McClellan suggests historians may not be kind to Rice

[kpete]

Today's Must Read
By Andrew Tilghman - June 4, 2008, 10:01AM
http://www.nytimes.com/2008/06/04/washington/04diplo.html?_r=1&adxnnl=1&oref=slogin&partner=rssnyt&emc=rss&adxnnlx=1212591866-MK649kCo5aE3CXBkjd+oNw
................

My later experiences with Condi led me to believe she was more interested in figuring out where the president stood and just carrying out his wishes while expending only cursory effort in helping him understand all the considerations and potential consequences.

McClellan marveled at her ability to remain at the center of the Iraq-policy decision makers since the administration's earliest days, yet rarely receive much criticism about the handling of the war.

Over time, however, I was stuck by how deft she is at protecting her reputation. No matter what went wrong, she was somehow able to keep her hands clean, even when the problems related to matters under her direct purview, including the WMD rationale for war in Iraq, the decision to invade Iraq, the sixteen words in the State of the Union address, and postwar planning and implementation of the strategy in Iraq.

Although she had been the presidents top foreign policy advisor and coordinator of his national security team, she has largely allowed responsibility for all these matters to fall on people like former CIA Director George Tenant, Paul Bremer and Don Rumsfeld.

But it was her relationship with the President that was the controlling influence on her own decision-making, McClellan asserts:

In private she complimented and reinforced Bush's instincts rather than challenging and questioning them. As far as I could tell from internal meeting and discussions, Condi invariably fell in line with the president's thinking.

As a result, McClellan suggests historians may not be kind to Rice.

If, as president Bush likes to say, results really do matter, then history will likely judge her harshly as the person responsible for overseeing a number of the defining -- and, at least in the short term, ill-fated -- policies of the Bush administration.

more at:
http://tpmmuckraker.talkingpointsmemo.com/2008/06/rice.php

[wurzel]

1. MAY not be? She is a total incompetent.

She is as qualified for her job as Bush is for his!

[MessiahRp]

2. Historians won't be... especially since modern day contemporaries already aren't.

Condi "It was a Historical Document" Rice is screwed. Everyone will know her as one of the biggest liars in the Administration historically.... Of course historians are the least of her worries. I'd be far more concerned about the jailors that will be coming for her.

Rp

[Lasher]

3. Not so fast.

Junior's got a half billion dollar (so far) stink tank already set up to change historical night into day, and Condi might be helped along by that. If you don't think that can work in Junior's favor, just look at what a well-oiled propaganda machine did for the idiot Saint Ronnie.

[ProgressiveFool]

9. Yup, and it wouldn't surprise me if she ended up working there /nt

[zbdent]

4. and Scotty is being kind to Condascending Lies ...

[indepat]

5. Historians may indeed not be nice to Rice, Junior, Dick, Rumsfeld, Wolfowitz, Feith,

Ashcroft, Gonzales, numerous military commanders, and the entire cadre of faithful minions, both in the military and civilian service, who marched to the beat of their drummer, no matter how illegal or unconstitutional or unconscionable or inhumane or destructive. :D

[Virginia Dare]

6. Condi should have been fired on 9/12/01...n/t

[indepat]

13. The fact that she wasn't speaks volumes

[Virginia Dare]

15. As does this...

[indepat]

16. Minions can expected to be rewarded for doing their jobs well especially when job is covering

higher-ups' asses. :D

[MedleyMisty]

7. Can someone explain to me why these people care so much about what people in the future will think?

I mean, seriously, it's all "Oh noes, my legacy!" and "What will history say?" and stuff.

You know who else was obsessed with how they would appear in history books in the future? The Nazis.

Also, you would think that if their overriding concern in life is how they will look to the future that they would want to make sure there was a future and that there were historians to write glowing propaganda about them. But obviously they're not worried about that and destroy the planet and its future with abandon.

They make no sense at all. But then I guess homicidally insane people aren't the most rational of folks.

[Lasher]

12. Their supporters care, because a favorable legacy promotes more of the same.

Take Saint Ronnie's tax cuts, for example. We've heard loud and long how his brilliant tax cuts for rich people trickled wealth upon us all. The thing is, what they showered on us was debt, increased tax burden on the middle class, and more wealth disparity. But if you're one of Reagan's wealthy supporters (or one of their heirs), you want to convince people what a great idea that was so that you can con people into doing it again.

And you know what, it worked. Junior got by with his income, estate, capital gain, and dividend tax cuts that provided very little benefit to anyone else besides his real constituency: The richest 10%, and especially the richest 1%.

That's why.

[sinkingfeeling]

8. But Scotty, when you just adore and love somebody deeply enough, you can't criticize them!

[NewJeffCT]

10. She has been almost McCain-like in the free ride she has gotten from the media

She really would be McCain's ideal running mate, since the media seems to love both of them.

The only person in the media I've seen be tough on her has been Chris Matthews, who had a panel on whether or not she has been a failure as SoS.

[Javaman]

11. Well in order to first be considered by historians, one must do

something historic.

But then again, ricechecks didn't do a thing. And in some circles that's considered doing something.

:rofl:

[MrCoffee]

14. Scotty's just praying that history ignores him