This is a defense?

Colbert King of the Washington Post has an essay, Why the Crass Remarks About Rice?, where he takes to task various critics of Rice (Barbara Bozer, cartoonist Pat Oliphant, et al). Critics of Rice accuse her of being a weak mouthpiece for Bush. Colbert King disagrees. In fact, he says: (emp add)

As I was leaving a Post dining room after participating in my first off-the-record session with Rice and other Post editors and reporters a couple of years ago, it struck me that Rice could be where Bush gets [his foreign policy doctrine] from. Subsequent meetings only have reinforced that supposition. Rice's notions of preemption, unilateralism and America's responsibilities as the dominant power in the world are not hand-me-downs from Bush. They strike me as very much her own.

First things first. Rice appears to be a person not guiding the ship of state because everything we've learned indicates that the real power is with Rumsfeld and Cheney. Rice did not act to rebuff the bogus intel from the Office of Special Plans (and elsewhere). So the charge that Rice is an administration cheerleader is a reasonable one.

Second, since when did being an architect of preemption become a good thing?

posted by Quiddity at 1/22/2005 02:43:00 AM