Condoleezza Rice's editorial in today's WSJ defends the administration's use of diplomacy with North Korea.

She writes: "We have no permanent enemies."

Nevermind that this may go down as the biggest Bush administration flip-flop since H.W.'s "no new taxes"...

Nevermind that Cheney is probably planning an invasion anyway...

Does Condi's stance suggest a tacit endorsement of Obama? I argue why it might after the break...

Back in 2003, General Tommy Franks called Bush Iraq intelligence fabulist Douglas Feith "the f**king stupidest guy on the face of the earth."  Two years later, Colin Powell's one-time aide Colonel Lawrence Wilkerson said of Feith "seldom in my life have I met a dumber man."  Defending Condoleezza Rice's - and by extension, President Bush's - pre-war "smoking gun/mushroom cloud" Iraq talking point, Douglas Feith today once again justified his critics' low opinion of him.

Okay, this has got to catch on.

This seems to me a potential tide-turning, Rice-resigning, chickens-home-to-roost, Republican-Party-annihilating moment. If this gets the play it deserves, it has the right elements to permanently change the valence of “Support Our Troops,” the phrase that did more to stifle dissent in the early days of the Iraq invasion than any other.

We know about fraud on the part of military contractors, but this is real proof that this administration sees its role as abetting that fraud, rather than protecting the troops.

via TPM, this is too good to pass up...particularly when the United States Department of State starts running interference for Miami arms dealers who are just past their teen years...

The Albanian government and U.S. embassy in Tirana were working together to disguise from the NYT that China was the country of origin for the ammunition that our favorite 20-something Florida arms dealers were buying from an Albanian arms dealer and shipping to Afghanistan under a U.S. government contract, for which same dudes were indicted last week for violating the Arms Export Control Act.

http://tpmmuckraker.talkingpointsmem...

It should be clear by now that the McCain campaign and the GOP surrogates are all over Obama's allegedly being "soft on terrorism".  "Terrorism" is the new Communism.  But it's not an ideology. Just a time-honored tactic that almost every ideological, nationalistic, or patriotic movement has used. The Boston Tea Party was an act of terrorism in some ways.  I cannot understand how the Democrats have bought into the terminology of the "War on Terror". Edwards came close to bringing this out into the open when he called it a "bumper sticker slogan" or something like that.

OK, never mind all that.  Maybe it's too late to educate the public on this issue.  Perhaps the public understands that the "war on terror" means how to prevent radical Islamic terrorist attacks.

But the "pre-9/11" failures are those of the GOP, not the Democratic administration.  Who is making this point besides Vincent Bugliosi in his new book, THE PROSECUTION OF GEORGE W. BUSH FOR MURDER?

This, and foreign policy in general, should be our issue, not theirs.

As the End of Bush Days draws near, the desperation and insanity of the administration and its neoconservative policies become more and more apparent.  One of the most recent examples is Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice's address to the American Israeli Public Affairs Committee (AIPAC) on June 3, where she once and for all crossed over to the dark side and swore fealty to Lord Cheney's quest to start a shooting war with Iran.  

With Horse's Caboose Condi hitched onto the Cheney train, can Armageddon be far behind?

A major talking point by the McSame campaign is that Obama is too anti-Israel and pro-Palestinian.  It looks like Condoleezza Rice of the Bush administration is being "anti-Israel" herself:

http://apnews.myway.com/...

JERUSALEM (AP) - Israel's persistent building of Jewish homes on disputed land undermines the U.S.-backed attempt to write an Israeli-Palestinian peace draft this year and invites questions about Israel's motives, Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice said Sunday.

...

"We should be in a position of encouraging confidence, not undermining it. No party should be taking steps at this point that could prejudice the outcome of the negotiation," Rice said following meetings with Palestinian officials in the West Bank.

More underneath the fold

The new reporter-blogger on Talking Points Memo, Andrew Tilghman, wrote a very interesting piece today on Condi Rice in which he quotes her ridiculous statement to AIPAC

The real question isn't why won't the Bush administration talk to Iran. The real question is why won't Iran talk to us.

This became the jumping-off point for Andrew to discuss Scott McClellan's assessment (in his book) that Rice has the ability to somehow evade any responsibility for the disasters in this administration that she was directly responsible for.
http://tpmmuckraker.talkingpointsmem...

And that got me thinking about who she really is and how she ended up in a position that is both powerful and shielded from censure.

On Wednesday, embattled Israeli Prime Minister Ehud Olmert and lame duck American President George W. Bush will meet in Washington in a gathering of the walking wounded.  Bush's fading hopes to secure a Middle East peace agreement before leaving office have dimmed further as scandal enveloped his Israeli counterpart.  Worse still, by moving ahead with peace talks with Syria and the expansion of West Bank settlements over just the past two weks, Olmert has already dealt President Bush a double-blow.

The 'who could have known' defense

117 United States Army soldiers committed suicide during 2007!

That statistic was announced today and is the highest number of soldiers to take their own lives in a single year since the army has kept records.

During McClellan's comprehensove media book tour I've been hearing a lot of the obvious questions from the media, even from my fave Keith Olbermann.

But we all want to know more... because we know there are even more questions to ask about the inner workings of this White House.

So here are my questions for Scott McClellan - Reps. Wexler and Conyers please take note!

Summary: Katie Couric recently reminisced about how the Bush Administration, facing questions it didn't like concerning the invasion of Iraq, threatened to cut off press access to the Administration.

What if the Administration had actually gone through with its threats?

What would we have really missed from not seeing a more press-friendly Administration?

I'd like to present a hypothetical look at two interviews we never would have seen (though technically, we still haven't):

#1. Chris Matthews asks Condoleezza Rice a single question, and all Hell breaks loose

#2. Keith Olbermann interviews George Bush (do I need an explanation?)

Memos written at the request of high-ranking government officials by Former Deputy Assistant Attorney General John Yoo on August 1, 2002 (also signed by Jay Bybee, now a federal judge) and March 14, 2003, assured the Bush administration that

. . . . the Department of Justice would not enforce the U.S. criminal laws against torture, assault, maiming and stalking, in the detention and interrogation of enemy combatants."

Of course, we know that the purpose of Yoo’s memos were simply established as a means of legal clearance for all that ensued thereafter.  

Daniel Levin, Acting Assistant Attorney General Office of Legal Counsel (December 30, 2004)

. . . .specifically rejects Yoo’s definition of torture, and admits that a defandant’s motives to protect national security will not shield him from a torture prosecution.  The rescission of the August 2002 memo constitutes an admission by the Justice Department that the legal reasoning in that memo was wrong.  But for 22 months, the [sic] it was in effect, which sanctioned and led to the torture of prisoners in U.S. custody."

Note:  all quoted material above from Marjorie Cohn, President National Lawyers Guild.

As he heads off to Israel to commemorate that nation's 60th anniversary, George W. Bush is nothing if not optimistic about the prospects for Middle East peace.  Even as his negotiating partners are incapacitated by scandal and internal conflict, the lame duck President reiterated his January promise to produce an Israeli-Palestinian peace agreement by the time he leaves office eight months from now.

It looked like it was going to be an exciting race on the Republican side in 2007-2008, with a crowded field and plenty of candidates with money (Romney), media adoration (Giuliani), dark horse potential (Huckabee) and wingnuttiness (Tancredo) piling on against the guy who had been waiting his turn (McCain). But then, suddenly, the race was over when it had barely gotten started, and one candidate was Inevitable. In a lot of ways it resembled the Democratic affair in 2004.

Now about the only excitement left on the Republican side is going to come from McCain's Vice Presidential pick. Is there anyone he could pick that would really help his chances, that would make you really worry?

Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice yesterday on the crisis in Myanmar, calling on the government there to allow more foreign aid workers into the country:

"This is not a matter of politics, this is a matter of a humanitarian crisis and it should be a matter that the government of Burma wants to see its people receive the help that is available to them."

This, of course, is the same Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice who refused to allow 1586 much-needed Cuban medical personnel into the United States when a hurricane ravaged New Orleans and the Gulf Coast, the same Condoleezza Rice who spent her time shopping for shoes and attending Broadway plays while New Orleans was drowning. Condoleezza Rice no more cares about the fate of the people of Myanmar than she did about the people of New Orleans.

Many U.S. policies should change to help bring about peace in the Middle East.

But in some cases, existing U.S. policy just needs to be implemented.

Such is the case with respect to U.S. policy towards the expansion of Israeli settlements in the Palestinian West Bank. Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice has stated:

"Settlement activity should stop - expansion should stop."

Unfortunately, the Israeli government does not appear to believe that Secretary of State Rice is serious. The Israeli government is moving forward with plans to build hundreds of new homes for Israeli settlers in the West Bank, in violation of international law and in violation of pledges that the Israeli government made at the peace conference in Annapolis.

Many Americans would like to change the perception that the U.S. is not serious about opposing Israeli settlement expansion in the West Bank. Thousands of Americans have written to Congress urging action.