I'm pretty tuned in to political and policy matters, but there's something I just don't get.
It's frequently said (by pundits, analysts) that Rumsfeld and Cheney dominated Bush's first term and were on one side of things with Condoleeza Rice on the other side. The same talking heads say that in the second term, Rice's has been the side more favored by Bush.
Excuse me, but HOW is Rice different? Where did she disagree with Rummy and Cheney on Iraq? Wasn't her Rumminess and Cheneyness one of the reasons she took Powell's job at State? She strikes me as solidly neocon - she thinks we're right on Iraq and hates conflict resolution (e.g Israel-Hezbollah last summer).
Why is this difference continually drawn, by analysts from both the left and the right? I'm not asking for any partisan purpose, though I readily admit to disliking the Bushies, which may be why I don't see the difference I'm asking about - so, thoughtful Republican replies are especially welcome.
Thanks.
2007-01-05 13:25:15 · 8 answers · asked by Anonymous in Politics & Government ➔ Other - Politics & Government
Interesting replies so far. So, NO ONE can cite any policy differences? Yet Woodward and Suskind and all these other authors of bestsellers keep referring to the infighting of Rice vs. Rummy and Cheney... very strange.
Some answers here are better than others, but I don't see any differences spelled out yet in these first seven answers. Is this all a big case of cognitive dissonance?
2007-01-05 13:56:16 · update #1
Rumsfeld and Cheney are men, Rice is a woman. This is the difference. Rice also happens to be a terrible pianist, she does not have any idea about the music while she plays it. I wonder how a poor musician could have good solid ideas in diplomacy and policy making. Maybe she is superior to the two men because the men do not play music at all?
2007-01-05 13:35:51 · answer #1 · answered by Anonymous · 0⤊ 3⤋
Rumsfeld and Cheney were deemed erroneous in the foreign policies during the first term and it was the reason why Bush is liking Rice for her somewhat right decisions in the second term.
2007-01-05 13:29:54 · answer #2 · answered by FRAGINAL, JTM 7 · 0⤊ 2⤋
hawk is short for "warfare hawk" or somebody who "likes" or tries to get the country to circulate to warfare. for the reason that Dick Cheney, Condoleeza Rice and Donald Rumsfeld all performed roles in getting the US into Iraq, they are commonplace as warhawks.
2016-10-30 03:03:58 · answer #3 · answered by ? 4 · 0⤊ 0⤋
Dr. Rice is brilliant ! Bush knows she is that's why she is in the position she's in.......Cheney and Rumsfeld ...I don't have confidence in either one........Rumsfield, (CIA) gave bush bogus info..We're in Iraq and soon to be Iran....Cheney, well his business is profiting from rebuilding Iraq......... Both are frightening people and it is creepy to think Cheney is a heartbeat away from the presidency.......
2007-01-05 13:32:26 · answer #4 · answered by cesare214 6 · 1⤊ 2⤋
My guess is that she's more junior. While extremely competent and intelligent, she doesn't strike me as driving policy as much as the old-school gov't crusties Bush surrounds himself with. She will grow with experience, but this is her first administration versus Cheney and Rumsfeld.
Don't bash Condi!
2007-01-05 13:33:16 · answer #5 · answered by WJ 7 · 2⤊ 2⤋
I like all three of them. I would vote for Rice before I would Hillary, the Village Idiot.
2007-01-05 13:31:01 · answer #6 · answered by m c 5 · 0⤊ 3⤋
Uh, well, she's a girl and they're boys? (Geez, I don't know!)
2007-01-05 13:27:52 · answer #7 · answered by Anonymous · 1⤊ 2⤋
umm.......she's black. DUH
2007-01-05 13:33:15 · answer #8 · answered by Anonymous · 0⤊ 3⤋