully awakened to the reality that others of their religious family have volunteered them for chaos, bloodshed and the abyss of medieval darkness.

Posted by: obak2 | February 26, 2007 12:23 AM

Bush diplomacy is most amusing: first, give us what we want--end of uranium enrichment--then we'll talk. You get?

Posted by: Wordlight | February 26, 2007 1:01 AM

Godwin's Law (or Godwin's rule of Nazi analogies) for blogs also applies to politics
It states, "As an online discussion grows longer, the probability of a comparison involving Nazis or Hitler approaches one."

Posted by: Baz | February 26, 2007 1:10 AM

Thank you Obak2. You are probably right, but how is America to intervene? People like Bush are just a generation away from imposing "the abyss of medieval darkness" upon us. It will just look like a "Neo-Con" version. Bush and those who gave him power in the first place continue to undermine our patriotic belief in the separation of church and state. Why is the world possessed with such insane finaticism: the urge to compell others to believe and act as we do?

Posted by: Wordlight | February 26, 2007 1:31 AM

""In a provocative comparison, Rice said on "Fox News Sunday" that adopting a Senate resolution that repeals the 2002 authorization for war in favor of one that restricts the military's role and orders a start to withdrawal, "would be like saying that after Adolf Hitler was overthrown, we needed to change ... the resolution that allowed the United States to ... [create] a stable environment in Europe.""

This was not a provocative comparison. It was simply inane, enormously so from a professed "student of history".

Ms.Rice is playing a very strange act in which she often misrepresents with her strident apologia for the partisan line, even as she pushes her credentials to the forefront of her justification for it.

Didn't Rep. Abercrombie call Ms. Rice overrated, just last month? Ms Rice "constantly gets a pass" as much as "she isn't up to the mark"-- to paraphrase Rep. Abercrombie.

Can anyone in some authority call Ms.Rice on her aberrational statements? The media?
Have we all not any shame left?

Posted by: Verbatim | February 26, 2007 1:34 AM

The stupidity of La Rice is bottomless. Her comment: "would be like saying that after Adolf Hitler was overthrown, we needed to change ... the resolution that allowed the United States to ... [create] a stable environment in Europe."* is preposterous. There is no comparison to be made here. The armies of Adolf Hitler invaded and occupied Belgium, France, The Netherlands, Luxemburg, Poland, Czekoslovakia, the Baltic States, Denmark, Norway, etc... The armies of Saddam Hussein were of no threat to anyone. Where does this woman get off making such ridiculous comparisons?

Posted by: Anonymous | February 26, 2007 8:34 AM

"would be like saying that after Adolf Hitler was overthrown, we needed to change ... the resolution that allowed the United States to ... [create] a stable environment in Europe."

What an inane and aberrant statement! Why isn't anyone calling her on this?

Posted by: Anonymous | February 26, 2007 8:37 AM

We in Holland just adopted a new rule to solve violent family quarrels and that is forbid entrance to the family for a week or longer for the troublemaker. And after a week or so try to solve the problem by talking. When there is no solution for the problem give the troublemaker another place to make a new living.
I think Israel causes a lot of trouble, actually a never ending agony. So I propose to move Israel with its holy places to another area, preferable somewhere in the u.s. There will be from the Jewish caucus a lot of resistance. But also from instances that line up there pockets on every war. But in spite of this resistance we have to consider this option instead of waging a war against Iran or whatever country or group.

Posted by: jwh | February 26, 2007 10:59 AM

Dont dispair friends cause for some people now in charge in this government is on this world no save haven,nowhere and never because muslims are everywhere !!

Posted by: jwh | February 26, 2007 11:52 AM

The book THE BATTLE OF EUROPE will show everybody the wrong cabal of rice !!

Posted by: jwh | February 26, 2007 11:56 AM

On This Week with George Stephanopoulos, former President Carter was asked whether there were any democrats capable of standing up to the Jewish lobby in this country. Mr. Carter instantly replied no! Mr. Stephanopoulos quickly changed the subject knowing quite well the implications of Mr. Cater's reply. What was not surprising, was the Talk's negligence in not reporting this matter which was consistent with the Washington Post's bias reporting on Israel and the Jewish lobby in this country!

Posted by: D. G. Ward | February 26, 2007 1:57 PM

I'll give them something to debate: Why are the Iraqis going to pass a new oil law that will allow Bush/Cheney to steal their oil?

Right now Iraq gets all the revenues from the sale of their oil. After this new imperialist takeover agreement takes place, Iraq will not control their own oil and will give up most of the revenues to the big oil friends of Bush/Cheney.

This is the immoral reason why Bush/Cheney invaded Iraq, to steal their oil! This is why our soldiers are dying for nothing! This is also the reason why they want to invade Iran.

"Financially, the new oil law legalizes very unfair types of contracts that will put Iraq in very long-term contracts that can go up to thirty-five years and cause the loss of hundreds of billions of dollars from Iraqis for no cause.

And the second point is concerning Iraqs sovereignty. Iraq will not be capable of controlling the levels -- the limits of production, which means that Iraq cannot be a part of OPEC anymore. And Iraq will have this very complicated institution called the Federal Oil and Gas Council, that will have representatives from the foreign oil companies on the board of it, so representatives from, let's say, ExxonMobil and Shell and British Petroleum will be on the federal board of Iraq approving their own contracts.

And the third point is the point about keeping Iraqs unity. The law is seen by many Iraqi analysts as a separation for Iraq fund. The law will authorize all of the regional and small provinces authorities. It will give them the final say to deal with the oil, instead of giving this final say to central federal government, so it will open the doors for splitting Iraq into three regions or even maybe three states in the very near future."

Posted by: KEVIN SCHMIDT, STERLING VA | February 26, 2007 2:48 PM

Condoleeza Rice, 10 years on the Board of Directors of Chevon... witha SUPERTANKER FOR CARRYING MASSIVE QUANTITIES OF OIL NAMED AFTER HER...

the SS CONDOLEEZA RICE, and this same Condo Sleazie Rice, calling the man that poppy, George H.W. Bush propped up and made the dicktater of Iraq..as he did with Noriega in Panama...

her comparing this small time hood "Hitler"....

when George W. Bush ,

whose brother was head of security at the WTC and DULLES INTERNATIONAL AIRPORT , an international port of entry into the United States ...when the World Trade Center went down like a bad Las VEgas DEMOlition....by some wild stroke of luck...for the PNAC believing folk in charge of the Whitehouse... and whose Uncle Johnathan of RIGGS BANKING fame is purported to have been involved in money laundering 10's of MILLIONS OF DOLLARS FOR THE SAUDI ARABIAN EMBASSY FOR PRINCE BANDAR....and some of this money apparently went to paying off the WTC BOMBERS....

removes oversight , establishes two agencies that conjoin the effect of having the last say on any intelligence and being able to redirect BILLIONS OF CONTRACTING DOLLARS TO HIS FRIENDS IN CORRUPTION... , and then embroils the United States in the occupation of another country to steal their oil and calls it a war on terror ...which is a fraudulent action...

Condo Sleazie Rice calls a sleazy little dictator a hitler when he is in EMBARGO constrained militarily and economically to do not much more than retain the semblance of power

when this a**hole in charge of BILLIONS OF DOLLARS OF SLUSH MONEY ignoring the deaths of thousands of innocent Iraqis and ignoring the sacrifice of hundreds of thousands of US SERVICE MEN AND WOMEN so he and CondoSleazie and Cheney and Rumsfeld and Baker and others can get contracts , favors and join companies being created now_later a hitler is the height of hypocrisy...

did you know that George Tenent received and relayed no less than 32 warnings that WTC Disaster was impending to CondoSleazie Rice? have you the American Public been made aware of the close connection between Rice/Cheney and Chevron? Midnight OIL MEETINGS...

is the entire Government being used, to make a few men and women that have derailed democracy and oversight and seperation of powers , richer?

any intelligent , easy going , engineer would say

hell yes...

these people are liars , corrupt and self serving and acting against the best interests of the United States of America

and this is the kicker...


they are serving themselves , JINSA , BIG OIL , and Middle EASTERN BUSINESSMEN ...as American citizens go bankrupt and lose the ability to sustain themselves and the VETERANS RECEIVE NO SUPPORT FOR THEIR AFTER THE OCCUPATION PLIGHT...

ask Condo Sleazy about the Taliban and Unocal and Bridas Corporation and Houston Court decision in Bridas Corporations favor...

which was nullified by US INVASION OF IRAQ...

ask her about the $13 TRILLION DOLLAR Trans Afghanistan PipeLine that Taliban was supposed to be a part of...

and that Cheney BROKERED FOR CHEVRON after the Afghanistan INVASION...that did not include the taliban...

would you be PO'ed if you were cut out of a share of $13 TRILLION DOLLARS?

honesty? from Condo Sleazie? ask George Tenent.... former CIA DIRECTOR...

he kept the 32 warnings of impending disaster on his hard disc in_case she denied knowledge... BIG OIL and CONDI are synonymous...

Posted by: that is pretty humourous | March 3, 2007 1:39 PM

the truth about this Administration and its aims...

search on Condoleeza Rice Chevron Cheneny Taliban

then Cheney PNAC Blackwater Perle Jinsa

just those two searches should be enough to get them arrested

do that, and follow up...

share it with others...

Posted by: to know | March 3, 2007 1:54 PM

My goodness. Now here is a woman that can arouse some dander. Here is what I predict....1...Amazingly, Israel and Palestine will sing kumbia....2...N. Korea will become a partner with a harmonious China...3...China will forgive the US debt...4...The Sunnis and the Shi ites will define their territories...5...The Americas will become one big, happy family...AND Dr. Rice will run for President on her record of negotiation successes. You think?

Posted by: Sonja Poet | March 11, 2007 7:36 PM

The comments to this entry are closed.


© 2010 The Washington Post Company