In Defense of Condi

The Wall Street Journal offers a sycophantic paean to Condi Rice, bemoaning, along the way, the "legion of ankle biters" who question where she and her boss have taken the country. Without any apparent irony, the Journal lauds Dr. Rice as being "instrumental in developing the administration's response to 9/11 into a policy that involved more than raiding terrorist camps throughout the world. Ms. Rice, who well understands the larger global political forces at work since the end of the Cold War, was one of a handful of powerbrokers who came to realize the best defense against terrorism was to spread freedom and democracy in the world."

Oh, my. For anyone who is paying attention, that actually sounds more like an indictment than a basis for praise. Lest we forget, here's what actually happened:

1."We have to go into Iraq because: Saddam Hussein + WMDs + support of Al Queda = an imminent threat to the security of the United States."

2."Woops. No WMDs and no ties to Al Queda. Well, lets pretend that the REAL reason we invaded the country was to spread freedom and democracy."

3."OK. That sells. We got re-elected didn't we? So, now lets make the spread of freedom and democracy our national policy."

Is the WSJ really suggesting that we should all be "just thrilled" to have a Secretary of State who appears committed (either personally or as a "good soldier") to pursuing our Iraqi policies throughout the world?

I don't know who to be angrier at, the Administration or its apologists. The Administration hit one ice berg due to lack of care and judgment. Unable to admit that, it now claims that it intended to hit the iceberg and that this was really just first step in a national policy of driving the ship of state into every iceberg we can find so as to eliminate the menace of floating ice. They don't actually believe this of course. For them, the rhetoric is pure expediency. But what, pray tell, is the WSJ's excuse?