Hello and welcome to Russert Watch, a day later than usual owing to a few extra "birth pangs." You know how it is. I'm Patrick Dall'Occhio, and I'm new to this beat so bear with me - I wrote this post in conjunction with frequent Russert-Watcher Rachel Sklar so if you disagree with it, please feel free to blame her (I kid, I kid). This week I was excited to see that the opening guest was Madame Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice — always available for damage-control with her reliably smooth spin stylings — and she didn't disappoint, answered every question on the Israeli-Hezbollah conflict, the war in Iraq and even Cuba with the same annoying demeanor as if all inquiries were completely self-evident. And, she did it in Latin! (Marty Kaplan, we feel your pain.)
Not that the Dems were doing any better — the second half of the program highlighted the Connecticut Democratic primary in the Senate race with "Scandal: How "Gotcha" Politics Is Destroying America" author Lanny Davis supporting incumbent Joe Lieberman (er, take from that what you will) and Democracy For America chair Jim Dean (and Howard's brother!) supporting challenger Ned Lamont in what quickly became a meeting of the whines. But first, to Condi Rice.
U.N. Resolution and Hezbollah (Annotated)
MR. RUSSERT: Can there be any peace until the Hezbollah militia is destroyed?
DR. RICE: Well, the one thing that all Lebanese agree with--perhaps all but Hezbollah--is that it cannot have a situation again that obtained when Hezbollah crossed the blue line, kind of state-within-a-state, attacked Israel, abducted soldiers and really plunged the entire country into war without even the knowledge--let alone the consent--not even the knowledge of the Lebanese government. (Ed. So wait, is that a "yes"?)
And so if you talk to the Lebanese (Ed. As I have, Tim, which is why the above actually does make sense), they're very focused on extending the authority of the Lebanese government throughout the country, of being able to bring Lebanese forces throughout the country, and making certain that any arms are going to be in the hands of just the Lebanese government, that there're not going to be unauthorized or militia groups running throughout the country with a--with arms. And so the Lebanese themselves are dedicated to that. And these are obligations that they undertook, by the way, Tim, in the Taif Accords, all the way back in 1989, brokered by the Saudis, and also in Resolution 1559. So the Lebanese know what needs to be done here, and the international community now needs to help them do it. (Ed. The Lebanese may know what needs to be done, but we have no idea what you just said.)
MR. RUSSERT: But you're saying the Lebanese government will, will disarm and disband the, the Hezbollah militia? (Ed. Translation: "The Lebanese may know what needs to be done, but we have no idea what you just said.")
DR. RICE: I'm saying that the Lebanese government, the Lebanese Army, with the assistance of the international community, wants to extend its authority, and make certain that arms are held by Lebanese security forces, and not by militias. Those are obligations that they've undertaken not just to the international community, but to the Lebanese people. And the ministers, by the way--two of, of whom are Hezbollah ministers--voted in a council of ministers meeting for the points that Prime Minister Siniora has put forward, and among those is to be able to carry out the Taif Accords, which require the disarming of militias. (Ed. So wait, is that a "yes"?)
As I understand it, Condi's role in going on "Meet The Press" is to clarify the U.S. position. But this is the Bush Administration, where "clarify" really means "obfuscate." After four weeks of fighting, suddenly everyone smacks their forehead and says, "Damn! We forgot all about the Taif Accords and Resolution 1559!" Thank Goodness Condi's got her eye on the ball.
Russert, meanwhile, was nicely dogged on this question; that is, recognized that Condi totally neglected to answer it. So he asked it twice, and then for good measure pointed out that just last week, on this very program, Lebanese envoy to the United Nations Nouhad Mahmoud had said of Hezbollah that "It's not in our political agenda to disband of them militarily." Huh. What do you think Condi had to say about that?
DR. RICE: Well, I would suggest that the envoy read the Taif Accords and Resolution 1559.
(That sound you hear is me banging my head against the desk.)
Other can't-miss hits of this portion: The whole we-don't-talk-to-Syria-yes-we-do segment. Talk about doublespeak.
The War in Iraq, now in Day 1,236 (not annotated because it really must be read to be believed):
MR. RUSSERT: The president referred to the conflict of the Middle East as "a moment of opportunity." And another Bush--former Bush administration official, Richard Haass, had this to say--he is now the head of the Council on Foreign Relations. And Mr. Haass made these comments: He "laughed at the president's public optimism. 'An opportunity?' Haass said with an incredulous tone. 'Lord, spare me. I don't laugh a lot. That's the funniest thing I've heard in a long time. If this is an opportunity, what's Iraq? A once-in-a-lifetime chance?'" These are former Bush administration officials.
DR. RICE: Yes, and I, I know Richard well, and I'm very fond of him. Known him for a long time. But it's short-sighted, extremely short-sighted analysis. And I would think that if people look back on the history of how things have changed, they will recognize that opportunity very often comes out of crisis.
You know, Tim, the Chinese have a character for crisis. It's weiji--danger and opportunity. I think they have it right. Every crisis has within it danger, but every crisis also has within it opportunity. And this president is determined to seize opportunities, to bring about a different kind of Middle East.
Dear Lord you know things are bad when Rice has to reference China's definition of "danger" and "opportunity" as meaning the same thing (I can already hear Rummy: "You know, the Chinese have a character for "Civil War" it means "totally not happening" and "na na na I can't hear you I can't hear you!"). But putting aside the obvious sugar-content of such a statement (higher, even, than the status quo ante), why isn't the Bush administration really making this an opportunity? Why not use an end to this conflict as a step toward stabilizing Iraq? And speaking of Iraq, Russert did a nice job of really encapsulating the hopelessness of the situation we've created when he asked her - incredulously - about the rally in Baghdad wherein "hundreds of thousands of Shiites chanting 'Death to Israel' and 'Death to America' marched through the streets" in support for Hezbollah, burning American flags. I mean, this is not good, right? Yet Condi finds that silver lining: "What you have in Iraq is the beginnings of a--it's a very young democratic system, it is a system that has produced a unity government after a number of elections in which people went out, despite terrorist threats, and put their lives on the line to elect this government, and it's a young government. And, yes, it has to get its, its feet under it." Yes, she went there, she took it back to birth pangs. What's worrying is that Condi & Co. are so hung up on defending themselves that they refuse to acknowledge how very dangerous the kind of democracy the're trumpeting has become.
Cuba (back to annotated)
While answering legitimate questions pertaining to her office, Rice shakes her head like Katherine Hepburn in "On Golden Pond" as if to rattle the lame excuses out of her head.
MR. RUSSERT: USA Today reports that the Bush administration has dedicated assistance "to prepare the Cuban military forces to adjust to an appropriate role in a democracy." What does that mean?
DR. RICE: This simply means, Tim, that we've done some far-ranging thinking about, when the transition really does come in Cuba, how Cuba might have institutions of democracy. That's all that means.
Hearing Rice talk about supporting yet another birth of yet another democracy, is like meeting parents with five kids running around screaming and then they tell you they're pregnant. You pray for them to take care of the children they have...and, for the love of God, to use protection.
Lieberman vs. Lamont (or, Democrat vs. Democrat)
Finally, at long last, Tim's actually got two Democrats on to discuss an issue. Unfortunately, they're pitted against each other in a classic illustration of the "Democrats can't agree" meme, always a Republican favorite. Russert asks Dean if this is a referendum on Lieberman. Heck no, says Dean, it's a vote against lazy incumbents...and we're starting with the Democrats! "It's really a reference--a referendum, excuse me, on incumbency in general in Washington, and sort of the inertia that people have become to associate with getting things done in Congress. I think in a lot of ways, obviously the war, big, important issue among the voters, but I think we're also need to talk about, you know, the fact that it's been tough getting things done on health care, it's been tough getting things done about our infrastructure and fully funding our schools. And while it's unfair to hang any of that on Joe, because he's fought for a lot of these things, I think there is a feeling that we need a change in Washington." Excuse me, but who exactly makes up the majority of our Do-Nothing Congress? Thanks to this guy - the CHAIR of DEMOCRACY FOR AMERICA, for God's sake - our lazy, ineffectual Congress is just as much the fault of the Dems. Way to stay on message.
There's getting off message, and then there's enabling the ruinous soundbytes that the GOP is so damn good at:
MR. RUSSERT: In reference to February of '05, this now-famous picture of President Bush leaving the rostrum at the State of the Union message, hugging, kissing Joe Lieberman...
MR. DEAN: Yeah.
MR. RUSSERT: ...it evolved into this button that, "The Kiss: Too Close for Comfort!"
MR. DEAN: Yeah.
The Bush-Lieberman Kiss is the new Dean Scream. But Jim Dean is the chair for Democracy for America and Howard Dean's brother! Didn't he have nightmares hearing Howard's "yeaaaaahhh!!" over and over and over again in the media? Why turn Bush's kiss into a button issue against an established Democrat? Aren't you supposed to be elephant hunting? This isn't about taking sides in the Lieberman-Lamont debate - obviously primaries are about challengers and contenders and, you know, races. But this is Meet The Press, and whether or not we like it (and you know we don't), it sets the tone. The Dems need to be more careful here. Hell, they have to be more careful everywhere, but here's a good start.
There's more, of course - there always is and we welcome your hashing it through in the comments - but in the meantime that's it for Russert Watch. In the meantime, remember Condi's ancient Chinese wisdom: there's no "i" in "crisis."