Semi-Daily Journal

This isn't the first or the second time that Rice has been put out there with a weak script. I'm convinced that she was primarily hired as a flak-catcher, on the tokenism theory that white liberals and maybe blacks will pull their punches a little for a woman of color. (She's single, too. Not that there's anything wrong with that).

And if anyone really does lay into her, the Instacrackers and Kauses and Sullivans and Safires (along with Semi-Daily's resident tools) will hit "send" on their pre-written "Liberal Democrats are the Real Racists" stories.

It works. Suppose Condi were a white Christian male -- someone like Lott or Rumsfeld. By now the guy would have been trashed backwards, forwards, and upside down, along with his whole family, his home town, and every college he ever attended. Stanford would be saying "Condi who?" His college transcripts would be on the internet; his academic publications would have been trashed; every friend he ever had would have been trolled for scandals. (And a good thing, too!)

My own opinion is that we should fight fire with fire, put some angry black liberal lady front and center, and play the politics of personal destruction the 21st-century way. Yeah, that's pretty cynical, but welcome to the real world. The real problem with that is that a lot of Dems are still in the loser "We Can't Be Like Them" camp, and the neutral and objective media would be horrified if Democrats started acting like Republicans.

(Don't worry, trolls. I do NOT speak for the Democratic Party. They will continue to be nice, and to lose. You and Bush are safe.)

Brad DeLong has these statements under the remarkable headline of, "Why Are We Ruled by These Idiots"?

Ms. Rice: "Carrying out civil administration and police functions is simply going to degrade the American capability to do the things America has to do. We don't need to have the 82nd Airborne escorting kids to kindergarten."

Lt. Gen. Conway: "U.S. Marines have lost a lot of soccer games. We don't really consider that we truly lost - a lot of goodwill was gained."

These two statements are NOT in conflict. In fact, it's remarkable that they have been posted on the *very same day* that Saddam Hussein's sons have have been killed in a firefight with U.S. troops:

http://famulus.msnbc.com/FamulusIntl/reuters07-22-124129.asp?reg=MIDEAST

THAT is what the U.S. military should be doing...finding ALL of the remaining leadership of Saddam Hussein's government, and capturing or killing them. The U.S. military should also be trying to find and secure any WMD or WMD production capabilities. Now, if the U.S. military, during its time off, plays soccer with Iraqi kids, that's great. But their *job* was to completely eliminate (capture or kill) Saddam Hussein's government, and to make sure that no WMD and WMD production capability exist in Iraq.

Good work, U.S. military. May the b@stards rot in h@ll.

Now come on: while I can't defend Rice's record generally, nor can I really attack it with any competence, this presentation was a bit unfair. So Rice said she didn't like peacekeeping, civilian-esque functions for U.S. troops -- in October 2000! I mean, you wonder why she has a job in light of something wrongheaded she said before she was ever appointed? I'm no Riceologist, but this seems to be just old dirt. Maybe there are more relevant bases on which to criticize the job she's been doing? Wasn't what she said there a fairly common criticism made by conservatives about peacekeeping and the like?

Mark,

So if the US neutralises all the old Ba'ath leadership, finds any and all WMDs and sees Iraq turn into an aggressive fundamentalist Shi'ite dictatorship, you'd consider that as "mission successfully accomplished" for the US military ?

Personally, I think Lt Gen Conway understands that the military cannot ever take an attitude of 'The operation was successful, but the patient died'.

Ian Whitchurch

It appears that Condi Rice understands the concept of opportunity costs.

"We don't need to have the 82nd Airborne escorting kids to kindergarten"

Domestically, I think that's now the responsibility of the Department of Homeland Security.

That's correct. Instead of ridiculous peace-keeping activities, the US military should be used to eliminate threats to our national security, such as Saddam's 'vast stockpiles' of WMD's.

I will offer the idea again that Rice is being used as a "wind dummy". She can say things first, see what response they draw in the press, before those with less tolerance for rough handling decide whether they want to repeat her line. Where is the vice president, anyway?

She certainly won't be flashing around blackmail files in order to keep her job (is that the way it worked at Treasury under Clinton, Brad?). She is young and has arrived at a level equivalent to cabinet secretary. Snake-like behavior would mean she would never get to come back. Snake-like behavior in a pit of snakes won't keep you alive for long, anyway. She is useful, so she stays. Her issues are still front burner, so it is too obviously an admission of weakness to let her go. Watch to see if she is allowed near any other issues that may have a long life to know whether she is at risk of spending more time with here family, starting aroudn the holidays. Powell is handling North Korea, right?

What it proves is that Rice and her team is having to learn fast from the British experience in Northern Ireland, as transplanted to Basra and the south. In short, the football was out in those areas as soon as the guns were put away. Helps, of course, that the Brits know how to play.

'Escorting kids to kindergarten' may make for good pre-election bluster, especially with the 'shoot first, take the bodies home later' reputation of the US military; but occupation sometimes requires such things:

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/northern_ireland/1617384.stm

It is amusing that the irony is lost on some.

"That's correct. Instead of ridiculous peace-keeping activities, the US military should be used to eliminate threats to our national security, such as Saddam's 'vast stockpiles' of WMD's."

The U.S. military should eliminate threats to our national security such as Saddam himself, and his two sons. Then, Iraqi scientists with uranium centifuging engineering diagrams and equipment in their rose gardens will feel a little freer to talk.

I gotta tell ya--and I say this as a Libertarian, who knows the candidates *I* vote for in 2004 won't win--you Democrats are your own worst enemies.

Dr. DeLong posts something titled, "Why are we ruled by these idiots?" Then the EXAMPLE he gives, as noted by Julian Elson, is a quote from Condeleeza Rice in OCTOBER 2000(!), i.e., before G.W. Bush was even elected. The quote dealt with the Balkans.

If Democratic candidates in 2004 think that the mission of the 82nd Airborne ***IS*** to "escort kids to kindergarten" (i.e., to carry out administrative and police functions), then Democratic candidates in 2004 will LOSE. Because the American people aren't idiots. At least not a majority of them.

There are plenty of *sane* places to criticize the Bush Adminstration. Calling this quote of Condi Rice (from October 2000, no less) "idiotic" is not a sane place to criticize. Get a grip, Dr. DeLong.

Hint: Read some of Robert Reich's stuff about eliminating payroll taxes for low-income people. If you Democrats want to win in 2004, THAT'S the way to do it...not to call a statement that is actually quite wise, "idiotic."

http://www.prospect.org/print/V13/22/reich-r.html/

Yes, of course. If Saddam is eliminated, *then* we'll get the magic key to the Big Cache O'Doom.
Or rather, production equipment for the BCO'D. Or things which could conceivably be assembled into the BCO'D. The administration has been walking backwards on this whole affair - 'vast stockpiles' have turned into 'well, if we can just eliminate Saddam, then we can find something'.

As for the 82nd 'escorting kids to kindergarten', that will be a sign of success in Iarq, that we can worry about lower-level stuff (and such stuff will probably have to be taken care of, if things are to go well) One of the lessons of the 21st century is that 'failed states' can be big problems.

But you are right on some things, Mark - supporting lower taxes on lower-income people is something that the Democratic Party should be doing.

And your comment on spending time on Rice's comment is a little bit correct - theoretically, we should all be paying a lot of attention to the fact that either the Bush administration deliberately deceived the american people about the war, or there was a massive intelligence failure. One which needs a truly independent investigation, one with a large budget, and the power to get to the truth.

It is clear that the Bush Administration has badly botched the post war Iraq. Before he was elected, Bush and his minions disdained nation building and all it entails. From comments such as the one made by Ms Rice, it is clear that key advisors do not understand the concept of nation building and how to govern effectively after a regime change.

A competent NSA would have better prepared the president and the nation for post war Iraq. We would have had better success if the infrastructure worked and we understood the political structure that we overturned. When a political party, runs a country where even the lowest government functions such as sewage treatment require party membership, then eliminating all party members from their positions will collapse the infrastructure. Since the administration believes that government can do no good except for defense, is it any wonder that they overlooked the responsibility to repair and maintain common infrastructure in the post war?

The fact that we are in the quagmire of Iraq and unprepared to handle the situation is testimony to the incompetence of the NSA, the Pentagon and the rest of the planners for Iraq. Their incompetence is costing the lives of our boys in Iraq. There were people in the administration with nation building experience in Bosnia and elsewhere that were ignored and dismissed by the Iraq planners. Senator Lugar claims that the Bush administration never presented him with a plan for post war Iraq. He did not know if that was because they were keeping it secret or if they just didn’t have one. The latter seems to be the case. Congress has to budget the money for Iraq, so one would think that a strong ally in his own party who will have to carry the water in the Senate would be in the loop. Again this is incompetence in the administration and the NSA.

Ms Rice had minimal qualifications for the job going in. A Russian specialist with some service under Bush 41 and a corporate board yes man serving up outrageous salaries to bloated CEOs and provost of Stanford prepared her to be a yes man for the president but not a true advisor willing and able to deflate a boss with overoptimistic expectations. Mr Bush wanted a yes man as his NSA and still does. He does not understand why he should have a different NSA.

I disagree with Brad. We are being run by ideologues.

"It is clear that the Bush Administration has badly botched the post war Iraq. "

How so? We've got the Baathist insurgents on the run, a pluralistic Iraqi Council set up and ready to start writing a constitution, 70% of the population still glad we invaded, the Kurds are even happier than that, utilities and services are better than before the war (with the exception of the electricity, and some of that is due to sabotage), oil is beginning to flow, there are 50 independent newspapers and several TV stations in Baghdad, internet and cellphone service where there was none before, returning expats and Western entrepreneurs starting businesses . . . and all this 2 months after the end of a 3-week war.

Compare to postwar Germany or Japan and tell me how badly we're bungling it.

http://www.hfienberg.com/kesher/2003_07_20_kesher_archive.html#105907361118549828
http://www.hfienberg.com/kesher/2003_07_20_kesher_archive.html#105820611819294842
http://www.hfienberg.com/kesher/2003_07_20_kesher_archive.html#105907088764662224

You misunderestimate Dr. Rice. She heads the NSA because she is the best person for the job, in the considered opinion of the Bush-Cheney junta.
The quote from October 2000 is a reflection of her "Rice Proposal" documented in the journal "Foreign Affairs" (see http://www.cdi.org/issues/failedstates/Bush.htm ); she cannot abandon her thought in mid-flight.

The President is unassailable in the eyes of most Americans. Therefore, if you aim at dethroning him, attack his advisors.
If the NSA is not working properly, Dr. Rice is responsible. If the DND is not working properly, Mr. Rumsfeld is responsible.
Senate confirmation hearings should be re-opened and those advisors who are at fault should be fired.

"We're only trying to defend America, Mr. President. Your advisors mislead you."

If you do this before the first quarter of 2004, the President will become exposed because he didn't choose the right advisors. He is unwise, therefore he shouldn't run the country. (All this being said, it is a shame that the Republicans control everything in sight.)