Welcome to Gaia! :: View User's Journal | Gaia Journals

Because of my work schedule, I don't usually get to watch the Sunday morning political talk shows; but today, while I was home on my lunch break, I caught part of George Stephanopolous's interview with Condoleezza Rice on This Week, as well as the entirety of his interview with Madeleine Albright. It was quite an instructive study in contrasts, and one that didn't work in Rice's favor.

The most immediately striking thing about Rice's answers was how obfuscatory they were, even when Stephanopolous's questions were straightforward. Never one to use a single word where five hundred might help hide her meaning better, Rice gave an unbelievably convoluted explanation of why President Bush has yet to speak directly to the Israeli prime minister about Hezbollah and the situation in the region (and unfortunately, the summary that appears on ABC News's website doesn't even begin to convey how tortured this response sounded). She also managed to imply, no matter what the question, that there should be no criticism of the war in Iraq and its effects on the Middle East.

Take, for instance, this passage included in the ABC News summary:

Rice rejected the notion that U.S. operations in Iraq have shaken Middle East stability, arguing, "Those hostilities were not very well contained, as we found out on Sept. 11, and so the notion that somehow policies that finally confront extremism are actually causing extremism, I find grotesque."

"For all of those who believe that we somehow had stability in the Middle East over the last 60 years and it's now been disturbed: Where do we think Hezbollah and Hamas and these other extremist forces came from?" she added. "They weren't born yesterday, these forces have been developing and threatening the Middle East and arresting positive developments for decades."

Rice's words are an astonishing evasion of the real issue; none of the administration's critics have suggested that the Middle East was peaceful or stable prior to Sept. 11 and the Iraq war. Instead, they have argued that the war increased instability in the region, has led to a rise in Islamic extremism and its associated terror tactics, and has also bogged down the American military to the point where Hezbollah can feel comfortable lobbing rockets at Israel, knowing full well our forces are already overextended in Iraq and we can't credibly threaten them. But Rice is more concerned with making the administration's critics appear disloyal than she is with actually confronting the points they've raised.

In contrast, Albright was absolutely straightforward, and while much of what she said could also be construed as self-serving (i.e. as a defense of her record and that of the Clinton administration on foreign policy), it was also refreshingly direct coming on the heels of Rice's linguistic convolutions. It's too bad ABC decided to mostly focus on Rice's quotes even in the story about the Albright interview (though the video is available on the site, for those who want to compare the two approaches).