Condi Lousy:Why Rice is a bad national security adviser

[jbfam4]

http://slate.msn.com/id/2098499/
Condi Lousy
Why Rice is a bad national security adviser.
By Fred Kaplan
Posted Thursday, April 8, 2004, at 3:17 PM PT


One clear inference can be drawn from Condoleezza Rice's testimony before the 9/11 commission this morning: She has been a bad national security adviser—passive, sluggish, and either unable or unwilling to tie the loose strands of the bureaucracy into a sensible vision or policy. In short, she has not done what national security advisers are supposed to do.

The key moment came an hour into the hearing, when former Watergate prosecutor Richard Ben-Veniste took his turn at asking questions. Up to this point, Rice had argued that the Bush administration could not have done much to stop the terrorist attacks on the World Trade Center and the Pentagon. Yes, the CIA's sirens were sounding all summer of an impending strike by al-Qaida, but the warnings were of an attack overseas.

Ben-Veniste brought up the much-discussed PDB—the President's Daily Briefing by CIA Director George Tenet—of Aug. 6, 2001. For the first time, he revealed the title of that briefing: "Bin Laden Determined To Attack Inside the United States.


Rice's central point this morning, especially in her opening statement, was that nobody could have stopped the 9/11 attacks. The problem, she argued, was cultural (a democratic aversion to domestic intelligence gathering) and structural (the bureaucratic schisms between the FBI and the CIA, among others). But this is the analysis of a political scientist, not a policymaker. Culture and bureaucracies form the backdrop against which officials perceive threats, devise options, and make choices. It is good that Rice, a political scientist by training, recognized that this backdrop can place blinders and constraints on decision-makers. But her job as a high-ranking decision-maker is to strip away the blinders and maneuver around the constraints. This is especially so given that she is the one decision-maker who is supposed to coordinate the views of the various agencies and present them as a coherent picture to the president of the United States. Her testimony today provides disturbing evidence that she failed at this task—failed even to understand that it was part of her job description.

[MissMarple]

1. It is depressing that she has no sense of responsibility.

It's as if she was waiting for a 25 page research paper specifically tailored for her before she could understand the scope of the problem. And yes, it appears to be more of an academic problem rather than a real life danger to the United States.

" Rice insisted this title meant nothing. The document consisted of merely "historical information" about al-Qaida—various plans and attacks of the past. "This was not a 'threat report,' " she said. It "did not warn of any coming attack inside the United States." Later in the hearing, she restated the point: "The PDB does not say the United States is going to be attacked. It says Bin Laden would like to attack the United States."

To call this distinction "academic" would be an insult to academia."

[lanlady]

2. Condi's main problem

is that she has been a Bush family tool for many years. That was her choice. And I guess it has served her personally well. After all, prior to, she was a decent (but not outstanding) academic. Unfortunately what served her well has served the country poorly.

[Beetwasher]

3. It's All the Fault of Her SUBORDINATES!

That's her excuse. Her SUBORDINATES failed to give her directions...Uh, Condi, I got news for you. As their boss, that's YOUR JOB!

Great article!