 Point. Click. Search. Contents: Archives:
| ||
 by Bob Somerby bobsomerby@hotmail.com E-mail This Page  A companion site. | ||
|
Caveat lector
 | CALL THEM CONDILESQUE (PART 1)! Condi Rice was bending it good. Even the Fox all-stars noticed: |
MONDAY, JULY 14, 2003
STRANGE-CASE SCENARIO: If you’re a high official in the Bush Admin, you really have to bungle your brief to get Fox’s all-stars down on your case. But that’s what happened when Condi Rice did yesterday’s Fox News Sunday. Fred Barnes, who began the panel discussion, was openly puzzled by Rice’s performance. In fact, he criticized “political bungling by the entire administration:”
BARNES: I mean, they have a sort of a strange case. In your excellent interview with Condoleezza Rice today, I mean, she says, the British still think it’s true, and we have other evidence thinking the statement is true about Saddam Hussein seeking uranium in West Africa, yet it was a mistake to put it in the president’s speech? I think—look, they have to take one position or the other. If it’s true, just defend it.Tony Snow was dissatisfied too. “Like Fred, I’m a little perplexed by the argument that it was true but it should never have gone in,” he said. But then, how confusing was Rice’s presentation? Here is Audrey Hudson’s amusing construction in this morning’s Washington Times:
HUDSON: Both [Rumsfeld and Rice] yesterday said the British intelligence that said Iraq was trying to purchase nuclear weapons material in Africa was accurate, but should not have been used in a presidential address.How confusing was Rice’s presentation? According to Hudson, the statement was accurate—but shouldn’t have been used! Hudson makes it sound like the Bush Admin now has a rule against accurate statements!
At any rate, Barnes and Snow were scratching their heads after watching Rice’s performance. This is unfortunate, because the Admin position isn’t all that confusing. In fact, it’s quite easy to state:
- Bush’s statement about uranium-from-Africa was based on British intelligence.
- The Brits still think their assessment is accurate.
- We can’t confirm what the Brits have said, although we think their intelligence is generally reliable
So what produced the press corps’ confusion? Rice’s “Condilesque” performance, in which she kept insisting that Bush’s statement was accurate. “The statement that [Bush] made was indeed accurate,” she said, right at the start of her FNS interview. “The British government did say that.” But Condoleezza Rice simply doesn’t know if Bush’s statement was accurate, and the confusion voiced by Barnes and Snow stemmed from her refusal to say so.
What did Bush say in his State of the Union? Here is the statement in question:
BUSH: The British government has learned that Saddam Hussein recently sought significant quantities of uranium from Africa.Did Saddam “seek significant quantities of uranium from Africa?” Bush didn’t say that the Brits believe this. He didn’t say that the Brits have made such a claim. Instead, Bush said that the Brits have learned that this happened—and as such, he implied that the Brits’ claim was true. Bush’s statement may even turn out to be accurate, but at this point, Rice doesn’t know if it is. She was bending it—bending it good—in her Fox News Sunday performance. And Barnes and Snow were in the weeds because of her shape-shifting work.
Unfortunately, your press corps’ logical skills are limited. In this morning’s New York Times, James Risen goes in the weeds himself about Rice and Rumsfeld’s presentations:
RISEN: While continuing to acknowledge, as the White House and the Central Intelligence Agency did last week, that the phrase should not have been uttered, [Rice and Rumsfeld] emphasized today that the British had indeed, as Mr. Bush said, reported Iraq’s interest in acquiring African uranium.But Bush didn’t say that the Brits “reported” such an interest. He said the Brits had learned of such efforts. As such, Bush vouched for the accuracy of the British report—and to this day, Rice and Rumsfeld simply can’t say that the Brits’ report really is accurate.
On Fox News Sunday, Rice was trying to have it all ways. Even Barnes and Snow said she made a “strange case.” For the next few days, we’ll continue to review Rice and Rummy’s “Condilesque” performances Sunday. And we’ll review the work of the high-profile hosts who took part in these strange-case scenarios.
TOMORROW: When Rumsfeld appeared on Meet the Press, a feared bulldog slept in the sun.
SPELLBOUND: Let’s spell it out—Barnes was puzzled by Condi’s confusions. Let’s review what he said:
BARNES: I mean, they have a sort of a strange case. In your excellent interview with Condoleezza Rice today, I mean, she says, the British still think it’s true…yet it was a mistake to put it in the president’s speech? I think—look, they have to take one position or the other. If it’s true, just defend it.But by their own account, the Bush Admin doesn’t know if it’s true. That is why they can’t “defend it.” Rice’s outing created a lot of confusion. Let’s repeat that key word: Condilesque.