Cheney rips Condoleezza Rice in new documentary | FP Passport

The Angler versus the Secretary. Diplomacy appears to have won, this time around.

Back in 2007, the Bush administration received intelligence that Syria was secretly building a nuclear reactor with the help of North Korea. Ultimately, the White House declined to hit the facility to the dismay of Israeli Prime Minister Ehud Olmert. In the film, Cheney criticizes Rice for advocating against a unilateral strike.

“Condi recommended taking it to the United Nations. I strongly recommended that we ought to take [the reactor] out,” he said.

When reached for comment, Rice told FP that refusing to bomb the reactor was the right decision at that point in time. “The situation turned out exactly how it should have,” she said.

via Cheney rips Condoleezza Rice in new documentary | FP Passport.


5 thoughts on “Cheney rips Condoleezza Rice in new documentary | FP Passport”

  1. I thought this article was really interesting. I find inter-administration conflicts fascinating as you think that they would all be on the same page. In my opinion I most likely would have sided with Cheney. I think it’s a great thing that there did not have to be a strike and that all was well, but hindsight is 20/20. I definitely agree that diplomacy worked, but this time we might have gotten lucky.

  2. I think Condoleezza’s move helped strengthen the position of the UN and diplomacy. If these two things exist to promote peace and tolerance, then we need to give them a chance to do so, such as in this situation with Iran.

  3. I do not think that Cheney should have called Rice out because essentially they were teammates, they did not come from opposing parties but worked under the same administration. I feel it is “too soon” to bash on others from the same team. At the same time I also do not believe we cannot know for sure which action would have been more effective. What we can say is that the route Rice chose to take ended up working for the US

  4. I’m not sure how Cheney has a leg to stand on in this argument. Diplomacy won, disproving Cheney’s notion that preventative strikes are the only way of effectively deterring nuclear proliferation. How might the uprising in Syria have played out if we had provided the Syrian government with years of anti-american propaganda by performing a unilateral strike? Would the uprising have taken place at all? Say what he will, Dick Cheney consistently overestimated the effectiveness of hard power in preserving U.S. interests abroad. It’s good to hear that advocates of soft power still had a place in Bush’s hawkish administration. I suspect that if negotiations can get Iran to back down from a nuclear weapon, the secretary of state will become an even more powerful actor in the President’s cabinet. Given Iran’s very entrenched position, how likely is it that Iran will flip its position on nuclear weapons?

Leave a Reply

Please log in using one of these methods to post your comment: Logo

You are commenting using your account. Log Out /  Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )


Connecting to %s