Condelezza Rice reportedly said on Friday:
"Some would argue that this broad approach to the problem is making the world less stable by rocking the boat and wrecking the status quo. But this presumes the existence of a stable status quo that does not threaten global security. This is not the case."
Where to begin?
(1) "Broad Approach" is a euphemism for "we didn't feel catching the man who killed 3,000 people was a priority". Instead, attacking Iraq was the way to improve global security irrespective of the fact that Iraq had nothing to do with 9/11.
(2) The "problem". She doesn't define the "problem". What is it? Is it radical fundamentalists? She will have a hard time defining it that way, because Hussein wasn't a radical fundamentalist. In fact, it seems as if the Bush Administration's policies have afforded the radical fundamentalists the opportunity to take over the country. The Shites, who will ultimately control Iraq, are aligned with Iran, which this Administration has defined as evil. Has anyone asked Rice whether she is aware that the problem she perceives, i.e. radical fundamentalism in Iraq, did not exist before we invaded Iraq but will eventually rule Iraq?
(3) Lastly, she concludes that the status quo prior to invasion threatened global security, and implies that invading Iraq would improve global security. While what she says sounds good on paper, it is simply wrong and belies the facts. We changed the status quo in the Middle East and global security has gotten worse. Since our invasion (liberation? Remember that verbal argument?), terrorist attacks around the world have increased. Spain, England, Bali, Jordan and Saudi Arabia have all seen increases in terrorist acts. In fact, we just read today that Zarqawi has ordered foreign insurgents in Iraq to go back to their own countries, presumably to destabilize other parts of the Middle East and the Muslim world. Lastly, Rice presumes that invasion will improve things rather than destabilize the region. She clearly has failed to recognize the opposite is just as likely to happen. The world isn't a safer place than it was two-and-a-half years ago - it's a more dangerous.
What's most troubling about Mr. Rice is she still hasn't gotten over the fact that invading Iraq for purposes of improving global security was a bad decision. It was a bad decision for some many reasons, and yet she continues to defends it albeit the reasons have changed over time. The reason this week is to stabilize the region. Quite a statement-some might call it really clueless. Eventually, this Administration is going to have to be honest that invading Iraq was a mistake, but until they do our involvement in Iraq will continue to be like the alcoholic living in a daze denying he has a problem.