Diplomats to the Sidelines

Ever since September 2001, the President's central operative image has been "war" -- specifically, his "global war on terror" (promptly transformed into the grim acronym GWOT). With it went the fantasy that we had been plunged into the modern equivalent of World War II with--as George loved to put it--"theaters" of operation and "fronts" on a global scale. Remember how, as we occupied Baghdad in April 2003, administration pronouncements almost made it seem as though we were occupying Tokyo or Berlin, 1945? And when things went badly in Iraq, that country quickly became "the central front in the war on terror" in the President's speeches. Well, now it may indeed be just that.

In the framework -- essentially a fundamentalist religion -- of global force and "preventive" war adopted by the Bush administration, the only place for diplomats was assumedly on the sidelines, holding the pens, as the enemy surrendered to the military. (Too bad, when we hit Baghdad, there was no one around to surrender, no way to put a John Hancock on our "victory.") Otherwise, as classically happened in Iraq, where the State Department, despite copious planning for the postwar moment, was cut out of the process and left in the Kuwaiti or Washingtonian dust by Donald Rumsfeld's Pentagon, all issues of diplomacy were essentially relegated to Wimp World. After all, as the infamous neocon slogan once went, "Everyone wants to go to Baghdad. Real men want to go to Tehran." And it was well known that diplomats were not "real men."

Nowhere on the planet was a diplomat worth a sou. Not surprisingly, then, the two central figures in George W. Bush's second-term diplomatic non-endeavors became his two key female enablers, Condoleezza Rice, now secretary of state, and Karen Hughes, now undersecretary for public diplomacy and public affairs. Not surprisingly, Rice has managed to do nothing of significance on our planet -- even the great diplomatic "success" of this administration, its shaky deal with North Korea, was basically crafted by the Chinese on terms worse than could have been obtained years earlier -- and Hughes, as diplomacy's spinmeister, has managed to put less than no polish on our globally disastrous image.

By now, of course, we've arrived at a moment in the Middle East so grim, so fraught with dangers, so at the edge of who knows what, with so many disparate crises merging, that it's even occurred to Rice something must be done. As Tony Karon, senior editor at Time.com, and the creator of the Rootless Cosmopolitan blog points out, Rice has so far gotten a "free ride" here. Her approval ratings, until recently, hovered well above 50%, while the President's were sinking close to 30%. Now, there's desperate work to be done, and while the Saudis gear up, denouncing the "illegitimate foreign occupation" of Iraq, cancelling state dinners at the White House, consorting with the Iranians, and attempting to broker a deal between the Israelis and the Palestinians, Rice (and the U.S. media) remain mired what Karon calls a "fantasy" version of diplomacy. "They must serve up some pretty powerful Kool Aid in the press room down at Foggy Bottom," he writes, "judging by U.S. media coverage of Condi Rice's latest ‘Look Busy' tour of the Middle East." Don't expect results.

Comments (48)

1. The reason for Rice's "free pass" from the Media is obvious.

   She's black and she's a woman.

   So engrained with gender and racial politics, it now becomes "dangerous ground" to criticize a female or minority for incompetence, 'lest risk the charge of sexism or racism.

   Posted by Mask at 03/30/2007 @ 10:03am

2. Mushroom Cloud Condi: would comedian Rush Limbaugh say she's the Donovan McNabb of American foreign policy? No siblings, no spouse and no children--where did she learn her negotiating skills? And howsabout that Bush shill Karen Hughes. Is she anything more than Mary Matalin with a better complexion?

   Posted by nathanhale at 03/30/2007 @ 10:16am

3. She's black and she's a woman.

   Posted by MASK 03/30/2007 @ 10:03am | ignore this person

   I can see no other palpable reason why this woman's approval rating should be higher than George's. She has accomplished absolutely nothing (I am counting positive accomplishments here).

   She is so enamored of the Bush family she can't see straight. Never forget the "Freudian slip" when she referred to Bush as her husband. Laura must be really pissed.

   Get ready to pay alot more for gas at the pump this summer. $100/barrel oil here we come. The Saudi's were increasing production for awhile to keep prices in check but I think they are going to side with Hugo as to OPEC production policy from now on.

   This administration gets its diplomacy lessons and policy from the Pentagon, and we can all see how well its working. I can't wait for this administration to end. I am counting the days.

   Posted by OneVote at 03/30/2007 @ 10:22am

4. RESE, before I put you back on Ignore for posting the SAME 15 cut & pastes here that you posted on the Stengalgate thread....

   how about answering my question?

   World War-III and martial law start TODAY! (according to your comrade PLUNGER)....

   why are you wasting time blogging and not running for your life?

   Posted by Mask at 03/30/2007 @ 10:33am

5. Dobson said Phred thompson is NOT sufficiently Christian enough!!

   there ya go, the Taliban speaks.

   Posted by crabwalk at 03/30/2007 @ 10:40am

6. The reason for Rice's "free pass" from the Media is obvious.

   She's black and she's a woman.

   So engrained with gender and racial politics, it now becomes "dangerous ground" to criticize a female or minority for incompetence, 'lest risk the charge of sexism or racism.

   Posted by MASK 03/30/2007 @ 10:03am | ignore this person

   Which is exactly why Cynthia McKinney is still a Democratic Congresswoman from Georgia. And why Jocelyn Elders was able to keep her job as Surgeon General under Bill Clinton after making a completely reasonable response to a question about teaching students about masturbation in SEX ED CLASSES!

   Dig a little deeper, Mask. Her gender and color may not have hurt Rice in this case, but sliding over from the National Security Council to State and taking a less visible role of direct responsibility for the war than she had at the beginning seems a much more reasonable explanation than JUST the SOMETIMES political correctness of the media.

   Posted by cka2nd at 03/30/2007 @ 10:40am

7. what has Condi done in her time as Sec of State? What will she list as her accomplishments when she seeks a job in the liberal bastions of a University chair?

   Posted by crabwalk at 03/30/2007 @ 10:41am

8. spring break for Rese?

   Rese, put down your faded, thread worn original copy of The Protocols, go outside, take some good long deep breaths, walk down the street, for a couple of hours. Go ahead and check under rocks you pass for the Jewish threat that must be there, but take a hike, as they say.

   Posted by crabwalk at 03/30/2007 @ 10:57am

9. OOF! another one bites the dust. C'mon Rio, compare this to Jefferson, somehow...

   Family Planning Official Resigns Friday, March 30, 2007; Page A07

   The doctor in charge of the Bush administration's family planning programs resigned yesterday after revealing that state Medicaid officials had taken action against his private medical practice in Massachusetts.

   Keroack also had served as medical director of A Woman's Concern, a nonprofit Christian pregnancy counseling organization in Massachusetts that on its Web site opposed the distribution of contraceptives as "demeaning to women."

   ---Sure, he must have been hired for his concern and respect for women. Certainly not for political cronyism. right?

   just like these guys and gals:

   Carl Truscott

   Joseph Schmitz

   Susan Ralston

   Janet Rehnquist

   Ken Tomlinson

   George Deutsch

   Sean Tunis

   a short list of Bush cronies that had to resign under clouds of scandal. Yes, good 'ol chimpy has restored credibility to the White House. One scandal at a time.

   Posted by crabwalk at 03/30/2007 @ 11:07am

10. First of all, kudos to Tom Englehardt for using the correct term for BushCo's military adventurism; preventive war. He and a few other journalists have been on to this for some time.

    As for Dr. Rice's diplomatic efforts, what did anyone expect? She was a Cold War historian, a Sovietologist by training. Her entire orientation has been toward conflict and the justification of aggressive interaction with enemies (real or imagined) from the beginning of her career. Just take a look at her essay on Soviet strategy in Peter Paret's Makers of Modern Strategy for a fine example of this attitude. She's a hawk and has always been so, definitely not the person you'd want in charge of all U.S. diplomacy. Yet there she is at the head of the State Department, going through the motions and (surprise, surprise) getting virtually nowhere fast. And Tom's right about her "successes" too; the DPRK agreement was just a watered down version of the Agreed Framework of the Clinton years, she's had no success at all in the Israeli/Palestinian negotiations, and now she's even managed to lose the Saudis, who are busy trying on their own to stabilize Iraq. That's the real meaning of their efforts, including the contacts with Iran. They're tired of waiting for BushCo to do something useful and are pushing the more conservative Sunni elements in Iraq into compromise just as the Iranians are doing the same with the more conservative Shi'ites. If any improvement comes to Iraq in the long term, it will be through these efforts, not those of Condi or of BushCo's "surge."

    Posted by Stwriley at 03/30/2007 @ 11:31am

11. Posted by MASK 03/30/2007 @ 10:03am

    i bet we all wish we were black and female in america, the going is so good. then we could be at higher risk of diabetes, breast cancer, poverty, etc. etc.

    Posted by katamantulo at 03/30/2007 @ 11:36am

12. CKA2ND -

    I think your explanation is right on target.

    Posted by Hman23 at 03/30/2007 @ 11:55am

13. Posted by RESE 03/30/2007 @ 11:00am

    Sorry, RESE...back to Ignore.

    Your buddy PLUNGER predicted "World War-3" and "martial law"...for TODAY and the fact you won't address it shows that you're more than a nut...you're a gutless nut. Adios!

    Posted by Mask at 03/30/2007 @ 12:03pm

14. Posted by CKA2ND 03/30/2007 @ 10:40am

    I don't think gender/race politics is the TOTAL answer, either.

    But it IS part of the answer. "SOMETIME political correctness of the Media"?!?!? Come on.

    Unless you slap a cop, a cop trying to protect the Capitol...or are so politically INEPT to say things like ""We must stop this love affair with the fetus." or "The number of Down's Syndrome infants in Washington state in 1976 was 64% lower than it would have been without legal abortion."....a black woman will get a "free pass" (as Tom Engelhardt, not me, said) from them for a much longer time than a white guy.

    Posted by Mask at 03/30/2007 @ 12:13pm

15. Posted by KATAMANTULO 03/30/2007 @ 11:36am

    KATA....good to know that the next time you criticize Condi Rice, we can say "How DARE you attack someone with a 'higher risk of diabetes, breast cancer, poverty, etc'!?!?!!?"

    Posted by Mask at 03/30/2007 @ 12:14pm

16. Posted by MASK 03/30/2007 @ 12:14pm

    so if we go to war with iran to distract the public from the mayhem in iraq, and i post something objecting to it as bad foreign policy, you'll say i'm a racist? interesting. virtually a non-sequitur but interesting.

    Posted by katamantulo at 03/30/2007 @ 12:36pm

17. Virtually hell, Katamantulo. And the term for this shouldn't be pre-emptive war, as this infers evidence of intent that isn't clear upon the enemy, it should be called 'opportunistic war', which is what Bush does; drum up fake evidence that they have 'nukular weapons or weapons of mayass destruction, pretend that they are attacking you with anonymous/dubious sources, and then bomb the shit out of them.

    Posted by brantl at 03/30/2007 @ 12:43pm

18. I don't care what race or gender Condoleeza Rice is. She can be the color purple for all I care. She's got a job to do, and she is SO not doing it. Worst high level public official I've ever seen. Even worse than Bush! She's done nothing right. Everyone just rolls right over her.

    Hmm, maybe Cheney's worse. It's pretty close.

    Posted by MyParadigm at 03/30/2007 @ 12:44pm

19. Posted by KATAMANTULO 03/30/2007 @ 12:36pm

    MY POST was a "non sequitur"?!?!?!?

    You're the one who brought up "diabetes, breast cancer, and poverty"....when I was discussing the POLITICAL CORRECTNESS issue of Rice being an African-American female.

    No, KATA....the point is why few ARE "objecting to HER foreign policy", as Mr Engelhardt noted.

    And atleast PART of the reason the Media treat her with kid gloves is...because of her gender and skin color, due in large part to an attitude (cultivated over many years) that you "just don't" attack women or minorities without the "underlying reason" being racism or sexism.

    Note: First used as a catch-all counter-attack for criticisms of Janet Reno, Madeline Albright, Jocelyn Elders, Lani Guinier, etc. over a decade ago.

    Posted by Mask at 03/30/2007 @ 12:45pm

20. Bullshit, Mask, absolute, unadulderated, turd blossoming bullshit.

    Not the most reasoned, evidence-based response, I know, but I am so tired of people, mostly white peope and especially white men, acting as if they catch only holy hell while black people, and especially black women, get off scott-free in the media and the press. All of the welfare queens, crack mothers, lazy and uppity, Reparations-demanding, handout-looking, Affirmative Action-expecting stereotypes beloved of right-wing opinion-makers and gladly passed along by the mainstream media for the last 30 or 40 years say thanks for being a sucker, Mask. And all of the cops who get away with brutality or murder, even in the most riduculous of circumstances, the "politically incorrect" white commedians who deal in prejudice and bigotry (don't like it coming from the other side either, by the way), or the neo-conservative pundits (mostly though not exlusivley white and male) who go on being wrong time and again but always seem to keep and even increase their mainstream positions of influence, and of course the corporate and growing class of trust fund mandarins who just keep raking in the wealth of the nation and the world even as they strip mine pension plans, companies and whole countries, they all thank you for not noticing that they are in fact the ones who just keep skating by, scandal after scandal, 9 times out of 10.

    Sorry for the rant, everyone.

    Posted by cka2nd at 03/30/2007 @ 12:51pm

21. Shoot, I got so caught up in responding to Mask that I forgot to refer folks to a very good piece on Cynthia McKinney and the long campaign to politically "get" her. The cover story of the April 13, 2006 issue of the on-line magazine, The Black Commentator (Issue 179) was:

    The McKinney Affair: Rampaging Racism and a Cowardly Caucus by BC Publishers Glen Ford and Peter Gamble

    Posted by cka2nd at 03/30/2007 @ 12:59pm

22. Posted by CKA2ND 03/30/2007 @ 12:51pm

    CKA...I think you misunderstand.

    I'm FAULTING the Media for not going after Rice, because of THEIR desire to be politically correct and "not attacking a black woman".

    I think Rice should be treated with the same distain and scrutiny as Rumsfeld, Cheney, Dubya.

    But the paradigm of "You're a racist if you criticize a black person, even justifibly" or "criticize a woman, and you 'have some problem with women'" wasn't created by the RIGHT, nor was "sensitivity" to it a part of THEIR agenda.

    Nor could it just be "turned off" when the woman or African-American became Republican, instead of Democrat.

    Nor, I would add, do I favor presumption of "oppression" or "political targetting" (if it's a McKinney, who wasn't FORCED to slap a cop)....anymore than I would favor presuming it for RICE!

    Posted by Mask at 03/30/2007 @ 1:14pm

23. Posted by BRANTL 03/30/2007 @ 12:43pm

    The correct technical term is "preventive war", as Tom used it; attacking a potential (or claimed) enemy because they might at some time in the indeterminate future, be a threat. BushCo has used the term "pre-emptive war" from the beginning in an attempt to conceal what they are actually doing, but fortunately at least a few in the media (like Tom) are able to tell the difference. At the risk of violating Godwin's Law [en.wikipedia.org], I'll just note (since you mention fake evidence and opportunism) that preventive war (what BushCo has actually been doing since March 2003) was a favorite technique of Hitler's. The seizure of the Sudetenland, the invasion of Czechoslovakia and of Poland were all justified by trumped up "evidence" and reference to preventive war doctrine. This is one of the reasons that preventive war is now regarded as illegitimate under international law; it's also why BushCo has mis-characterized this as pre-emptive war from the beginning, to give it the cloak of international legitimacy.

    Posted by Stwriley at 03/30/2007 @ 1:17pm

24. Posted by ONEVOTE 03/30/2007 @ 10:22am

    "Never forget the "Freudian slip" when she referred to Bush as her husband."

    We need to get ahold of Condi's dry-cleaner. Maybe there IS an impeachable blow-job hiding around the WH someplace! Ah but for lack of a dirty blue dress....

    Posted by leftofcenter at 03/30/2007 @ 1:28pm

25. Mask:

    I don't cut Dr. Rice any slack. She be a Black woman and not at all bad looking for her age, but she's a liar who toed the official propaganda lines in the in up to the war against Iraq.

    Posted by Jack Rabbit at 03/30/2007 @ 2:25pm

26. Posted by JACK RABBIT 03/30/2007 @ 2:25pm

    Good for you....but unfortunately you're not CBS, CNN, the NY Times, or Newsweek, JACK.

    Posted by Mask at 03/30/2007 @ 2:49pm

27. We need to get ahold of Condi's dry-cleaner. Maybe there IS an impeachable blow-job hiding around the WH someplace! Ah but for lack of a dirty blue dress....

    Posted by LEFTOFCENTER 03/30/2007 @ 1:28pm | ignore this person

    I hear tell Condi spent alot of time at Kennebunkport and Crawford. I would start off looking for the soiled....well, you get the idea...at these locations. Maybe the illegal immigrant maid service has some goodies! Whisper....."secret lover."

    Posted by OneVote at 03/30/2007 @ 2:51pm

28. Posted by MASK 03/30/2007 @ 12:45pm

    i think you're exaggerating the excesses of political correctness, while appearing to trivialize racism in the process.

    Posted by katamantulo at 03/30/2007 @ 2:55pm

29. Posted by KATAMANTULO 03/30/2007 @ 2:55pm

    KATA, the problem it creates...

    If you (or others on the political blogs/activists side) take the "Cynthia McKinney was only attacked because she was a woman and black"....then why can't the SAME rationale be used to defend Rice by the Right?

    I think as far as the Media goes, McKinney was given a pass as well, until she became so egregious that it couldn't be ignored any longer....the striking of a Capitol police officer was just the LAST of a serious of "McKinneyisms" (including 9/11 and assassination conspiracy theorism...attacking the Gore campaign...radio on-air blow ups).

    If Rice were to show the same aggressive even ludicrious behavior...they'd take her on as well....but she hasn't, nor is likely to.

    Posted by Mask at 03/30/2007 @ 3:31pm

30. Mask,

    Respectfully, I think that Kata is right. The media is not so ensnared by political correctness as you seem to think, and they really do not find it very hard to attack a black woman who falls within one of the socioeconomic or political groupings that they always find it comfortable to criticize, denigrate or berate (Ah yes, Leslie Stahl giving an overweight, lower working class white woman the Mike Wallace treatment over her food stamps. Priceless.). Politicians perceived as "of the left" are a favorite target, and so McKinney was fair game for the Sister Souljah treatment, for reasons both justifiable (9/11 conspiracy theories) and trumped up (the "slapped a cop" farce), when there are white male politicians out there saying and doing equally preposterous things every day.

    Anyway, we can agree to disagree on why Rice is getting a pass and can still agree that she deserves to be impeached and sent to Leavenworth with Bush, Cheney, Rummy, Scooter and the rest of them, right?

    Posted by cka2nd at 03/30/2007 @ 4:45pm

31. within one of the socioeconomic or political groupings that they always find it comfortable to criticize, denigrate or berate

    Posted by CKA2ND 03/30/2007 @ 4:45pm

    So McKinney was "attacked" for being a Democrat? (She's not poor, so that one won't fly).

    As for the "trumped up charges" of assualting a Capitol Hill cop...

    then why did she APOLOGIZE for doing something that was "trumped up"?

    (BTW, I know this is a fruitless argument, you're a McKinney partisan...and, all respect, sound like a person who would, as Ms McKinney did BEFORE she apologized, play the race card and put it all down to racism/sexism/etc.)

    Posted by Mask at 03/30/2007 @ 5:00pm

32. i'm sure cynthia mckinney is her own worst enemy.

    Posted by katamantulo at 03/30/2007 @ 5:15pm

33. Rio:

    Condoleezza Rice has a very impressive resume and a Ph.D.

    That makes her a liar with an impressive resume and a Ph.D.

    Posted by Jack Rabbit at 03/30/2007 @ 11:04pm

34. What will she list as her accomplishments when she seeks a job in the liberal bastions of a University chair?

    Posted by CRABWALK 03/30/2007 @ 10:41am

    1. First women SoS to have an oil tanker named after her.

    2. Has more Farragamo shoes than any previous SoS.

    3. Did not either start or stop a war in the Middle East.

    4. Did not do much of anything.

    5. By not doing much of anything do not show her true level of incompetence.

    6. First American SoS to go all weak in the knees over Canadian Foreign Minister.

    7. Was clueless about terrorist activities after nearly a year as National Security Advisor.

    8. Plays piano better than any previous SoS.

    9. First SoS to wear Farragamo high heels in a cow pasture in Texas.

    and the 10th accomplishment is:

    10. The first SoS to fantasize about having president Bush as her husband!

    "The United States is committed to helping Iraq recover from the conflict, but Iraq will not require sustained aid." - Condoleezza Rice

    Posted by COProgressive at 03/30/2007 @ 11:30pm

35. yeah but condi would have been hell on wheels if the soviet union were still around.

    Posted by Will C. at 03/30/2007 @ 11:48pm

36. and she has excellent taste in go-go boots

    Posted by Will C. at 03/30/2007 @ 11:50pm

37. Posted by COPROGRESSIVE 03/30/2007 @ 11:30pm

    CoProgressive:

    I take exception to your third point: Did not either start or stop a war in the Middle East.

    Starting the Iraq war was a team effort, and Dr. Rice was a key player on the team.

    If the Big Dick had not been there with his raw, unfiltered documents and other bits of dubious intelligence to pick and choose from, he might never have made the outrageous (and outrageously wrong) statements about Iraq's military capabilities and intentions that he did.

    Dr. Rice, as a member of the White House Iraq Group, shared that intelligence -- although that really wasn't what it was -- and mouthed the same talking points from it. "We don't want the smoking gun to be a mushroom cloud," she warned. Just as Cheney spoke of Iraq's "reconstituted" nuclear program. Just as Bush spoke the sixteen words that did not belong in his State of the Union message in 2003.

    When looked at that way, as stovepiped intelligence papers which had not been vetted in any way, with Cheney pouring through them for "facts" that he could fix to the policy, it's no real mystery how all of these "facts" turned out to be a lot of nonsense.

    I assume that Dr. Rice knew the nature of Mr. Cheney's intelligence and that Mr. Cheney, who has a reputation as an avid reader of intelligence reports, knows that intelligence is not gathered the way he gathered it. We have professionals who determine whether a document is genuine or whether an interrogation subject is telling the truth. If Mr. Cheney did not recognize the Niger document as a forgery, as crude a forgery as it was, then let that testify to the fact he had no business looking at raw intelligence.

    Perhaps he was afraid that if he let the pros in the CIA do their jobs they'd spoil his little party and tell him that there was really no reason to believe Saddam was "reconstituting" his nuclear program or that he had stockpiles of biochemical agents or the means to deliver them or that Saddam was in league with al Qaida in any way.

    Doug Feith's OSP in the Pentagon worked very much the same way and set about making their own assumptions and picking out unvetted documents to validated them. They came up with their little report asserting that Saddam and al Qaida were working together and Dick Cheney called it the "best" intelligence he had seen on Iraq. In reality, it was just more nonsense. It was all wrong.

    Dr. Rice was one of the people who helped cobble together the fables of a brutal, unconscionable tyrant with large quantities of biochemical agents and big bad missiles and how he was on the verge of build a nuke.

    I have to disagree with you on the third point, CoProgressive. Dr. Rice was very instrumental in starting the Iraq War.

    Posted by Jack Rabbit at 03/31/2007 @ 12:13am

38. Dr. Rice was one of the people who helped cobble together the fables of a brutal, unconscionable tyrant with large quantities of biochemical agents and big bad missiles and how he was on the verge of build a nuke.

    I have to disagree with you on the third point, CoProgressive. Dr. Rice was very instrumental in starting the Iraq War.

    Posted by JACK RABBIT 03/31/2007 @ 12:13am

    Jack Rabbit if you think Saddam Hussein had to be demonised you are not even in the game (perhaps you have expressed yourself ambiguously). Further, in view of some of your earlier posts, you should read the original documents which you purport to quote, rather than repeat the mythology of jaundiced purveyors of misinformation. For example in Bush's State of the Union address you will find that Bush correctly quoted British Intelligence with respect to Niger and Iraq's interest in uranium.

    The British stood by that intelligence as the following excerpt from Wikipedia shows, which even to the simplest mind, should indicate that Bush quoted Intelligence which the Brits believe to be correct. Anyway you Yanks must be pretty dumb if the only reason you would have countenanced the war is if some military official from Iraq had been checking out the availability of uranium in Niger. That's the trouble with your sort of propaganda, it seems to be designed for the comfort of the credible or willfully ignorant:

    "The claim that Iraq was seeking to buy uranium from Africa was repeated in George W. Bush's State of the Union Address in January 2003. The controversial 16 words used by US President George W Bush on January 28, 2003 were:

    "The British government has learned that Saddam Hussein recently sought significant quantities of uranium from Africa."[2]

    In March the International Atomic Energy Agency, when it finally obtained the documents referred to by Colin Powell to the United Nations Security Council alleging transactions between Niger and Iraq, concluded that they were obvious fakes.[3]

    However, in July, Tony Blair testified to the House of Commons Liaison Committee that the evidence the government had regarding Iraq's dealings with Niger came from a separate source to the fraudulent documents. Ever since Powell's presentation, critics argued that had the U.S. and UK intelligence services fully cooperated with United Nations weapons inspectors, it could have been found out whether the claims were truthful.

    Subsequently, CIA director, George Tenet, stated that the remarks should not have been included in the US President's speech. This followed a remark by American National Security advisor Condoleezza Rice, saying that the presence of the line in the speech showed that it had been authorised by the CIA.

    The British Foreign Secretary Jack Straw later told the Foreign Affairs Select Committee (which was investigating the veracity of the claims in the dossier) that British intelligence on the matter had not been shared with the CIA, and that the statement in the dossier was based on reliable intelligence.

    Additionally, the Butler Review made a specific conclusion on Bush's 16 words: "By extension, we conclude also that the statement in President Bush's State of the Union Address of 28 January 2003 that 'The British Government has learned that Saddam Hussein recently sought significant quantities of uranium from Africa' was well-founded." Multiple unexplained findings of yellow cake uranium, both in Iraq and mixed with scrap metal from Iraq, would seem to lend further credibility to these claims."

    It's OK to fool yourself, if that keeps you happy, but most of the anti-war brigade here wouldn't know how to spell research, let alone know how to do it, so it's very unlikely that you would get anything, to improve your understanding from them, except of course their usual dumbed down responses.

    The reason Bush will never be impeached is that Republican and Democratic politicians knew enough about Iraq and the Baathist regime from a wide range of sources, in testimony before Senate committees, from about 1988 up until about October 2002, to form a pro-Iraq war mindset. Bush can hardly be blamed for forming that collective propensity in the majority of the Reps and the Senators who supported the 2003 war and many of whom are still in Congress.

    You may not see the implication of that pre-war Congressional knowledge and the subsequent formation of a political pro-Iraq war mentality that crossed party lines and gave Bush carte blanche but those with party or ideological propensities, mostly if not always, have great difficulty seeing the obvious:

    POLITICAL AND DIPLOMATIC ASPECTS (Wikipedia)

    Since the conclusion of the Gulf War of 1991, Iraq's relations with the UN, the U.S., and the UK remained poor. In the absence of a Security Council consensus that Iraq had fully complied with the terms of the Persian Gulf War ceasefire, both the UN and the U.S. enforced numerous economic sanctions against Iraq (see, Iraq sanctions) throughout the Clinton administration. The U.S. and the UK patrolled Iraqi airspace to enforce Iraqi no-fly zones that they had declared to protect Kurds in northern Iraq and Shi'ites in the south. The no-fly zone was contested however by Iraqi military helicopters and planes on numerous occasions.[10][11] The United States Congress also passed the "Iraq Liberation Act" in October 1998 after Iraq had terminated its cooperation with the U.N. in August, which provided $97 million for Iraqi "democratic opposition organizations" in order to "establish a program to support a transition to democracy in Iraq."[12] This contrasted with the terms set out in U.N. Resolution 687,[13] all of which related to weapons and weapons programs, and made no mention of regime change. Weapons inspectors had been used to gather information on Iraq's WMD (Weapons of Mass Destruction) program and to enforce the terms of the 1991 cease fire, which forbade Iraq from developing WMD. The information was used in targeting decisions during Operation Desert Fox, a U.S. and UK bombardment of Iraq in December 1998 which was precipitated by lack of cooperation between Iraq and the UN weapon inspections team.[14][15]

    The United States Republican Party's campaign platform in the U.S. presidential election, 2000 called for "full implementation" of the Iraq Liberation Act (1998) and removal of Saddam Hussein with a focus on rebuilding a coalition, tougher sanctions, reinstating inspections, and support for the pro-democracy, opposition exile group, Iraqi National Congress then headed by Ahmed Chalabi.[16] Upon the election of George W. Bush as president, according to former treasury secretary Paul O'Neill, an attack was planned since the inauguration, and the first security council meeting discussed plans on invasion of the country. O'Neill later clarified that these discussions were part of a continuation of foreign policy first put into place by the Clinton Administration."

    Posted by lrjones4 at 03/31/2007 @ 05:38am

39. Posted by JACK RABBIT 03/31/2007 @ 12:13am

    Thank you, Jack, I stand corrected. I have to agree with you about Dr. Rice being part of the team, but I still feel that any objection she may have offered, had she objected, would have been overpowered by the 800 pound gorilla in the room, Darth Cheney. Posted by LRJONES4 03/31/2007 @ 05:38am | ignore this person

    My, aren't we being pompous this morning.

    Where to start.... Do I deal with this Red Herring, or just let LR's fish continue to stink?

    Deal with it.

    "The British government has learned that Saddam Hussein recently sought significant quantities of uranium from Africa."

    In March the International Atomic Energy Agency, when it finally obtained the documents referred to by Colin Powell to the United Nations Security Council alleging transactions between Niger and Iraq, concluded that they were obvious fakes.

    in July, Tony Blair testified to the House of Commons Liaison Committee that the evidence the government had regarding Iraq's dealings with Niger came from a separate source to the fraudulent documents.

    The British Foreign Secretary Jack Straw later told the Foreign Affairs Select Committee (which was investigating the veracity of the claims in the dossier) that British intelligence on the matter had not been shared with the CIA, and that the statement in the dossier was based on reliable intelligence.

    the Butler Review made a specific conclusion on Bush's 16 words: "By extension, we conclude also that the statement in President Bush's State of the Union Address of 28 January 2003 that 'The British Government has learned that Saddam Hussein recently sought significant quantities of uranium from Africa' was well-founded." Multiple unexplained findings of yellow cake uranium, both in Iraq and mixed with scrap metal from Iraq, would seem to lend further credibility to these claims."

    So, based on your "Research" the 16 words were justified because the Brits had some "Reliable intelligence" that had not been shared with the CIA. So, did Jack Straw whisper into Dr. Rice's ear "Saddam Hussein recently sought significant quantities of uranium from Africa." Sounds like hearsay evidence to me. The hearsay evidence is "confirmed" by "unexplained findings of yellow cake uranium, both in Iraq and mixed with scrap metal from Iraq". Sounds to me you are connecting dots that are fraudulent, unproven, and very, very, very far apart. You are deceiving yourself and other that might believe you far fetched theory.

    But that has nothing to do with anything, hence the Red Herring comment.

    Then you go on in your blithering manner by saying "The reason Bush will never be impeached" and presume that the only reason that president Bush would not be impeached is due to both sides of the congress having voted for the ‘‘Authorization for Use of Military Force Against Iraq Resolution of 2002''.

    You really should try to stay up with US politics better.

    "Against logic there is no armor like ignorance." Lawrence J. Peter

    Posted by COProgressive at 03/31/2007 @ 1:23pm

40. Mr. Jones:

    Thank you for your input. This is a much better defense of the Bush regime than the Bush regime itself usually provides.

    First of all, one of my sentences was poorly formed and I can see were it might leave the impression that I think Saddam was something other that a brutal tyrant. I don't. While he was a monster, he was in the spring of 2003 a monster who wasn't a threat to his weakest neighbor.

    While British intelligence stands by its findings, the source remains unknown. The Butler report merely asserts that Mr. Bush's 16 words were correct in that British intelligence did make these claims, but provides no information to support that conclusion. Furthermore, the CIA did not rely on the British claims and continued to doubt the reorts of Saddam's seeking yellowcake in Niger. Consequently, Mr. Tenet had those claims removed from prior speeches by Mr. Bush and admitted to an error in that it was in the 2003 SOTU.

    You can find that in Wikipedia, too.

    Your argument, as well presented as it is, does nothing to change the fact that intelligence was being manipulated prior to the war in order to make a strong-sounding case for war. As Julian Borger reported in the Guardian in October 2002:

    The determination of the current US administration to seek an urgent confrontation with Baghdad has convinced many Americans that it must know something the rest of us are not aware of. But over the past few days it has become clear the Bush team has access to the same ambiguous mix of information and speculation as the rest of the world. It simply requires a lower standard of proof.

    The past week has witnessed a behind-the-scenes revolt by US intelligence and other government employees in sensitive positions, against the White House and Pentagon over the use of classified information about Saddam Hussein's activities.

    Piece by piece, the evidence against Baghdad laid out by President Bush and his senior aides has been called into question. It has become clear that the administration's case has been built on a reading of intelligence that has been selective to say the least.

    The neoconservatives were looking for talking points, not facts. I will say again, as I said in my original post, that it is no wonder that intelligence gathered in this way turned out to be all wrong.

    In your last paragraph, you imply that President Clinton was responsible for the invasion, as if that makes it OK. It would not have. Had President Clinton started a war based on a pack of lies, I would have supported his impeachment, too. It's a lot better reason than a blow job, or even lying about a blow job.

    If Mr. Bush and Mr. Cheney are not impeached for manipulating intelligence in order to present a case for war against Iraq that was misleading, distorted or fabricated, it will be for lack of will, not for lack of evidence.

    Posted by Jack Rabbit at 03/31/2007 @ 1:27pm

41. Rio Bravo-Don't care much for bush,cheney,rummy,rove etc and they're all white guys so your claim that Condi is disliked because she's a conservative black woman is a tad bit of a stretch on your part.They're all part of the same gang of thugs.Give this stuff some thought before you post.

    Posted by i'm nobody at 03/31/2007 @ 2:26pm

42. "Which is exactly why Cynthia McKinney is still a Democratic Congresswoman from Georgia. And why Jocelyn Elders was able to keep her job as Surgeon General under Bill Clinton after making a completely reasonable response to a question about teaching students about masturbation in SEX ED CLASSES!"

    "Dig a little deeper, Mask. Her gender and color may not have hurt Rice in this case, but sliding over from the National Security Council to State and taking a less visible role of direct responsibility for the war than she had at the beginning seems a much more reasonable explanation than JUST the SOMETIMES political correctness of the media."

    Posted by CKA2ND 03/30/2007 @ 10:40am

    Let me correct you on a few things CKA2ND, Cynthia McKinney is not well liked here in the state of Georgia, that's why we voted her sorry ass out of office. She was so busy trying to be apart of the DC scene that nothing got taken care of here in District 4 like she promised. And, as a black woman and I think she should have gone to jail for assaulting that cop.

    Also, Dr. Jocelyn Elders didn't keep her job, she was forced to resign by President Clinton and replaced by Dr. Antonia Novella as Surgeon General. (You forgot the Clintons had a young daughter still living with them at the time in the WH)

    I'm curious though, why would think it's reasonable to teach someone else's child about a very private sexual act? While I don't have a serious issue with teaching basic sex education, (and I know there are young teens engaging in sexual activity), I still have a problem with adults outside of the family showing that kind material, no matter who well-meaning they may be.

    Would you feel comfortable with an adult telling (or God forbid) showing material to a young child on how to perform this act?

    Posted by ACook at 03/31/2007 @ 6:21pm

43. oh no... you're from georgia

    Posted by Will C. at 03/31/2007 @ 6:27pm

44. "2. Has more Farragamo shoes than any previous SoS."

    "9. First SoS to wear Farragamo high heels in a cow pasture in Texas."

    Posted by COPROGRESSIVE 03/30/2007 @ 11:30pm

    COPRO, don't be jealous...besides, what do you have against a sista wearing Farragamo shoes, hell, I wish I could afford a pair. The closest I get is DSW. But, if you're so concerned, I need a Fendi, DKNY, and a Kate Spade bag along with a couple pair of Steve Madden and Kenneth Cole shoes.

    "10. The first SoS to fantasize about having president Bush as her husband!"

    Who cares, as long as he's paying the bills....isn't that what you old guys do when you have a little something on the side?! ;)

    Posted by ACook at 03/31/2007 @ 6:34pm

45. "Oh no!!... you're from georgia?!"

    Posted by WILL C. 03/31/2007 @ 6:27pm

    Wha you talkin bout WILLIS?!...I'm originally from Michigan, but moved to GA many years ago with my husband and then 2 small children in tow.

    Posted by ACook at 03/31/2007 @ 6:37pm

46. Rio Bravo-Don't care much for bush,cheney,rummy,rove etc and they're all white guys so your claim that Condi is disliked because she's a conservative black woman is a tad bit of a stretch on your part.They're all part of the same gang of thugs.Give this stuff some thought before you post.

    Posted by I'M NOBODY 03/31/2007 @ 2:26pm

    Really? Why, calling these wonderful, holy people a gang of thugs just proves Rio's point. You're just full of myopic hatred, that's all. What about the dozens of people Clinton murdered to to keep his crimes covered up? You know, like Vince Fopster and Ron Brown? What about Jefferson? Now, that's really crooked. Tom DeLay and Scooter Libby and Alberto Gonzales and Dick Cheney are innocent.

    You are just so full of myopic hatred. Not full of wonderful, wholesome thoughts like us.

    Don't you DEMONCRATS know anything?

    Posted by Jack Rabbit at 03/31/2007 @ 9:29pm

47. MS. Rice has had a free pass from day 1. When the worst foreign attack on US soil since 1812 happens, personally, I fire my National Security Advisor. The press has bought the bio line about her being a recognized authority on the Soviet Union. At best she was third rate (nobody claims she was 1st rate - no known books - and even second rate Sovietologists speak Russian. She didn't predict the fall of the Iron Curtain either.

    Mediocrity is her best asset in this administration. Cheney really runs the national security show, and nobody believes in diplomacy when so much money is riding on permanent war. Yes she is a stooge, a patsy, a slug in th e coin box, the non-entity doing what she's there for--nothing at all. When will the ruling class pull the plug on this mess?

    Posted by Truffledog at 04/01/2007 @ 7:48pm

48. Truffles

    Don't forget that in this admin, "mediocre" is pretty darn good!

    Posted by leftofcenter at 04/02/2007 @ 11:46am