Is Secretary of State Rice a Partisan Hack?

On a lot of levels, Condoleezza Rice is a very admirable person. She is obviously highly intelligent, has a great work ethic, and has a background suiting her for her position. On another level, however, she comes across as a partisan hack.

Raw Story is reporting that the night before Barack Obama left on his foreign trip, Secretary of State Rice issued a directive to American embassies that barred them from arranging certain visits for presidential candidates visiting foreign countries. Here is a quote from the Raw Story article:

The night before presumptive Democratic nominee Sen. Barack Obama (D-IL) left for Afghanistan, Iraq and Western Europe for a tour of US bases overseas, Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice issued a cable to US missions forbidding them from holding events for presidential candidates or arrange meetings for them.

Rice issued no such cable prior to foreign excursions by presumptive Republican nominee Sen. John McCain (R-AZ).

In a cable sent late Thursday, according to a copy leaked to the Washington Times, Rice enjoined American diplomats to treat the candidates as "members of Congress visiting in personal or semi-personal capacities," but "with additional restrictions based on rules related to political activity."

"Provide de minimis assistance to the candidate with logistical arrangements," said the cable, according to the Times. "If the campaign staff wants to rent a bus for press, tell them where they can rent a bus."

Rice didn't issue the same demands in advance of travel by Sen. McCain. McCain visited the Middle East four months ago -- but officials told the paper they didn't make similar demands because he was part of an "official congressional delegation."

What's amazing about stories like this is that the Bushies are partying like's it 2003 and they are ruling the world. Unfortunately for them, the media is getting on to their partisan hackery. What worked back in the day, won't work now.

Rice Admits that U.S. "Mishandled" Case of Tortured Canadian

If you act on wrong information, seize a naturalized Canadian citizen, send him to Syria where he is tortured, isn't that a little more than "mishandling" his case? Yet, that is the term that our Secretary of State used in a Congressional hearing regarding the case of Maher Arar. Arar was seized by the U.S. when U.S. authorities were told, wrongfully, that he had ties to terrorist groups. He was then sent by the U.S. to Syria, where he was tortured and imprisoned for one year.

The U.S. refuses to apologize to Arar and refuses to remove him from a list of people who are not allowed to enter the United States. What's more interesting is that Rice was elusive when she was questioned about what she knew or didn't know about Arar being tortured. Here is a quote from the AP article about the hearing:

Last week U.S. lawmakers from both parties urged the Bush administration to apologize to Arar, a software engineer who is married with two children.

Rice did not apologize in the hearing and avoided directly answering a question from Massachusetts Democrat Rep. William Delahunt who asked if she knew Arar was tortured in Syria.

"You are aware of the fact that he was tortured?" Delahunt asked.

"I am aware of claims that were made," she responded.

But when asked if the United States had received any diplomatic assurances from Syria that Arar would not be tortured, Rice said her memory of the events had faded and she would have to respond later to the question.

There is a belief among foreigners and Americans that the U.S. seizes people who it believes are involved in terrorist activity and sends them to foreign countries where they are tortured to get information. Rice claims this is not true. This is what she told the committee conducting the hearing:

We do absolutely not wish to transfer anyone to any place in which they might be tortured."

Yet, who is going to believe her if she refused to apologize to a Canadian who his government found was tortured in Syria, where we sent him?

Retired Marine General Explains Why He Turned Down Iraq War Czar Position

Retired Marine General John Sheehan wrote an op-ed piece in Monday's Washington Post about why he turned down the position of Iraq-Afghanistan War "Czar". The link to the article is in this entry's title. According to Sheehan the Bush Administration doesn't understand what it is doing in Iraq. This is a quote from the article: What I found in discussions with current and former members of this administration is that there is no agreed-upon strategic view of the Iraq problem or the region.

Here we are, four years into this war, and this Administration doesn't have a strategic view of the Iraq problem or the region. That is a damning indictment of Bush, Rice, and the rest of this incompetent crowd. They had no idea what they were going to do the day after they got rid of Saddam Hussein. That's why this operation has been so badly managed. The entire focus was on getting rid of Saddam. Once they had accomplished that goal. they had no idea what to do next. It was if getting rid of Hussein would magically make everything in Iraq work out. If the consequences weren't so horrible, it would be funny.

Connie Schultz Column on Condolezza Rice

Connie Shultz wrote a column last week in which she listed women that she admired. She didn't include Secretary of State Rice. Several readers emailed her to ask why she omitted Rice's name. Some speculated that it was because Rice is a Republican. Today Schultz answered these readers with a column about why she didn't include Rice. The reason was Rice's advocacy of the Iraq War as National Security Advisor and her continuing defense of that war as Secretary of State. It is a great column and you can read it by clicking on the link in this entry's title.

Bogus GOP Outrage over Boxer's Comments to Rice

Okay, so the Republicans thought about it overnight and realized that Sen. Barbara Boxer handed Secretary of State Rice her lunch on Thursday in front of the Senate Foreign Relations Committee. This happened when Boxer pointed out to Rice that neither she nor Boxer had family members in harm's way in Iraq. Boxer doesn't because her children are too old and her grandchildren too young. Rice doesn't because no one from her immediate family serves in the U.S. Armed Forces. Boxer's point was that Rice like most of the Bushies don't have any family members who are sacrificing by being in Iraq.

Now, the Bushies understand this point. Even they aren't that stupid. They don't want people dwelling on this because people might begin to wonder why the Bush twins aren't over in Iraq helping to advance Daddy's noble crusade. So, they did what they normally do, they attacked Boxer for supposedly being against single women, being anti-feminist, (that came courtesy of Tony Snow and the New York Post) and being anti-black (That last one was courtesy of Rush Limbaugh.)

Now, we all know this is a crock. Tony Snow and the rest of the Kool-Aid drinkers who are still loyal to Bubble-Boy could care less about feminists. Rush could care less about black people. This is just some bs to try and distract attention from the point Boxer was making. For the Bushies sacrifice is for the other guy.