<img src="{att_thumb}/po050118.png" href="{att_link}/po050118.png" class="frame" align="right">So Miss Condaleeza Rice has magically become the Secretary of State. Raise your hand if you're surprised. Of course, it wasn't quite the slam dunk the White House thought it would be --- there was dissent, after a fashion. Condi Rice had to sit in front of a Senate committee* and stonewall a bit before she got her job as Secretary of State. She's used to it and seems at least capable of doing that for long periods of time. There was really no doubt that she would get the job; the confirmation hearing was merely an attempt to imbue some officiality into what was essentially a royal appointment. John Kerry even started off the hearing with something to the effect of "we all know you're going to be confirmed, so..." (saw it on CNN, cannot find it in the transcript). Why are people so hesitant to be harsh with their judgements, especially of Condi Rice, who has really just earned every bit of contempt we can throw at her? Even <a href="http://www.juancole.com/">Juan Cole</a>, says only that he was <iq>alarmed at how doctrinaire all her answers were, and how she consistently refused to take any responsibility for misleading the American public into an unnecessary war.</iq> Alarmed? Whoa ... hold yourself back there, Juan. <img src="{att_thumb}/tmwha050121.png" href="{att_link}/tmwha050121.png" class="frame" align="left">During the hearings, we also got to hear the appointee for highest diplomat in the land say <iq>that the tsunami was a wonderful opportunity to show not just the US government, but the heart of the American people, and I think it has paid great dividends for us</iq>. Lovely. I personally would be happy to have been a part of providing a "wonderful opportunity" so that America can earn "great dividends". Very diplomatic. Barbara Boxer, who apparently simply hounded Condi throughout the confirmation hearing, responded: <iq>The tsunami was one of the worst tragedies of our lifetime. And it's going to have a 10-year impact on rebuilding that area. I was very disappointed in your statement.</iq> Disappointed? Wow, so harsh. Truly hounding her, you are. See <a href="http://www.commondreams.org/headlines05/0118-08.htm" title="Condi Rice: Tsunami Provided 'Wonderful Opportunity' for US" source="Common Dreams">Condi Rice: Tsunami ...</a> to read more. So why does Condi get a free pass from everyone, the Congress and the Media included? Why would most Americans just shrug and accept her as a Secretary of State without blinking an eye? Perhaps because <a href="http://www.commondreams.org/views05/0118-27.htm" author="Paul Krugman" source="Common Dreams">That Magic Moment</a> has also come and gone for Condi. The President gleefully called the "no touchbacks" rule on anything he did in his first term American politics. <iq>The accountability moment is behind us</iq>, he said, which we can take to mean "Nyah, nyah, too late, can't take it back now". By that logic, Condi, too, should get a chance to start fresh as Secretary of State, unburdened by her judgements of previous job performance. Congress seems to think so --- they approved her appointment overwhelmingly, with only John Kerry and Barbara Boxer voting against. <a href="http://www.sfgate.com/cgi-bin/article.cgi?file=/c/a/2005/01/18/RICEBOXER.DTL" source="SF Gate">Transcript of remarks between Boxer and Rice</a> has Barbara Boxer's opening statement, which is quite good and Condi's response, wherein she typically denies having said all of the things Barbara quoted. Why? Because she can. All she has to say is that she "doesn't recall" saying something and it's as if it never happened. If things get too hot, you go on the offensive, with: <bq>I have to say that I have never, ever lost respect for the truth in the service of anything. It is not my nature. It is not my character. And I would hope that we can have this conversation and discuss what happened before and what went on before and what I said, without impugning my credibility or my integrity.</bq> Go, Condi! You tell us all about your integrity! How dare you, Barbara, you bitch! Cat fight! Senator Boxer manages to ignore this unbelievable effrontery from someone who just spent 10 minutes lying her face off to respond: <bq>And everybody admits it but you that that [WMD] was the reason for the war. And then, once we're in there, now it moves to a different mission, which is great. We all want to give democracy and freedom everywhere we can possibly do it. But let's not rewrite history. It's too soon to do that.</bq> <img src="{att_thumb}/vert.rice.boxer.ap.jpg" href="{att_link}/vert.rice.boxer.ap.jpg" class="frame" align="left">Scroll down to the end of the linked article for the rest of that heated exchange: Rice's arrogance is truly awe-inspiring. You would almost think that she were the one who was elected by the people and the Congress was begging her for a job. It's a funny old world. Check out the awesome graphic on the left of Condi telling Boxer how her Bushie has just decided that Boxer will spearhead a renewed search for WMD ... in <i>Fallujah</i>! Suck on that, Barbie! In <a href="http://edition.cnn.com/2005/ALLPOLITICS/01/19/rice.confirmation/" source="CNN">Rice to face second day of hearings</a>, Senator Joe Biden who, remember, <i>ended up voting for her</i>, noted sarcastically that <iq>You're always right. You never made any mistakes. You're never wrong</iq>. To which Condi replied that <iq>It's how Iraq turns out that ultimately matters</iq>; in effect, the end justifies the means, so shut the fuck up and sit the fuck down. Machiavelli's in the driver's seat, baby. He also pointed out her disengenuity when she said that <iq>120,000 Iraqi security officers are trained</iq> without mentioning that they aren't <iq>fully [or even adequately] trained</iq>. He practically begged her for her actual, straight opinion on this, explicitly telling her not to <iq>listen to ... Rumsfeld [because] he doesn't know what in the hell he's talking about</iq>. She grudgingly admitted that there are <iq>problems with the training</iq>. Woohoo! Another victory for truth! Don't forget that Biden ended up voting for her. Why? <a href="http://www.latimes.com/news/nationworld/nation/la-na-rice19jan19,1,1305297.story?coll=la-headlines-nation&ctrack=3&cset=true" source="LA Times">Rice Defends Iraq Mission but Says Military Can't Do It Alone</a> has some more choice quotes from the hearings. Things like <iq>[o]ur security depends on … not having failed states in the midst.</iq> In the midst of what, dear Condi? In the midst of areas in which the US has interest? In the midst of areas with oil? In the midst of land that Israel wants? This from a lady who <iq>[f]our years ago, in her early days as part of the Bush team, ... had rejected the idea of American nation-building</iq>. Four years isn't that long a time; how can you completely about-face on such a strong issue in four years? Not only that, but she's actively seeking out more places in which to apply the successful formula used in Iraq, naming as <iq>outposts of oppression</iq> (Axis of Evil is no longer used, apparently) the countries of <iq>Cuba, Myanmar, North Korea, Iran, Zimbabwe and Belarus</iq>. No surpise not to see the dictatorships of Saudi Arabia, Kuwait, Egypt or Pakistan on the list. Or Russia for that matter, which isn't exactly a shining beacon of freedom these days. Sen. Christopher J. Dodd took her to task about the administration's apparent disregard for the Geneva Conventions and international law when dealing with terror suspects. Rice responded that she would <iq>leave it to the Justice Department to provide a legal definition of torture</iq> <i>even though we already have one</i>. Dodd indicated that he was <iq>troubled by her reply</iq> and exhorted the administration not to <iq>become like [the terrorists]</iq>. This was a stunning rebuke of such force that it nearly swept Rice clean out of her chair. Then he voted for her anyway. Normally relatively level-headed Russ Feingold chimed in with <iq>It is simply not OK to equivocate on torture</iq>. Then he voted for her anyway. <n>*The full transcript is at <a href="http://www.nytimes.com/2005/01/18/politics/18TEXT-RICE.html?amp;pagewanted=print&ei=5070&en=a9f26fccadeba7b4&ex=1107406800&position=&oref=login&pagewanted=print&position=">Confirmation Hearing of Condoleeza Rice</a>, but it's 79 pages. Let's be serious. Not even I read it.</n>