Washington Post reporter Glenn Kessler has a book coming out about Condi Rice. The Post has a beefy article today, based on his research. I can’t say I recommend it exactly…it’s fairly uninteresting. But it has a couple of moments. Here’s one example:
In March 2005, before Rice sat for an interview with the Washington Times, [aide, Jim] Wilkinson slipped a note to the editorial page editor, Tony Blankley, suggesting that she be asked whether she would consider running for president. It was an audacious proposal — she had been secretary for only six weeks — but such speculation would bolster Rice’s image as a leader. (Wilkinson and Blankley said they do not recall the incident, but others present said they saw Wilkinson’s note.)
Should we convene a blogger’s ethics conference? If I go look, do you think I will find a piece from the Moonie Times that this note produced?
Condi can be deliberately obtuse. Take the example of the boots.
During a trip to Europe early in her tenure as secretary, Rice sported a dramatic outfit at a U.S. military base in Germany: a black skirt that hit just above the knee, along with a black coat with seven gold buttons that fell to mid-calf — and hung open to reveal sexy, knee-high boots.
She was there to discuss Iran’s nuclear ambitions, so the attire wasn’t exactly on point. But the press didn’t care…all they wanted to discuss was her Do-Me boots.
Talking with Wilkinson, Rice professed puzzlement about the fuss over her boots. Wilkinson said he didn’t feel comfortable explaining the reason.
“Oh, Jim, you’re like my little brother,” Rice teased. “Tell me.”
Wilkinson finally answered. “Men like these,” he admitted.
Rice leaned over and whispered: “We know that.”
File that one under ‘if you knew the answer, why did you ask?’ Condi has a thing about knowing the answer. And you know it’s a problem when your closest friends slam you for it in tell-all books.
However, longtime friends point to a deep moralizing streak that has propelled Rice to embrace Bush’s vision. “Condi always has the capacity to see the world she wants to see — as opposed to the world that actually exists,” said Coit D. Blacker, a Stanford professor and Rice’s closest male friend.
I guess we all have that capacity…to some degree. But we don’t see things the way Bush sees them. That requires some strange admixture of child abuse, privilege, access to power, crystalline tropane alkaloids, alcohol, and faux religion. Not too many people get the chance. But anyone can be a sycophant.
In May 2005, as Rice departed Baghdad after her first trip to Iraq as secretary, she reflected on all she had seen in Iraq: great rivers, fertile fields, monuments with their sense of history. The nation had oil, water, an educated public. On an impulse, she called Bush.
“Mr. President, this is going to be a great country,” she told him.
With this kind of advice, it’s no wonder Bush is confused about the lack of security (and gratitude) in Iraq. Which reminds me of the other big Washington Post article today. This one is based on an official Bush biography.
Several of Bush’s top advisers believe that the president’s view of postwar Iraq was significantly affected by his meeting with three Iraqi exiles in the Oval Office several months before the 2003 invasion, [biographer Robert] Draper reports.
He writes that all three exiles agreed without qualification that “Iraq would greet American forces with enthusiasm. Ethnic and religious tensions would dissolve with the collapse of Saddam’s regime. And democracy would spring forth with little effort — particularly in light of Bush’s commitment to rebuild the country.”
So many ponies, so little basis in reality. Happy Labor Day.
