Why does the Bush Administration have this obsession with denying the obvious?
Rice downplays security "problem" in Iraq AFP 11/28/03
<< President George W. Bush's national security adviser denied that the secrecy and security blanketing his trip to Baghdad showed how unsafe Iraq remains eight months after the US-led invasion.
<< Concerns about rising insurgent violence led the White House to impose a vow of silence on media, lifting it only once Bush was safely away from the Iraqi capital after a mere two and a half hours spent confined at Baghdad airport.
<< Some critics, including the presidential campaign of retired general Wesley Clark, said the brevity and cloak-and-dagger nature of the visit -- which the White House sold as a morale-booster -- actually showed how little Washington has accomplished in Iraq since taking control in April. >>
Wesley Clark was making a very valid point. But it seems that Condi Rice played right into his game. If she needed to respond at all, why didn't she just leave it at, "Obviously, Iraq is still a dangerous place, and that's no secret to anyone" (which she did say)? Instead she put it in a transparently defensive context, saying:
<< "[I]t's just not true that nothing has changed" since the March invasion [which, of course, no one has said].
<< "The Iraqis are taking control of their own future. Most of the country remains quite stable. The Iraqis are planning and looking forward to the transfer of sovereignty. They're taking over ministries, schools are opening, all of those things are happening," she said. >>
And why are Administration spokespeople so fixed on schools, schools, lots of schools? Iraq had schools under the old regime. Some development officials have complained that badly needed funds have been diverted from more urgent projects to cosmetic efforts like painting schools.
The Bush Administration has good reason to be defensive over their conduct of the Iraq War. But it's still surprising they've often so ham-handed about it.
No comments:
Post a Comment