Condi Rice Comes Clean

Appearing on CNN's "Late Edition", national security advisor Condoleezza Rice said, "I don't pay much attention to my surroundings, and I have trouble understanding when people use large words."

OK, she didn't really say that. But she might as well have. Rice's appearance on CNN was probably one of the most baffling that I have seen during this campaign. She is normally not only one of Bush's staunchest cheerleaders, but also tends to speak with a tremendous air of credibility. She sounds like a veteran political figure with far more experience than the years she has served. On Sunday, though, for some reason, she seemed to have drifted off message.

Rice said she was vaguely aware of a debate about the tubes but believed that the intelligence community "as a whole" agreed they were meant for nuclear weapons work. "If you're a policymaker, you do not want to end up on the short side," she said. [Rice] "knew there was some debate out there but ... I didn't know the nature of the debate."

Frankly, I'm not even sure what that means. "Vaguely aware" of a debate about evidence of nuclear weapons materials in the hands of a known tyrant? How does one become "vaguely" aware of something like that and not check it out extensively? If you are considering launching a war based, in part, on information pertaining to nuclear weapons and there is a debate going on concerning the veracity of your intelligence data, would not a reasonable person immediately begin shaking the bushes and turning over every stone to get to the bottom of it?

Then she moved on to another subject. It seems very telling that Bush's team is getting a bit desperate and grasping at straws when they are focusing the attack poodles on Kerry's "global test" comment.

"I heard Senator Kerry say that there was some kind of global test that you ought to be able to pass to support pre-emption, and I don't understand what that means," Rice said. "I don't understand 'proving to the world that you did it for legitimate reasons.'"

Well, Condi, perhaps I can help you out. (And I'll try not to use too many large words.) Even if you can convince yourself that launching a preemptive war against a country which has not attacked you is "the right thing to do", it makes everyone else nervous. They start having conversations about the United States that include words like "empire", and "invasion" and all manner of nasty things. And if you ever want to have a productive relationship with them in the future, you don't have to have their "seal of approval" but you certainly need to give them the courtesy of acting like you care what they think.

How can the National Security Advisor not understand the importance of this? Kerry was clearly not saying we needed anyone's "permission." He was demonstrating a grasp on the realities of living in a global community. You provide your allies with some proof that there is a valid reason for doing what you are doing. Even if they don't agree 100% with you, and won't join you, at least you have given them the respect they are due as allies. Showing that you had "legitimate reasons" for a preemptive strike on a soveirgn nation makes you look less like a dictatorial invader bent on empire, and more like a good global neighbor who is acting in everyone's best interests.

I realize that I still snuck in a few multisyllabic words there, and I apologize. But I hope this clears things up for you.

EDIT: Attaturk at Rising Hegemon has more. (Note: His individual link is broken, but it's a 10/05/04 post at 8:24 a.m.)