We Read Lefty Propaganda So You Don't Have To

Today's entry---the self-appointed former doyenne of the White House press corps, that diva of the Democrats, the rudest woman in Washington, Helen Thomas:

The question about America's new secretary of state is: Will Condoleezza Rice remain one of the primo hawks in this administration, or will she become the top U.S. diplomat that her new role demands?

Hold on, I'm confused already. I thought the official DNC talking points hold that the problem with Rice is that she's got a hole in her back so Dubya can make her lips move on cue, as opposed to say, Saint Colin of Washington, who speaks truth behind the backs of power except when the cameras are on.

Rice's hardline past as national security adviser during President George W. Bush's first term speaks for itself. She was one of the most consistent voices in favor of pre-emptive war against Iraq, and she used her position to promote an American attack with scary warnings that Saddam Hussein had a "smoking gun" that would turn into a "mushroom cloud."

Well, it doesn't really speak for itself if you have to explain it to us, Helen. Otherwise you could save word count for channeling the moonbats (TM Wizbang!). And didn't Saint Colin of Washington argue that Saddam had WMD? Did Saddam not have a nuclear program, as a defecting scientist described in detail? Was Hans Blix sent in merely to pad his expense account, or to make sure Kofi's oil-for-food money got wired to Kojo?

She was a go-it-alone unilateralist and demonstrated her disdain for many of the collective security treaties that the United States made in the post-World War II era.

Really? What collective security treaties did she disdain? As I recall the way collective security treaties are supposed to work, when your cosignee is threatened by acts of war, you either rush to their support (say, as Britain and France did when the Nazis and Bolsheviks invaded at the outbreak of WWII) or you break the treaty. For 10 years following the Gulf War, Saddam Hussein broke the terms of the ceasefire almost daily, particularly by firing SAMs at Coalition aircraft enforcing the No-Fly Zone. Seems our allies had an obligation to us, not the other way around. Put simply, so even Helen might understand it, collective security agreements are enforced when we are attacked, not when we (or another ally) attacks another nation. Thus, our NATO allies such as Spain had an obligation to honor the NATO alliance following 9/11, and when Hussein failed to meet the 1991 ceasefire terms. They cut and ran, good little leftists that they are.

Also, Helen, you're a professional writer. Words mean things. "Unilateral" is defined as "Obligating only one of two or more parties, nations, or persons, as a contract or an agreement". Thus when your buddy Jimmy Carter caught the vapors and advocated unilateral disarmament, he didn't really expect Brezhnev to disarm at all. By definition, military activity which involves more than one nation must be either bilateral or multilateral. In the case of the Iraq War, more than 30 nations fight with us. That's why we refer to our forces as "The Coalition" and not "The Americans". You can look it up.

Even were that not the case, you seem to misunderstand what the role of the Secretary of State is. The Secretary of State's job is not to present the interests of the world to Americans. It is to present America's interests to the world, and to help ensure our interests are preserved. As Disraeli told the Queen of England, "England has no permanent allies nor permanent enemies, only permanent interests." I guess he was a unilateralist.

But don't be too embarassed by your ignorance of the proper role of a nation's top diplomat---Colin Powell couldn't figure it out either.

In the lead-up to the Iraq war almost two years ago, there was hardly a Sunday talk show that she didn't use to promote the imminent U.S. invasion. Her basic spiel came down to her contention that Iraq posed a threat to the United States, even though we had a chokehold on Saddam with tight economic sanctions and bombings in the two no-fly zones. We have yet to hear any apologies from Rice for her mistaken prediction about Iraq's weapons of mass destruction. Nor will we. It's not in the nature of this administration to admit a mistake.

Promoting U.S. foreign policy is exactly what we want the Secretary of State to do---weren't you listening?

Those "tight economic sanctions" enabled Saddam Hussein to replenish his military stores while making gobs and gobs of cash and buying the willing compliance of the UN bureaucrats who were supposed to be enforcing the policy, Helen---somehow they don't seem very tight.

As for WMD, why you and the rest of the MSM seem to be unable to comprehend the definition of WMD is beyond me. Perhaps you're expecting sinister humming boxes with WMD stencilled on the outside. That simply isn't so. WMD is everything from high explosives (hmmm, seems like a lot of those are being employed in Iraq these days), chemical weapons (why is it that the Iraqi soldiers had protective equipment in the first place? We haven't gassed anybody since WWI, your buddy Peter Arnett's bogus claims not withstanding), biological weapons (we did find portable labs, and there were accounts of villagers being asked to secrete stuff which looked quite a bit like it), and nuclear weapons (Saddam's own bombmaker detailed his efforts here, and the Israelis, of course, proved the point by taking down Osirak some years ago).

Also, Helen, why do you think all those trucks headed into Syria during the delay imposed by our "allies" in the run-up to the invasion? Was there a fire sale on torture implements or something?

As for admitting a mistake, Dubya might just be following the advice of the Clinton Administration. Has Clinton yet apologized for turning down Sudan's offer to hand us Osama bin Laden, or for Jamie Gorelick's infamous memorandum which turned the War on Terror into "Law and Order"? Why don't you ask him?

Earlier, Rice failed to heed warnings of a hijacking and plane attack against the United States just weeks before the 9/11 terror disaster. Gen. Henry H. Shelton, former chairman of the Joint Chiefs of State, said she put terrorism "on the back burner."

Helen, Helen, Helen.

Anyone who's read that PDB knows you're completely mischaracterizing it. It is not a smoking gun. It gives nebulous warnings that are written in Washington cover-your-hinder bureaucratese.

And your buddy Richard Clarke made clear that the "back burner" was already on---that's where Bill Clinton put terrorism years before.

Bush told a news conference this week that she would make a "fine, fine" secretary of state. Rice is described as the president's "closest confidante" on foreign affairs and there is no doubt that she speaks for the president when she talks about international issues.

Is described as by who? Sid Blumenthal?

Helen, the freakin' Secretary of State job description is to speak for the President when she talks about international issues. Do you even remember Madeleine Albright, the Chicken Hawk?

Rice did not have an easy confirmation and won approval from the Senate Foreign Relations Committee on a strict party-line vote after two days of tough questioning by Democrats on the panel.

Democrat intransigence does not speak to the quality of the candidate. Dr. Rice is far more qualified for the job than, say, Colin Powell was. Powell's diplomatic experience rested largely in sticking a shiv in his competitors' backs through typical Washington skullduggery. Why Dubya expected he would turn those skills outward toward America's enemies I don't really know, but Powell will go down in history as the most overrated SecState since, oh, Madeleine Albright.

Sen. Barbara Boxer, D-Calif., told her that her loyalty to the Bush administration to sell the war against Iraq had "overwhelmed your respect for truth."

Rice replied that she had "never, ever lost respect for the truth in the service of anything. It is not my nature. It is not my character." She accused Boxer of "impugning my credibility or my integrity."

This was a good try at the theory that a good offense is the best defense. No one had attacked her integrity, but her credibility certainly was fair game.

Well, Helen, your disgraceful performance during the impeachment saga of Bill Clinton rather confirmed that your loyalty to the Clintons and the DNC overwhelmed your respect for the truth.

But let's not go there.

Is Dr. Rice a mouthpiece for Bush or a dangerous, unilateralist hawk? Could you please make a coherent argument for either, but not both?

And for God's sake, if someone accuses you, as I have done, of "losing respect for the truth", how is that not a shot at your integrity?

Helen, let me spell it out for you: I am challenging your integrity. You are a pundit who pretended to be an objective reporter for many years. You made no effort to put forth both sides to the political stories you covered. You lost respect for the truth, and for your readers. I question your integrity, madame.

Rice clearly was not used to being grilled, an unaccustomed role she will have to learn because a Cabinet secretary is expected to testify before Congress from time to time and answer tough questions, almost always asked by members of the political party that doesn't occupy the White House.

I'm too bored to even go search for a reference where you lauded the Republicans' tough questioning of any Clintonista. Why search for Santa Claus? I know he doesn't exist.

The Senate confirmed her in an 85-13 vote.

Wow, that wasn't even close to party line, was it? She picked up 2/3 of the Democrats and all of the Republicans. Why'd so many Democrats vote for a dangerous, unilateralist, Bushy mouthpiece anyway?

When she took her oath of office earlier this week, Rice became the nation's 66th secretary of state, and the first black woman and the second woman to serve in that post.

She will make her first foreign trip as secretary of state when she visits Europe and the Middle East next week. One goal is to keep Israel and the Palestinians talking to each other.

Ahh, the dog that didn't bark. The race and gender card. Funny how color and genderblind Helen and the other Lefties become when they want to knock down a Republican.

Here's the other dog that didn't bark. Powell didn't travel all that much. He spent much of his term huddled with Armitage playing petty Washington politics when he could have been strongarming the North Koreans or hunting for bin Laden or something.

A Secretary of State needs to spend most nights sleeping in foreign hotel rooms, not gossiping like a little girl with the members of the Press Club.

And Helen: the goal of U.S. policy on the Middle East is not to keep the Israelis and Palestinians talking to one another. That was Billy Boy's disastrous policy. It is to keep them from killing one another. Deeds, not words.

At her inauguration, Rice said "history is calling us" to spread freedom throughout the world.

Let's hope she understands it can be done peacefully.

Can it be done peacefully? What tyrant has willingly given up despotic power to give his people freedom? Cincinnatus is the only example I've come up with, and that was 2000 years ago.

Liberation invariably involves violence. Tyrants yield power when they are killed or captured, not before. And that requires the steady application of fire and steel.

Dr Rice knows this, which is why she will make an excellent Secretary of State.

[Edited as I confuse Saddam Hussein with Osama bin Laden. Despots look alike to me.---Teflon]