Bloomberg has a good piece titled:
Headline: "Rice Says US Couldn't Underestimate Threat From Hussein"
see: http://quote.bloomberg.com/apps/news?pid=10000087&sid=avDtu73EVpAU&refer=top_world_news
Rice says that in regard to a tyrant, one always needs to err on the side of pessimism, of assuming that things are really far worse than one knows or can prove that they are. She also says she has no regrets. I would add, no shame, either. In that, she's working for the right guy, eh?
I suggest that the article could be titled, "US couldn't ESTIMATE threat from Hussein". This administration had no clue what was going on, and rejected any information they found inconvenient, or contrary to the case they were trying to build. Those who did bring them tales of scary secret programs (Chalabi et al) were richly rewarded with Millions of dollars of support. Rice is clearly under stress in this interview, reaching desperately for an explanation, after her hand has been photographed in the cookie jar, in fact, up to the elbow in the cookie jar. If one starts from a premise, as the Bushies did, that Saddam was bad, and they needed a pretext to wipe him out, then one can construct an illusory house of cards, composed of only the negative facts, rumors and theories, but with none of the exculpatory evidence or data. Why did these people do this, in such a betrayal of the trust reposed in them by the American people? History will tell us, as it always does.
Rice lied then, she lied earlier as Provost of Stanford, and given her penchant for tortured logic she probably also cheated on her exams. Why would a seemingly intelligent person act so brazenly? Ambition. Raw ambition. In so doing she clearly violated her oath of office, but then... that does not distinguish her the rest of this administration, does it?
