Weekly Shredder 30:
The Rice Debate
by James Norton

Condoleezza Rice, the national security advisor who stumped for Bush, blew off Richard Clarke's warnings about the dangers of Al Qaeda and intriguingly referred to the president as her "husband" is now America's secretary of State.

Her confirmation, never in doubt, won't change a thing.

Optimistic wonks, always eager to spot a crack in the administration's granite wall of unity, were thrilled when Condi was allowed to select her own deputy. And in an administration where open debate was tolerated — and led to decisions based on real-world facts — this would be worth something.

For archives, audio, and background about the column, click here.

But as it stands, it's about as significant as allowing your cat to choose which of its 16 stuffed toys it wants to play with on a given morning.

Rice will become the most important diplomat in the world's most powerful country. It's a big job.

Rice's official role: defending and enhancing america's standing in the world

Last week, Sen. Chris Dodd, D-Conn., roasted Rice for her refusal to condemn torture. For years — perhaps decades — Americans will have to live with the diplomatic fallout of Abu Ghraib and Guantanamo Bay, and having a Secretary of State who can't come forward and say she's against water boarding won't help the cause.

Rice isn't stupid — she just can't publically break with the administration's committment to bringing the pain. But in covering for Bush, Rumsfeld and Gonzales, Rice has to render herself useless as an ambassador to the world. Undoubtedly, that will lead to discussions like this:

RICE: ...and that's why human rights are the wave of the future and America means "freedom."

FOREIGN DIGNITARY: But certainly "human rights" doesn't include, uh, you know, torturing people.

RICE: Right.

FOREIGN DIGNITARY: But... doesn't America do that? Your attorney general wrote the handbook on it. And I remember during your confirmation hearing...

RICE: LA LA LA NOT LISTENING LA LA LA. What were you saying?

FOREIGN DIGNITARY: Senator Dodd of —

RICE: LA LA LA CAN'T HEAR YOU.

As importantly, or more importantly, when asked about the long-term fight against terror, Rice had a great — but incredibly flawed — answer.

RICE: What I keep my eye on is how is moderate Islam doing. When I'm asked what future am I looking for, I'm looking for a future in which the regions of the world that we're concerned about, whether it is North Africa or East Africa or the Middle East or Southeast Asia, that moderate Islam is winning; it's winning in governments, it's winning in rhetoric, it's winning in educational programs. But the impact of that — it's going to be a while before we see it.

This is completely true. What she doesn't address, however, are the many countries such as Egypt, Saudi Arabia, Pakistan, Uzbekistan and (now that it's rehabilitated) Libya.

They're not moderate Islamic states. They're hardline governments that crack down on any and all independent political expression. They crush moderate Islam and democracy because both represent a threat to the regime. The United States doesn't stand up to them because it's much safer to have a dictator in your corner on the war on terror than a country in flux that could become neutral or even radically Muslim.

Rice's first unofficial role: pushing diplomatic and/or multilateral solutions to problems

Colin Powell played an important role in counterbalancing the influence of administration officials such as Donald Rumsfeld and Dick Cheney. Ultimately, he failed — he failed to stem the rush to war, he failed to stand up and quit rather than presenting over-hyped intelligence to the United Nations and he failed to use his position as a respected former general to sway the public debate about the war on Iraq.

But he wasn't an unthinking member of a team that talked only to itself, and marched in lockstep.

Rice, on the other hand, reflexively took the side of Rumsfeld and Cheney against Powell. She has shown no independence as a national security advisor. In fact, rather than acting as a ref between the sometimes competing interests of diplomacy and warmongering, she's acted as a cheerleader for the neocons.

To her credit, she has not acted as a naughty cheerleader.

Rice's second unofficial role: explaining and selling US policy decisions to the public

Finally, Rice is a secretary of State who comes before the American people (or at least some of its journalists and left-wing politicians) as a known liar. Remember her enthusiastic boosterism of the Iraq War?

RICE: We know that [Saddam] has the infrastructure, nuclear scientists to make a nuclear weapon. And we know that when the inspectors assessed this after the Gulf War, he was far, far closer to a crude nuclear device than anybody thought — maybe six months from a crude nuclear device. The problem here is that there will always be some uncertainty about how quickly he can acquire nuclear weapons. But we don't want the smoking gun to be a mushroom cloud.

Did Rice "know" that Saddam had the infrastructure to make a nuke? Absolutely not. Her shaky intelligence came largely from unreliable defectors associated with convicted bank fraudster Ahmed Chalabi.

Asked about Saddam Hussein and the Mushroom Cloud of Doom during her confirmation hearing, Rice came back with the following:

RICE: And as to the mushroom cloud statement — one that I've heard repeated many, many times — it was simply a statement about uncertainty; that you didn't want the first evidence that he had nuclear weapons to be the kind of evidence that we learned when we found out that the Soviet Union had a nuclear weapon five years ahead of schedule.

"Simply a statement of uncertainty."

During a national debate about whether to go against an enemy of unknown danger, you suggested to a national audience that we could be the victims of a nuclear holocaust. You used the vivid, searing, unforgettable image of a mushroom cloud, borrowed directly from the destruction of Hiroshima and Nagasaki.

And you know why this has been repeated many, many, times?

BECAUSE IT SCARED THE CRAP OUT OF AMERICA.

It's stuff like this that alienated a certain idealistic section of the Senate. Not the wan sellouts like Lieberman, nor the party-liners on the Republican side of the aisle, but some of the senators who — from time to time — actually attack issues head on.

During this week's Senate debate on Rice, Sen. Ted Kennedy went after Rice for her role in selling the Iraq war.

KENNEDY: Dr. Rice was a key member of the national security team that developed and justified the rationale for war, and it's been a catastrophic failure, a continuing quagmire. In these circumstances, she should not be promoted to secretary of state.

And in a long, stemwinding, elegant statement, Sen. Robert Byrd (D-WV) blasted Rice for her work in the months proceeding the Sept. 11 attacks.

BYRD: Richard Clarke, the former White House counterterrorism adviser, has leveled scathing criticism against Dr. Rice and the National Security Council for failing to recognize the threat from Al Qaida and Osama bin Laden in the months leading up to the September 11, 2001, terrorist attacks.

But it was Sen. Mark Dayton (D-MN) — a relative newcomer on the national stage — who said it with a fire and directness that made headlines.

DAYTON: I don't like to impugn anyone's integrity but I really don't like being lied to — repeatedly, flagrantly, intentionally. It's wrong, it's undemocratic, it's un-American, and it's dangerous. It is very, very dangerous. And it is occurring far too frequently in this administration. And this Congress, this Senate, must demand that it stop now.

My vote against this nomination is my statement that this administration's lying must stop now. I urge my colleagues to join me in this demand. Democrats, Republicans, Independents, we are all of us first and foremost Americans. We must be told the truth.

E-mail James Norton at jim@flakmag.com.

— graphic by Derek Evernden (derek@ocellus.net)