Russert Watch: The Smooth Spin Stylings of Condoleeza Rice

If it's Sunday, it's "Meet The Republicans" - that's how I felt when I saw that Tim's guests this week would be Condoleeza Rice - again - and two Republicans to debate immigration. Roll out the red carpet, Tim, and hand over the floor - for who better to do damage control for a damaged, damaging administration than the hyper-articulate, camera-ready Condi? And who better to discuss immigration than Republicans, clearly the only stakeholders in the debate? I had half a mind to go on strike and find something better to do with my Sunday than faithfully transcribing their soundbites for HuffPo consumption. Like, for example, sticking a fork in my eye.

But a half-hour sitdown with Condi is a half-hour sitdown with Condi, and as it turned out the inter-Republican debate between SC Senator Lindsey Graham and Rep. Charlie Norwod of Georgia was interesting in what it revealed about the divisions within the Republican party and how closely their eyes are on the polls. When you think about it, this immigration issue is a Republican issue - raised by Republicans as a domestic distraction (and anyone who doubts that it's a domestic distraction need look no further than, er, "Meet The Press"), addressed by Bush specifically with an eye to appeasing his base, positioned as an all-important election issue instead of, I dunno, the war/NSA spying/Plamegate/Katrina/that Dubai ports deal that everyone seems to have forgotten about/CIA scandals/skyrocketing gas prices/that pesky ballooning national debt. Oh that. Right.

So without further ado let the fun begin. Watch it here, read it here, dowload the podcast to fire you up while you go for a rousing jog here. It's got to be better than sitting on the couch eating Cheerios out of the box. I don't know anyone who's doing that, I'm just saying.

First up: Condi Rice, back on MTP less than two months after her last visit to spin good news in Iraq: a brand-new government, squeaking through under the wire for the Monday deadline, led by Prime Minister Nuri Kamal al-Maliki. It's the first full-term government in Iraq since the fall of Saddam Hussein, which means it's a tangible, practical sign of progress and improvement in Iraq and the perfect peg for the administration to hang their progress-in-Iraq hat on.

Hence, Condi. Lots of talk about how this is an important step, how the Iraqis are taking control, how she saw the difference personally when she was in Iraq with Rummy (they LOVE him there!), how they're already taking action. Sunshine, puppies and flowers. Terrific. Tim notes that three important positions haven't been filled: Ministers of Interior, Defense and National Security. Condi thinks that it "shows maturity" that Maliki isn't rushing into filling those positions (she pronounces it "ma-toor-ity" which sounds funny coming out of her serious, earnest face). Tim notes that Ahmed Chalabi is being considered for the all-important Minister of the Interior position. Condi carefully sidesteps making any value judgments on Chalabi, once the Bush administration's super-fave to take over in Iraq (and Judy Miller's super-fave source on WMDs - no connection there, nosiree). Instead she carefully deferred the decision to Maliki.

She is not so deferential to Jack Murtha, whose repeated calls for withdrawal of troops has been less-than-heralded by a stay-the-course administration. Russert pulls out this clip from the Philadelphia Inquirer, in which Murtha says that the internal strife of Iraq - "Every convoy is attacked, IEDs [improvised explosive devices] exploding all around, being shot at every day" - can only be addressed now by the Iraqis Condi agrees - with the last line. And they're doing that! With the new government! They've already started working! She's so optimistic! They're going to work as a team and look at "what remains to be done and who should do it!" Now THAT's progress!

(Example of progress: she says the "notorious highway between the airport and the international zone is now controlled by Iraqi forces" and glows about its newfound security. Even so, just last Sunday, 14 people were killed by a roadside bomb on that stretch (and this week's issue of Time still calls it called "the most dangerous road in the world".)

So, really: When are we leaving? Russert, to his credit, presses the point, just as he did the last time Condi was on. And just like the last time, Condi is vague: Yes, part of the plan is to sit down with the new team and figure this out. Yes, "larger numbers of Iraqis are being trained" and yes they are "taking on more security responsibility." But no, a timetable for pulling out hasn't been established: "I'm optimistic that the Iraqis are taking more security responsibility and are better trained. I think it would be premature before we've had a chance to talk with the new Iraqi government to start talking about precisely what's going to happen in terms of our own forces." Vague ambitions, to match vague plans.

Tim, exasperated, pulls out the numbers: "2,448 dead Americans, 18,088 wounded or injured. And look at these numbers in terms of support for the war, the president's handling of Iraq. When the war began in March of '03, it was 70 percent approval. It's now down to 32. Less than one in three Americans support the president's handling of the war in Iraq." Yes, Tim should get props for raising those numbers. But here's why I get frustrated with Meet The Press: Sure, he raises the numbers - but then he offers them to Condi on a platter for spin, spinning away. With the open-ended: "What happened?" Tim throws the ball to Condi, who catches it deftly, responding smoothly: "I understand that Americans see on their screens violence... I understand that it's hard, it's also hard--harder to see the quiet progress on the political front, the coming together of Iraqis, Sunnis, Shia, Kurds, to build their political future." Did you catch that? Of course people are upset, they're only seeing the bad part. Says Condi, gravely: "Nothing of value was ever won without sacrifice." Wow Condi, that's real matoor. Who made your dress?

Tim pushes her on the Iraq war approval rating and cites the usual litany of gaffes: no WMDs, misjudging the power of the insurgency, the cost of war, the greeted-as-liberators thing. Condi smoothly acknowledges that "there are many things that could have been done differently and probably could have been done better." But this is war, Tim. Big enterprises require big descisions, and adjustments must be made on the ground. See how that is spun? Adjustments must be made ON THE GROUND. But the no-WMD sketchy rationalization for war happened before even getting close to the ground. That's the benefit of having this many screw-ups: you can explain away all of them with one vague excuse.

On to Iran. For once - just once - I would love it if Tim would get into the backstory. Because there IS a backstory here, a long one. Condi takes great pains to make any conflict with Iran over nuclear capability about the international community vs. Iran, and not the U.S. per se. But let's not forget that both Cheney and Rumsfeld were in the Ford White House (Wolfowitz too) before the Ayatollah toppled the U.S.-friendly Shah, and they were part of Iran's grand nuclear dreams at that time. Let's also not forget which side the U.S. backed in the Iran-Iraq war (see Rummy's famous handshake with Saddam circa '83). I'm not (necessarily) saying that Cheney, Wolfie and Rummy have an axe to grind now, I'm just saying there is a history of being very much at odds with the current regime in Iran.

Now, the words "regime change" remain carefully unuttered by Condi during her exchange on the matter with Russert, like so:

TIM: Would the United States offer security guarantees, promise not to bring about a regime change in Iran if the current government agreed not to build a nuclear bomb?

CONDI: ...[I]t's a little strange to talk about security guarantees when the question is Iranian behavior here. And yes, the nuclear issue's important, but let's remember this is a state that, that threatens to destroy Israel, that is a central banker of terrorism, that is engaged every day in supporting Hezbollah and rejectionist groups in the Palestinian territories, that has stirred up violence in the south of Iraq, including, we believe, in terms of technology that may be contributing to violence against our soldiers. It, it's certainly strange to talk about security guarantees in that circumstance. And I would say one other thing. I've never quite understood it. If this is a civil nuclear program, and supposed to give energy, what's, what is with security guarantees? I thought this was supposed to be a civil nuclear program...But Tim, the United States is not, first, being asked about security guarantees, and secondly it makes no sense in a context in which Iran is a central banker of terrorism and a force for instability in a region of, of great interest to us.

Translation: Regime change is SO on the table. Need more proof? Check out this (slightly condensed) exchange:

TIM: But Iran is clearly a much more serious threat than Iraq.
CONDI: Well, I, I certainly wouldn't say that. We went to war with Iraq, let's remember...
TIM: But they didn't have weapons of mass destruction.
CONDI: Tim, of course, you know what you know at the time.
TIM: Sure.
CONDI: And when we made the decision to go into Iraq, there--, everybody believed there were weapons of mass destruction.

See that? We jumped from "know" to "believe." Pretty flexible standard for going to war.

One thing which struck me about Condi: my God, she is articulate. She looks great on screen, with smooth skin to match her mellifluous voice and measured delivery. She is totally in command of facts. She does not bluster, or leave time for aw-shucks laughter, or revert to the "war on terra" saw. I cannot imagine her boss putting together even one of her sentences. Let's not forget why it's Condi who shows up on the Sunday morning talk shows.

Two more things: First, Domestic eavesdropping. Utterly predictable spin: of course it's legal. Fine, there wasn't a warrant but Bush doesn't need one under his executive authority. Oh, you want me to back that up? "I'm not going to get into the debate that the lawyers may have about this." She's not going to get into the details of the intelligence program, dammit. But she will say this: "The issue is, can we both protect our privacy and protect our country? The president believes that we can." And if the lawyers have a problem with that, then you just know that the terrorists have won.

Second: Guananamo Bay. Says Condi: "No one wants to shut down Guantanamo more than this Administration." Tim does not raise an eyebrow skeptically, unlike every single person watching. No really, says Condi: we would if we could but then what would we do with the prisoners? It is, of course, a fair point, assuming that there is justification for holding them in the first place. But, consider the reason the U.N. is calling for it to be shut down in the first place. In any case, she not going to talk timetables, oh no (she shuts Tim down good here when he asks). That's Condi for you: Lots of facts, except the ones that might actually pin the administration down to action.

That's it for the Condi-riffic portion of the program. Next up: Republican-on-Republican bullet points with Senator Lindsey Graham and Congressman Charlie Norwood on the immigration debate! Good times.

• Senator Graham: For the gazillionth time, it's not "amnesty," it's "path to citizenship." Republicans don't like having Republican tactics used on them any more than Democrats do.
  
• Both Norwood and Graham have separate and distinct immigration plans, to add to the Sensenbrenner plan, the Gingrich plan, and of course the Bush plan. When Tim asks what Norwood would do with 11 million illegal immigrants, he cites his "Charlie Norwood program" of letting people go home through "attrition" but doesn't elaborate.
  
• This allows Tim to ask his favorite question: what happens to the children? Norwood says "well, obviously, the children go home too" (unless they're of age). Got that? American-born children of illegal immigrants will also leave by the mysterious and undefined "attrition." Ladies and gentlemen, the Charlie Norwood Program!
  
• Lindsey Graham impresses me with this exchange - he's sensible and practical and only partisan to the extent that he acknowledges that handling this issue right will score at the ballot box. He points out that it's kind of uncool to say to affected Hispanic Marines serving in Iraq "Thank you for your sacrifice. While you're gone, we've made your parents and grandparents felons, and we're going to break your family up."
  
• Graham also compares the illegal immigration issue to a movie classic: "It's like Casablanca, now all of the sudden we're saying "I can't believe there's gambling going on here!" Lindsey thinks this could be the beginning of a beautiful friendship with Hispanic voters.
  
• He also says that Republican poll numbers don't amount to more than a hill of beans in this crazy world, and that they should be motivated by the good of the coutnry and not the good of the polls.
  
• Nonetheless, those polls come up, a lot. Graham says he has strong approval numbers at home because his constituents see him working for a solution. Norwood says that the American people want border security (but does not cite a source). I redirect your attention to the point Graham made about how this issue has suddenly whooshed into prominence, and I urge you to recall who did said whooshing, and what half of "Meet The Press" is about today. Seriously: Graham is no fool. The reason I am nodding my head along with him and thinking he's reasonable and practical is because he's exactly that next to Sensenbrenner, Norwood and Tancredo. But let's not forget that it's this debate over illegal immigration which is providing Republicans like him with precisely the platform to demonstrate balance, nuance and practicality. Do you think it's a coincidence?
  
• What the second half of Meet The Press has NOT been spent addressing today: Bush's slipping poll numbers. How Congress will address the NSA wiretap issue. How the gathering forces regarding Iran's WMDs eerily mirror those leading up to the invasion of Iraq. I'm just saying.

That's it for today's MTP - if it's Sunday blah blah blah. See you next week, where Tim has a very good chance of going back to gloating about the Sabres and I have a very good chance of repeatedly smacking my head against my desk. Have a good week and we'll see you then.