Rice's "Welcome remarks" in light of Bush's press conference

On January 27, 2005, Secretary of State Condi Rice gave some "Welcome Remarks to Employees" of the State Department. She began by saying "thanks" for the warm welcome and how much she admired Colin Powell, and then went right into the task ahead:

We've got a lot of challenges ahead of us. This is a really remarkable time in our country's history. The President has set forth a really bold agenda for American foreign policy and the State Department has got to be in the lead in this period in which diplomacy will be so important to solidifying the gains of the last few years and to pressing forward an agenda for a freer and more prosperous world. I can't think of a better call than to say that America will stand for freedom and for liberty, that America will stand with those who want their aspirations met for liberty and freedom. And I'm going to look and the President's going to look to this Department to lead that effort, and not just to implement policy, but we're going to need ideas, intellectual capital. I need your ideas. My door will be open. Please, understand that this is a time when the history is calling us. And I just look forward to working with each and every one of you toward that end.

The President has laid out a bold agenda and he expects a lot of us. I want you to know, too, that I'm going to be committed to you, the men and women of the Foreign Service, the Civil Service and our Foreign Service Nationals abroad; and you, in turn, will be committed, and we, in turn, will be committed, to carrying out that bold agenda.

With these words, Rice is following the lead of what Bush said in the Inaugural Address. However, as shown in Political buffoonery, Bush's press conference backtracked significantly from the "bold agenda" set out in the Inaugural Address.

An argument could be made that in the press conference Bush was only talking the actions that he would personally take. In other words, one could argue that while Bush only said that he would merely discuss Putin's decisions with him and constantly remind China and the rest of the world that America strongly believes in democracy, he would expect others--such as Rice--to be more agreesive and proactive.

There is, however, reason to seriously question such an argument. One reason is something he said in connection with his "planting the flag of liberty" comments. Bush said, "And I am excited by the challenge and am honored to be able to lead our nation in the quest of this noble goal[.]" Doing nothing but "discussing and reminding" while expecting others to do the heavy lifting is not being a leader. As I have said in Bush's designation of Dad and the Big Dog, "Bush is the 'leader' of this country, and to the rest of the world, he is the most visible representative of our country and symbolizes the U.S. for much of the world...It would be nice if our 'leader' would do something to lead by example." If Bush does not lead by example, the rest of the world is not likely to take notice.

Another reason to doubt the argument posited two paragraphs above is found in another exchange from the press conference.

Q: Mr. President, Dr. Rice again -- quoting your future Secretary of State, wrote in "Foreign Affairs Magazine" in 2000, outlining what a potential Bush administration foreign policy would be, talked about things like security interests, free trade pacts, confronting rogue nations, dealing with great powers like China and Russia -- but promotion of democracy and liberty around the world was not a signature element of that prescription. I'm wondering what's changed since 2000 that has made this such an important element of your foreign policy.

THE PRESIDENT: I'm the President; I set the course of this administration. I believe freedom is necessary in order to promote peace, Peter. I haven't seen the article you're referring to. I can assure you that Condi Rice agrees with me that it's necessary to promote democracy. I haven't seen the article, I didn't read the article. Obviously, it wasn't part of her job interview. Condi is a firm believer in democracy.

(emphasis added). Now Bush is sounding like a leader. He, not Rice, sets the course. If one takes him at his word, then the course of the Bush administration--and necessarily the course of Rice and the State Department--is to "discuss and remind."

A third reason to doubt that Rice and the State Department are going to do more than "discuss and remind" is that policy has been dominated by the Defense Department, and I do not see that changing any time soon. DoD was given control over the entire Iraq operation early on, and the State Department was shut out. Bush made the decision to put DoD in charge. Colin Powell was often not in agreement with Rumskull and the boys at DoD, and look where that got him. Rice has been little more than a "yes man" for Bush, which means that she has not been in disagreement with DoD, meaning further that Rice's appointment as Secretary of State could very well mean that there will be no further infighting in the administration. In other words, now that the competition (Powell) has been removed, Rumskull and his hawks are in a prime position to continue to rule the roost.

Assume for a moment that Rice does actually want to use more than a "discuss and remind" approach. Clearly, DoD has no interest in that. What are the chances that Rice would prevail in the inevitable battle with DoD where Powell--the highly respected general and war hero--failed? I do not think she would stand a chance, but maybe I am wrong.

DoD has shown it has no interest in diplomacy. However, as long as there is some sort of "discuss and remind" effort going on, there will be an excuse to say "we tried diplomacy and it did not work," which will then allow military action. Indeed, this is the scenario Seymour Hersh painted in his recent appearance on "The Daily Show," where he was discussing his latest article in The New Yorker, "The Coming Wars."

So maybe I have been wrong in saying that Bush's press conference showed that Bush would do nothing but "discuss and remind." However, that also means that maybe I was right in arguing that the primary means Bush plans to use to "free the world" is military force.