Condoleezza Rice Talk

National Security Advisor Dr. Condoleezza Rice gave a talk at the University of Washington yesterday evening. She spoke for about 15 minutes and spent the rest of the hour answering written questions from the audience, moderated by UW President Mark Emmert.

Rice offered a compelling explanation of the administration's achievements and goals for national security. She was interrupted by applause numerous times. I was pleasantly surprised how receptive the Seattle audience was and how few protesters there were (it is, after all, the Congressional district that re-elected Baghdad Jim McDermott with 74% of the vote a month after he went to Baghdad).

This post contains highlights of Rice's remarks, photos of protestors and finally an examination of how poorly the local newspapers reported on the talk.

Some highlights of Rice's talk:

Her opening remarks were in the form of "Three years ago..., and today ..." as she recapped the administration's accomplishments in making the world a freer and safer place in the three years since the attacks of Sept. 11, 2001:
* 10 million Afghans are now registered to vote in the first democratic election
* Pakistan's president is a friend and ally in the war against terror
* Saudi Arabia is a partner in apprehending and killing Al Qaeda leaders
* The threat of Saddam is ended forever
* Libya has dismantled its WMD programs
* The A.Q. Khan network is dismantled
* In homeland security: national missile defense, defense against bio-terrorism and removal of legalistic walls that prevented information sharing among security agencies.

Notable quotes: "The most effective weapon in the arsenal of freedom is freedom itself" and "Time and Truth are on the side of Liberty", refering to the initiative to bring freedom and democracy to the Middle East.

She closed with the administration's national security to-do list :
* Destroy Al Qaeda
* Defeat terrorists in Afghanistan and Iraq
* Prevent Iran from obtaining nuclear weapons
* Make North Korea dismantle its weapons
It's a commitment of many years. It took 40 years to win the Cold War. Now Europe is whole, free and at peace. We will win the War on Terror however long it takes

Excerpts from Q & A
[I submitted a question asking why the administration continues to refer to our current war as the "War on Terror", instead of naming the specific enemy (Militant Islam) that is perpetrating all of this terror. This question was not among those chosen by President Emmert.]

On post-war reconstruction of Iraq and Afghanistan: Acknowledged that bringing peace, security and democracy is a major effort and it won't always be smooth. Mentioned our nation's own rocky experience with the Articles of Confederation: "The Afghans and Iraqis haven't made a mistake as bad as the one where the Articles of Confederation defined my ancestors to be 3/5 of a man"

On the failures in planning for the post-war in Iraq: The administration planned for a lot of contingencies; Some events that they planned for, like massive numbers of refugees, didn't come about, while they did have to face other events that they didn't plan for. But in historical times, the important thing is to "get the big decisions right" like removing Saddam Hussein from power. [the rest of her sentence was drowned out by applause]

On the liberation of women in the Islamic world: it is essential to winning the war on terror. Two main reasons: These societies will lag economically as long as they fail to use the talents of half of their population; when women have an equal voice in society, they will speak out as mothers, daughters and wives to stop their men from becoming terrorists and suicide bombers. She singled out Turkey as an example where women's rights are compatible with Islam.

She segued from a question on homeland security to elucidate the two-pronged approach to winning the war on terror: (a) dealing with the proximate problem of Al Qaeda; and (b) the "forward defense for freedom", expanding on the theme that she mentioned in the opening -- the way to prevent people from choosing to become terrorists in the first place is to create freedom and democracy and opportunity in the Middle East. Removing Saddam from power was an essential part of moving Iraq and the rest of the Islamic Middle East on the path towards freedom.

She closed by talking about her experience as Director of Soviet Affairs on the NSC in the George H.W. Bush administration, when the Berlin Wall fell and the Soviet Union ended. She had the advantage of using policies that had been developed over four decades dating back to Truman and Acheson in the late 1940s. Things must have looked grim in the years 1946-49, when there was still starvation in Germany, large Communist electoral minorities in France and Italy, the blockade of Berlin, the Soviet Union acquired the bomb earlier than expected, China fell to the Communists. Nevertheless, the United States persevered in building democracy in Germany and Japan, and now these countries are our allies. She is certain that one day a democratic Iraq will be our ally in the same way that Japan is now our ally.

She won her third standing ovation from the crowd and walked off the stage. At that point I lost control of myself and shouted "Four More Years!" She looked over in my direction and smiled.

The protestors

The P-I reported that there was a group of 20 protestors outside the hall. I didn't see them. They must have gathered after I went into the hall. The only protest I saw outside the hall when I arrived was this one table with three or four members of the International Socialist Organization

At one point during the Q&A period, a young woman in the audience stood up and pointedly walked toward the exit. She was wearing a T-shirt with Rice's picture and the words "War Criminal". It was too dark for my photo to come out. Also there was this woman, who is apparently beyond the age of caring whether or not anybody thinks she's making a fool of herself

The Press Coverage

Both the Seattle Times and Seattle Post-Intelligencer reported on the speech.

The P-I prominently misquoted Rice as saying "Time and truth are on our side", when her exact words were "Time and truth are on the the side of liberty". That does mean the same thing as being on "our side", although I'm not sure all of the P-I readers would view it that way. The article does open by citing Rice

U.S. policy in Iraq was part of "a forward strategy for freedom in the Middle East" that was succeeding steadily.

But it missed the central place in the War on Terror that she ascribed to the democratization of the Middle East. The P-I reporter lamented that:

She took no direct questions from the news media.

On the other hand, she did sit down separately with the Seattle Times editorial board, for what was described as a "wide-ranging discussion". (Perhaps the P-I was jealous that Rice didn't sit down with its editorial board, or perhaps the ongoing skirmish between the two Seattle dailies leads each paper to conclude that the other is not part of the news media. Maybe they're both right! -- Ed.). The Times editorial board, which endorsed Kerry the week before the Republican convention, can hardly be expected to give Rice a fair hearing, and they lived up to expectations:

Rice ... defended the decision to go to war [against Iraq], despite the subsequent failure to find any weapons of mass destruction and the 9/11 commission's conclusion that Saddam did not have a "collaborative" relationship with al-Qaida.

The article simultaneously mischaracterizes the findings of the 9/11 commission report while also failing to adequately convey Rice's defense of the Iraq war. Like the P-I, the Times largely ignored Rice's argument that the liberation of Iraq is part of the broader initiative of democratizing the Middle East in order to eliminate the political dysfunction that is the root cause of terrorism. Neither paper mentioned either of Rice's analogies of the current situation in Iraq to either the beginning of the Cold War, or to the rough early stages of our own democracy. Neither did they note Rice's mention of the importance of ending the oppression of women in the Islamic world as vital to winning the War on Terror.

The P-I concluded its report with:

She was not asked last night about the news that there have now been 1,000 U.S. military deaths in Iraq.

Despite that news, she did note one positive effect of the war in Iraq and the deposing of Saddam.

Regarding those Iraqis who represented their country in the recent Summer Olympics in Athens, Greece, she said, "The best thing is that those who did not win a medal did not have to fear torture upon their return."

That was indeed a positive effect of the war in Iraq, but the P-I presents it as if it were the only one.

The Times editorial this morning is mainly critical of Rice and the administration and for the strangest of reasons:

President Bush's vision of a democratized Middle East living in peace, security and freedom will not happen without consistent leadership on resolving the Israeli-Palestinian crisis. ... The Bush administration talked a good plan but has not delivered progress. U.S. leadership in brokering, enforcing and bankrolling a resolution is the only hope of success.

The day after the Palestinian ersatz Prime Minister justifies retaliation against Israel for bombing a terrorist training camp, the Times main comment on administration foreign policy is to blame the President for insufficient progress on making concessions to the Palestinians? Commentary this silly does not increase my confidence in the Times editorial board to shed light on the important issues of the day.

Posted by Stefan Sharkansky at September 08, 2004 11:31 AM