Just a heads-up for an joint interview with Condoleeza Rice and her UK opposite number Foreign Secretary Jack Straw that was just broadcast on BBC1's The Politics Show today. While both are in typically dissembling mode and the interviewer misses a few tricks, there are some very interesting moments where Rice in particular ties herself up in knots and gives answers that to coin a phrase "are little more than gibberish".
Perhaps more importantly she also discusses the current US attitude to Syria, Iran's nuclear ambitions and Russia.
Here's a link to the interview
transcript
and here's one example of Rice showing a stirring incomprehension about the Iraq situation - the case in point being the testimony from Gen. Casey last week that there was ONE fully operational Iraqi army batallion (which was skewered so beautifully on The Daily Show by the way)
JON SOPEL: Iraq can govern itself and keep its borders secure and internal security secure, and yet we hear you talking about there being something like ninety odd battalions and General Casey talking about there being one battalion that is fully operational.
CONDOLEEZZA RICE: No, General Casey is the one who gave us the number of course, ninety one. Let me explain. There are ninety one battalions that are in the fight. Now there are three categories of battalions in the Iraqi Armed Forces at this point.
There are battalions - and by the way, they are all in the combat fight, every single one of them. There are battalions that are capable of completely independent operations.
That means they need no logistical support, they don't need indirect fire support, though there are very few of those. Then you have ones ... (interjection)
JON SOPEL: General Casey said one.
CONDOLEEZZA RICE: Well one or two or some place, in the very low numbers, but this was by design, because you build the combat power first. You build the teeth first and then you build the tail. We can provide the tail, we can provide the logistics, we can provide the indirect fire support.
What we want to do is to have Iraqis in the front of the fight. Now there are also Iraqi forces, so you're going to have to give me a moment to do this because it's an important point. There are also forces that are capable of being the combat power without American forces with them.
But they still need indirect fire support or logistical support, that's another category. And then there are those that we believe we still need to help provide he combat power and where we are integrated with them.
So it is a mistake, and I've seen it done so many times in the news that I really must insist; people need to understand that when we talk about completely independent, we mean independent of our logistics, not independent of our soldiers, that's a very different matter ... (overlaps)
I hope that's clear to you all. Now let's talk Iran:
JON SOPEL: Let's just talk about Iran now because your Ambassador to the United Nations, John Bolton, said something very interesting and it sounded rather hawkish, "there cannot be a situation where the difficulties that we encounter in Iraq, stop us from taking the necessary steps against countries like Iran seeking nuclear weapons." Now what does that mean? Military action?
CONDOLEEZZA RICE: Well, quite clearly, we're on a diplomatic path on Iran. We have been very supportive of the EU 3 negotiations, we've also worked with the Russians, who by the way, have structured their civil military, er, civil nuclear deal with the er, Iranians, in a way that does not give to Iran the fuel (?) cycle.
Therefore, sort of, are beginning to diminish proliferation risk. So we're on a very good diplomatic course here. Now, I said when I was in Britain before, military action isn't on the agenda. The agenda is a diplomatic one.
Obviously we never take any option off the table, American Presidents believe that about any concern that they have around the world, but we're on a diplomatic course and we believe that with strong international support, with strong international coherence about this, we can succeed on a diplomatic, diplomatic path.
JON SOPEL: But your colleague has taken it off the table. I mean, you've said, I don't see any circumstances in which military action would be justified against Iran, full stop.
JACK STRAW: Well, that's our position. I don't speak for the US President, but I don't also understand why the media are quite, is so obsessive on this issue, given the fact that both our countries have made it absolutely clear that military action is not on the agenda.
It is not on the agenda. All right. This is an abstract issue. What we are doing, as the Secretary has indicated is pursuing this matter by diplomatic means and what we've been able to achieve so far, is a very good consensus, again, against the odds, thanks to the very active backing ... (interjection)
JON SOPEL: Just going, just going back to what John Bolton said at the UN, where he said, it takes any means necessary.
CONDOLEEZZA RICE: Er, listen to what to the President of the United States has said, and the President of the United States, and I said that we are pursuing a diplomatic course. We believe that a diplomatic course will do what we need to do, which is to deny to Iran the ability to build a nuclear weapon under cover of civilian nuclear power.
JON SOPEL: You choose your words with great care. You're saying we should listen to the President, in other words, we shouldn't listen to John Bolton.
CONDOLEEZZA RICE: John Bolton has said nothing that the President of the United States has not said. But John Bolton has said, as our representative at the UN, and John Bolton is pursuing, as our representative at the UN, a diplomatic course.
JON SOPEL: But leaving open that possibility if the - I mean you know, you talk about the diplomatic course (interjection) ...
CONDOLEEZZA RICE: We have, the, the American President, the American President and the American Government, and I've said this every time I've been with you or with anyone else in the press corps; the American President never takes any option off the table.
You don't want the American President to start taking options off the table and to therefore have an adversary start calculating what is possible and what is not. It is, as Jack said, at this point however, an abstract issue because the course that we are on, and it's the course that we believe can be successful is a diplomatic one.
So just to be clear military action is not on the agenda but it's not off the table. Got that? Good