New Beginning, or Same old Clog?

So Dr. Rice took over for Colin Powell, being praised on one hand for her clairvoyance and intelligence, being lambasted on the other for being a clog in Bush's political machine. Whatever one's point of view is, she is undeniably supportive when it comes to the Bush administration's foriegn policy. On Bush's diplomacy, she said, "That is the mission that President Bush has set for America in the world, and it's the great mission of American diplomacy today," (Washington Times 1/19/05).

Really? Recent evidence would go against the great hand of Bush's diplomacy. Especially in regards to Iraq.

The Bush's case for war in Iraq has been disproven time and time again. No weapons of mass destruction have been found, in fact the search ended with no results. Links between Iraq and 9/11 have been deemed untrustworthy by the 9/11 commision. The question is, would America have given Bush authority to go to war on such grounds? Highly doubtful. The war has cost over one hundred billion dollars and many soldiers' lives. American's shouldn't rationally bear such burdens with such a case, or lack thereof.

Now all the administration talks about is the need to promote democracy in Iraq. Though it is a noble goal, the latest CIA report notes how Iraq is a new training ground for Islamic militants. This is hardly a success-story when it comes to nation-building.

Only two Senators voted against Rice's nomination as secretary of State, Mr. John Kerry and Ms. Barbara Boxer. Ms. Boxer makes a good point, "I find it so troubling that the Bush administration used the fear of terror to make the war against Iraq appear to be part of the response to 9/11," Ms. Boxer said. "You were involved in that effort." It's good that some senators are being critical.

With all these problems surrounding the "diplomacy" and "foriegn policy" of the Iraq situation, I find the administration's competency, including that of Dr. Rice, to be suspect. She already is engaged in some of the blunders of the past term, unapologetically cover for her hus-, her boss. She talks of six outposts of tyranny, sounding like Bush's axis of evil.

Still, she has a way of invoking some hope in her talking points. She states, "More than ever, America's diplomats will need to be active in spreading democracy, fighting terror, reducing poverty, and doing our part to protect the American homeland." To be sure, we need to mend ties with many European allies to be secure and ameliorate international situations.

"Americans should make a serious effort to understand other cultures and learn foreign languages," she states. "Our interaction with the rest of the world must be a conversation, not a monologue." Again, the words bring me hope that America will strive to be multilateral and more empathetic.

However, given the Bush administration's track record in Iraq, let's hope that her words more about how America will change it's foriegn policy. Let's hope that it is not nearly hot air, covering for the administration, and effectively acting as a clog in the political machine.