A side of Rice

As part of an apparent pushback against George Tenet’s new book, Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice hit the Sunday morning talk-show circuit yesterday to, well, it’s not quite clear what she hoped to accomplish. No matter the goal, the result was rather clear: a series of odd statements from the Secretary of State.

The real question to consider is which of her comments was the most bizarre. This one was pretty bad.

In the 60 Minutes interview, Tenet says this is the message he delivered to Rice two months prior to 9/11: “We need to consider immediate action inside Afghanistan now. We need to move to the offensive.”

On CBS’s Face the Nation, a perplexed and stunned Rice said, “The idea of launching preemptive strikes into Afghanistan in July of 2001, this is a new fact.” Rice then said, “I don’t know what we were supposed to preemptively strike in Afghanistan. Perhaps somebody can ask that.”

I have no idea what Rice is talking about. Afghanistan lacked targets to strike? Here’s a radical idea: when the intelligence community urges a strike on Afghanistan, the NSA (Rice’s title at the time) could encourage the president to do what Clinton did: go after the terrorists Afghanistan was harboring. Strike training camps, go after bin Laden, take on the Taliban, etc. Why would Rice play dumb now? Worse, what if she’s not playing?

Then there was this gem:

In his new book, former CIA Director George Tenet alleges that there was “never a serious debate that I know of within the administration about the imminence of the Iraq threat,” suggesting the administration had made up its mind to go to war from an early stage.

On CNN’s Late Edition, Condoleezza Rice responded, “We all thought that the intelligence case was strong,” adding that even “the U.N weapons inspectors [thought] Saddam Hussein had weapons of mass destruction.” She concluded, “So there’s no blame here of anyone.”

Putting aside the fact that Rice’s response was a bit of a non-sequitur, the head of the IAEA, Mohamed El-Baradei actually said that there was no evidence that Saddam Hussein had any nuclear weapons or was in the process of acquiring them. Weapons inspectors followed up on U.S. intelligence on WMD and only found “garbage.”

Which leads us to my favorite Rice comment from yesterday’s talk shows.

From ABC’s This Week:

RICE: The question was…how long were you going to wait [before launching a military confrontation with Iraq], given that it appeared that the situation was getting worse.

GEORGE STEPHANOPOULOS: Well, looking back, do you think that Iraq posed an imminent threat to the United States?

RICE: I think that…uh…an imminent threat? Certainly Iraq posed a threat, and the question was, was it going to get worse over time, or was it going to get better?

Five years into a disastrous war, the Secretary of State wants to parse the meaning of the word “imminent.” Yes, it’s come to this.

I vaguely recall a time Rice was considered a serious person. Then she joined George W. Bush’s campaign team. Pity.

RICE: The question was…how long were you going to wait [before launching a military confrontation with Iraq], given that it appeared that the situation was getting worse

GEORGE STEPHANOPOULOS: Well, looking back, do you think that Iraq posed an imminent threat to the United States?

RICE: I think that…uh…an imminent threat? Certainly Iraq posed a threat, and the question was, was it going to get worse over time, or was it going to get better?

Ah, the rhetorical question… the safe sanctuary of a liar.

  • How did they know it was going to get worse? The same way they “knew” that there were WMD’s there at all?

    It seems to me that starting a war by mistake ought to be a firing offense.

    On another topic, why is questioning on these political gabfest shows so incredibly lame? CB has given the obvious, devastating followups to Rice’s prevarications. Why can’t the pricey on-air talent at the networks think of these things, instead of simply allowing Rice to spout her ridiculousness unchallenged?

  • I do wonder just how the gang at the WH who commanded the run up to the war sleep at night when they must surely see what their horrid folly has led to. Ms. Rice merely seems confused these days as we continue to witness the tragic moment she has helped bring to us. -Kevo

  • So, we can pre-emptively attack Iraq based on flimsy and falsified evidence, but we couldn’t pre-emptively attack some known terrorist training camps or a known terror leader in Afghanistan even though we knew they posed a direct threat to the US?

    Do these people even listen to what they are saying?

  • Hey, at least she’s parsing a three-syllable word, when her boss can’t even pronounce a word that long. I guess her Ph.D. counts for something, eh?

  • Its an old lesson:If you tell the truth, it’s easier to keep your facts straight.

    Rice has been carrying water for Shrub so long and has been obfuscating and spinning away his incompetence for a long time. The Afghaniston spin that Shrub was vigilent on terrorism, but at the same time there was just nothing that could be done in 2001 about bin laden is a contradictory position. Either they were a-1 on the job after bin laden or they lacked the vision to see a terrorist attack of this magnitude.

    I for one, had heard of al quaeda, before 9/11 but had no idea what they were capable of or that any attack like 9/11 could occur. I lacked the vision. So did BushCo, but they can’t admit it.

    So its like everything else with BushCo, put the politics over the policy…..try to mislead the public into believing that what is in Shrub’s short term political interest is also what is in the nation’s long term best interest.

    In my mind she’s entering AbuGonzales territory. No credibility. She spun/lied so much, she just can’t be taken seriously any more in the MSM.

    But she promises to set the record straight when she comes out with her Book Deal. That’ll be a real piece of work. The title could be “spining away in the center of the storm – my doomed struggle to uphold honor and dignity in Jr’s white house.

  • I do wonder just how the gang at the WH who commanded the run up to the war sleep at night

    I don’t. All the lies and obfuscations are as much about not accepting personal responsibility as they are about fooling the public. They sleep just fine because they are convinced they did nothing wrong despite massive overwhelming evidence to the contrary.

  • The phrase “imminent threat” – which is the precise test under International Law for justifying a pre-emptive war – scares the bejesus out of the Bushies. You see, Iraq had to pose an imminent threat for the war to be legal. We now know Iraq didn’t.

    Therefore Condi has to parse the word imminent. If she says Iraq posed an imminent threat, she is lying. If she says it wasn’t, she’s fessing up to starting an illegal war.

    So she can’t answer the question. And instead she whips out the alternative Gonzales defense and plays dumb.

  • “the question was, was it going to get worse over time, or was it going to get better?”

    Hey, for once something Condi says makes some sense… I say we should consider adopting this policy!

    Who believes that the Bush administration is going to “get better” over time? If most people think the disastrous mismanagement of BushCo has “gotten worse over time” then Dems should do a “pre-emptive strike” on BushCo before it does any more damage.

    Impeach the crooks. Their own metric demands it.

    ================

    jimBOB asks in #2 “why is questioning on these political gabfest shows so incredibly lame?”

    Short Answer: The questions suck because the corporate media makes billions of dollars selling crap to Americans and better questions would reduce those profits.

    Explanation: If the questions were ever challenging enough, the people the shows need to come on and dish their BS would not want to come back on the show. If the guests, fearing actual questions, quit volunteering to help the corporations sell their crap come on the shows, the bobbleheads would be forced to do (gasp) actual journalism rather than just sit there in DC and host a parade of liars who see the Sunday talk circuit as a way to “catapult the propaganda”.

    One activity is cheap and easy, and the other is expensive and hard. Guess which the corporations pick?

    So they’re saving money by asking crappy questions, but I think there’s a more sinister aspect of the fluffy softballs, which is the danger true journalism poses to the corporations themselves. For some reason, real journalists think that when corporations kill thousands of Americans, and when basic fundamental rights are stripped from Americans so that corporations can increase their profits, those stories deserve serious airtime.

    So the questions suck because huge corporations do not want to endanger their profits.

  • Yeah, jeeze, we would have a hard time finding a target in Afghanistan. Compared to Iraq there isn’t nearly as much OIL of a threat to America. They risked the danger of looking like Clinton and launching attacks to kill Bin Laden. I suppose they figured people would accust W of having an affair with an intern if he tried to kill Osama.

    These people have no shame.

  • Re: Afghanistan…
    Perhaps Rice has internatlized the public’s disgust with the preemptive war against Iraq. She’s turning it back, as if to say, “You don’t like preemptive wars, but you wanted one in Afghanistan? Make up your mind!”

    Her honest answer would’ve been: I ignored Tenet because I was to busy thinking about missile defense that summer.

  • On another topic, why is questioning on these political gabfest shows so incredibly lame? CB has given the obvious, devastating followups to Rice’s prevarications. Why can’t the pricey on-air talent at the networks think of these things, instead of simply allowing Rice to spout her ridiculousness unchallenged? — jimBob

    Jon Stewart on the Daily Show, a self-declared “fake” news program, does a harder interview than you ever see on the Sunday “news” programs.

  • I wonder how much pressure the Stanford alumni, donors, etc., need to bring to prevent the return of this case of damaged goods to her pre kool-aid job. Surely Regents University is a much proper destination for her ride into the twilight.

  • If Rice ever had any smarts, and I doubt it that she did, I think that she was just Clarence Thomas with better press, what this prove is standing beside this much dumb for six plus years must suck your brains out.

  • European universities often require PhDs who have spent extended time in government service to undergo academic “rehabilitatiton” before returning to the academy, a sort of mini-dissertation demonstrating that they’ve retained some scholarly abilities and outlook. After watching Condi’s devolution ever since she joined the Bush Crime Family — from a Stanford Associate Professor and Provost down to little more than a rich fashion model who tells lies on TeeVee in a desperate effort to save her boss’s sorry ass – I can see why.

  • Bush in a nutshell –

    “was it going to get worse over time, or was it going to get better?”

    The rationale for W’s intentional incompetence- First screw up, then grab more power

  • Condoleeza Rice is the living embodiment of every right wing argument against affirmative action. Talk about the Peter Principle in action – she’s at least 7 or 8 levels above her level of competency.

  • Racerx and MW

    I’m sure you’re right about the way the dynamic works, but I’m also sure it doesn’t have to work like that.

    I’ve seen UK interviews where the questioner comes back and back again on nonanswers, forcing the interviewee to justify the thinking behind talking points. A few years ago an irish interviewer astonished the chimp himself when she wouldn’t let him filibuster and asked impertinent followups.

    I think that even given the capitalist system of journalism we have, it’s possible to do a lot better.

  • I tried watching Condi on This Week but had to fast forward thru the recording because her roundabout way of talking and obvious lying made my blood pressure rise. I wish Stephanopolis had shown his list of soldiers killed this past week (including one from my neighboring town, and another from my state) with a camera on Condi’s face as she viewed them. I’m just too angry at the waste of human lives at this point.

  • On the one hand, listening to Rice-for-brains and the other BushBots makes any sane person want to put a bullet through the TV.

    On the other hand Ricealoony etc represents this mAdministration’s “best and the brightest” and they feel so besieged they have to dig her out of cold storage to race around shouting “Nuh uh, no we didn’t!” when someone releases a book. OMG! A book! Go to Code Red and get the Veep to the undisclosed location!

    We’re in the middle of two wars, we’re involved in countless other crises around the world, she’s just lost a deputy secretary because he couldn’t keep it in his pants and this daft bitch is riding the PR circuit (and making herself look even dumber) because of a book. What does that tell us about the mindset and priorities of the folks who are supposedly in charge?

    I think it means the White House regularly receives large shipments of Depends diapers.

  • Couple thoughts. Had company from outside the US in town and we did the DC monument thing. Went past the Vietnam Vets memorial. Lots of pictures of some of the people who died in that war were lined up against the bottom of the monument. Very touching. And it does make one even more angry at the waste of human lives going on now.

    I think Condi must be channelling Rummy from September 12th or so, when he went around exclaiming that we must hit Iraq and/or other countries as there were no hard targets to hit in Afghanistan.

    What fools.

    Impeach.

  • Brian #6 makes a really good point. What can anyone in this adminsitration say anything anymore without tripping up on their own lies?

    What concerns me more about Condi (and for that fact anyone in this administration) is that I can’t for the life of me understand what it is they do every day to earn a paycheck. What foreign policy initiatives is she advancing? What diplomacy is she engaged in on our behalf? What international advantage is she securing for the peace and prosperity of this nation? She, like the rest of her cronies, is on the speech and talk show circuit constantly defending all of their past errors instead of doing any work on behalf of the people. For such criminal negligence of their duties, the only question remaining is what to do with them. Should they be fired, face a firing squad or have some measure of justice in between the two?

  • In recent years, we’ve seen the demise of the “follow-up” question, basically the repetition of the first question the interviewee didn’t answer until he/she answers it.

    Why is this? Is it because interviewers are lazy, unduly polite, uninterested in the answer, too uninformed to understand the answer, feel threatened with deadly force, or afraid nobody will ever talk to them again?

    I suspect almost all of those possibilities, but the last one takes priority.

    The disappearance of the “follow-up” is the most dangerous loss this nation has had in a long time. Most recently, it allowed a fraudulent war.

  • One of the interesting things about liberals is how they try to reconstruct a fantasy past, one in which Saddam Hussein’s Iraq was this contained little land in which people flew kites.

    In the summer of 2001, not that any one of you will buy this, primarily because you are all to psychologically invested in the BushLied Narrative, the sanctions regime against Iraq was falling apart. European, Russian, and Chinese customers were basically lining up to sell stuff to Saddam. The notion that Saddam was contained is a magnificent lie, one that has been peddled by liberals and their outriders in the MSM since the war began. Rice understood this, and the great crime that liberals are trying to create revolves around a disagreement over the interpretation of intelligence data from an incompetent intelligence agency, CIA, and how it was interpreted.

    The liberal meme is that Saddam was some misunderstood Midnight Cowboy who just needed more stroking and some Transactional Analysis. Today, what you get from liberals these days that passes for a cold calculation of the National Interest is this continued Torchlight Parade past the Fuhrer’s Window that is called the Antiwar Movement. Lacking serious grounding in any animating pacifist principle, today’s antiwar movement has become mixed up in Democratic politics with a striking sense of opportunism: witness Harry Reid’s glee over possible Senate seat gains in 2008 as a result of the war. Or the Kos website as a going business concern.

    There is no serious concern on the part of liberals about what happens after the war, what happens when Al Qaeda inevitably brings their war to the United States, as Tenet described last night, with a wave of IED bombings and Beslan-like attacks against American schoolchildren. Understand that it is only conservatives and Republicans who are still apparently concerned about this consequence of defeat, while you Democrats appear to be doing everything to bring it about.

    If you Democrats succeed in bringing about the defeat of an American army in the field, nothing will save you. Especially if Al Qaeda brings their war here. When that happens, and if it is seen, as it will be, as a result of a defeatist policy of the Democrats, the people will round on you like a pack of wolves. Trust me on this; you have made a hideously shortsighted short term bet. You all look sunnily at the polls now.

    But the worm will turn. It always does.

    None of your rather sophmoric arguments that you present today against a stateswoman like Condoleezza Rice will help you then.

  • I can only point out one fallacy in the post above–‘section 9’ clearly is and should be listed as ‘section 8.’

  • I can just visualise section9 crying out the day’s talkingpoints as he and the GOP go flying off the cliff.

  • Hmmmmm “torchlight parade past the Fuhrer’s window”??? So you think he’s one too?

    As usual, change the topic. The topic is incompetence. Perhaps war was inevitable. We will never know because the progression that serious nations pursue before going to war was short-circuited for the illusion of instant glory and a hand on the oil-spigot.

    Also, al-qaeda was NOT in Iraq. How many times do you have to be told???? NOW they’re there, yes, thanks to INCOMPETENCE.

    No one has a beef with fighting al-qaeda. Don’t you get that yet?

  • Oh section9,

    If you truly in your heart or hearts believe that this war was inevitable or being waged competently, then you are lying to yourself…which is sad. All the “liberal” and “democrat” put downs in the world doesn’t change the fact that Iraq is an unmitigated disaster that the Bush administration led us (some us, kicking and screaming) into.

    Now, if you are so gung-ho about this war…then enlist, serve, and cash those checks your mouth/fingers are writing. If not, shut your chickhawk mouth and sit back in your armchair like a good armchair general.

    Your side has been so stupefying wrong about so much and the cost has been so great – and you still have your indignant tone.

  • Since Rice was on the talk show circuit, does that mean Waxman can now send her a letter that since she had time to appear on TV she should certainly have time to appear in front of his committee…

    Another good one, thanks to the Blogosphere, is that if Rice ever had any dreams of running as a GOP candidate for President, her chances are pretty close to zero… Too many lies and evasive explanations and plays on words to overcome in a 30 second infomercial

    Isn’t it sad to read a post from the likes of ‘section 8 or 9’ He just missed the “Clinton did it too” meme to make it complete.

  • Comments are closed.