Steamed Rice

The Times today has an excellent cover story about Administration officials--in particular Dick "Heinous" Cheney and Condy Rice--disregarding dissenting views in intelligence and leaping immediately to the direst possible interpretations of information in presenting the case to the American public that Saddam HAD to be removed. My first reaction was to question why it took the Times so long to put together such a report, the facts of which have been buzzing around the 'net since BEFORE THE WAR STARTED. My other reaction was to think about how the Administration would work their response to the story after Bush's collapse in the debate Thursday, especially given that today's reporting suggests strongly that Bush and Co. were aware of much less damning and far more cautious intelligence and squashed it before giving it to Senators like John Kerry--in effect the Congress didn't see "the exact same intelligence" the White House had, but rather a spun version, an edited version.

Condy Rice, on This Week today, was as bad as Bush was last week. She was shrill, bitter, and scolding when Stephanaupolis dared press her on these tough points. He would not let her evade contradictions in the record and she did not like this one bit (and yes, I know using words like "shrill" and "scolding" has negative connotations in describing women in power, becuase women in power who act like men in power can be described as "shrill" to diminish them for having an executive bearing--in this case I'm using such words anyhow, because they FIT her demeanor to a TEE this morning. In fact, that other un-PC label for women also came to mind: hysterical. She was at points overwrought and really struggling to control the rage which distorted her face; "Now George," she'd say when he interjected a counterpoint, her brow furrowing, lips pursing up, eyes watering--and after three of these I thought she was going to leap out of her chair she was glowering so much).

What it boils down to is this Administration is unused to having its assertions challenged. They have grown comfortable with their isolated, tough-as-nails sureties, and now that questions have been raised and journalists are smelling blood in the water, Rice and the President have fallen off script, or found that scripts aren't working so well. Bush doesn't give press conferences for a reason--and it's not simply the fact that he's terrible at answering unscripted questions and that he's not nimble enough for follow-ups--Bush doesn't give press conferences because he can only justify his position to adoring fans who not only can't articulate counterpoints, but wouldn't dream of doing so. That's why his public appearances and campaign stops allow only those truly loyal fanatics access. Bullies and fierce ideologues don't like when pieties are challenged, any more than religious fundamentalists like being confronted by more nuanced scriptural interpretations. Bush in the first debate looked and sounded like what he was: someone out of his depth, someone who tried to force reality into his pathetically small worldview ["I know how this world works," he whined at one point Thursday.] and now that there's overwhelming evidence to the contrary on his desk every day, he's finding that simply restating old claims won't work.

And yet he does so, again and again.

Rice isn't as small-minded; she's more nimble, she's certainly more capable of rhetorical flourishes and bait-and-switch manoeuvers designed to either evade a questioner or turn the topic to her advantage, but Stephanaupolis wasn't having it this morning, and Rice got petulant and bitter and flustered. Hughes was acting the same way late Thursday night. They're in trouble.

Kerry, on the other hand, in the two speeches I saw on CSPAN this weekend, was clear, exhuberant, forceful, aggressive, bitter, and mean-spirited. His rhetoric was impassioned and righteous, and he was even funny and relaxed. My criticisms of his debate performance thought he lacked some of this, but I can see him using two different personae for two different groups: A cautious, honed, firm but pliable Kerry in the debates where people are in effect shopping for a product. The undecideds are looking at cues those of us who've made up our minds aren't, and Kerry is aware of this. In front of the crowds he spoke to this weekend, he was in rabid anti-Bush territory--no one at these events was making up their minds. They wanted to be fired up, agitated, reminded of what they despise and why. Kerry's craftier than I gave him credit for. We'll see how well Edwards rises to the Cheney challenge--I think Kerry held back so that Edwards (the more ebulliant and effusive of the Dem duo) can play gutter ball next week with less ramifications for the ticket. Hopefully Edwards'll smear Cheney with the worst: Halliburton (Truman called war profiteers "traitors,"--bring it up), the Times story today, the fact Dick still harps about connections with Al-Qaeda and nuclear capabilities. Play hard-ball with Dick--he'll lash out and appear repetitive just as Bush did, and he'll likely get angry and let out the un-PC Darth Vader which is an overwhelming liability for the Republican ticket. They have to know Cheney is going to try and be the Terminator after Bush's spoiled brat performance.