Rice's Management at Issue (p. A01, Wash Post)

[rodeodance]

Source: wpost



Rice's Management at Issue
Critics Cite Blackwater, Baghdad Embassy and Passports

By Glenn Kessler
Washington Post Staff Writer
Saturday, November 10, 2007; Page A01

Shortly after Condoleezza Rice took charge of the 57,000-person State Department in 2005, she said she relished the challenge of "line responsibility" in leading a large organization. "I really enjoy that," she said in an interview. "Some of my favorite times here have been my budget and high-level management reviews."

Nearly three years later, Rice is under fire from inside and outside the State Department for a range of crises that are largely managerial in nature -- the failure to monitor private security guards in Iraq, the delays in opening the huge U.S. Embassy under construction in Baghdad and the resistance of some Foreign Service officers to being forced to serve there. Over the summer, the department also fell woefully short in processing passport applications, resulting in ruined vacation plans for many Americans.



Within the department, Rice is viewed by many rank-and-file employees as an aloof manager who relies on a tight circle of aides, leaving her out of touch with the rest of the staff, in contrast to her predecessor, Colin L. Powell, a retired Army general who won praise from workers for treating them as though they were his "troops." At her last town hall meeting with employees 2 1/2 years ago, Rice told staffers: "I consider myself the chief management officer of this department." But a poll by the American Foreign Service Association indicated that an overwhelming majority did not feel that Rice was their advocate.

The latest controversy about forced assignments to Iraq has only heightened internal resentment of Rice's management style. "I personally do not like the ultimatum-giving," said one Foreign Service officer. "It is not what State is about." ........


Read more: http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2007/11/09/AR2007110902450.html?nav=hcmodule

---

te he

[aquart]

1. My goodness, is Condi incompetent? I'm shocked!

[teamster633]

2. That's DOCTOR Rice to us little people...

[Toots]

16. Who could have ever Imagined?

:shrug:

[gateley]

3. Rice has always appeared to merely do the bidding of the WH. Period. nt

[SquireJons]

4. Rice is window dressing, nothing more

The big question to me is whether or not the abuses of this administration will be swept under the carpet by the next administration and congress. That was allowed to occur after the Reagan administration, and directly lead to the problems we face today.

Neither Powell not Rice were ever given any real authority. They were put in place to show the "diversity" of the republican party. Furthermore, Rice was never qualified to be the National Security Advisor, and never even tried to do the job. She knew that all decisions would be made unilaterally by the office of the VP. After her tenure at the NSA, in which she has been described as "the worst National Security Advisor ever," she gets promoted to Secretary of State.

Why?

It is that sort of question that needs to be investigated by congress. Americans of all stripes admire competence and conversely dislike incompetence. If congress were to investigate why incompetence has been rewarded over and over again in this mis-administration they would do two things. First, they would do a great service to this country, by re-establishing competence as a virtue in government, and secondly, they would shine a big spotlight onto the practice of appointing incompetent people to head key government agencies that republicans want to undermine. This practice goes back to the Reagan administration. When the pugs couldn't kill HUD, Education and the EPA because of overwhelming public support, they simply tried to mismanage them to death.

If the American people were to be confronted with this blatant policy, they might have a much harder time voting republican, even if they don't agree with many of the Democrats policies. Even I would rather have a competent president of the other party, rather than a dishonest, bumbling rube from my own party. But then again, I'm a moderate.

[DeeDeeNY]

5. Excellent points

Especially your last paragraph. You read my mind!

[SquireJons]

11. Just passing through...

I went back and re-read your mind.

You're a naughty girl! Switches and coals for you this year.

(just joshing ya ;) )

[kurth]

6. All Bush's cabinet members - white and nonwhite - are nothing more than Cheney's stenographers

Disagreement is strictly verboten.

[OzarkDem]

7. What management?

Expensive junkets, fancy state dinners and shopping for clothes DOES pass for management in the private sector. But then again, the entire Bush WH does work for the private sector.

[SpiralHawk]

8. "I've been busy with other things. Like buying designer shoes." - Condi

"So there. All you noisy proles can just shut up and sit down. We republicon homelanders are special, and you ARE EITHER WITH US OR AGAINST US. Commander AWOL's elite Homelander Goons will be monitoring your responses, so a word to the wise is: STFU."

- With love and smirks, Condi

[ChairmanAgnostic]

18. STOP already with the Ferragamo! Please.

Because everyone knows that was a mistake. Actually, the Devil (and Condi) wears Prada.

[leaninglib]

9. Well, isn't incompetence the trademark of this administration?

[Supersedeas]

13. what other reason was she promoted to the job -- heckuva job on the PDB Condi -- history, we know

[kurth]

10. "Rice does not use e-mail"

[TwilightGardener]

12. She was, just like Chimpy, totally out of her depth for this job.

[tabasco]

14. Condi is loyal to her boss.

As in any crime syndicate, loyalty is the primary qualification in the Bush oil mafia.

Competence is far less important to the criminal regime.

[Supersedeas]

17. the Price of Loyalty??

[Doctor_J]

15. Yes, her management it "at issue" just like global warming

99% of sane people on one side, a few right-wing hacks on the other - "opinions differ"