Don't Write Condi's Epitaph Yet

by Earl Ofari Hutchinson

(PNS) -- When former Bush counter-terrorism advisor Richard Clarke publicly swore before a national TV audience that National Security Advisor Condoleezza Rice was practically to blame for the lack of preparedness before the September 11 terror attack, the tongues furiously wagged about her future. Even though Rice will now publicly testify before the 9/11 commission, it will take much to undue the collateral damage from Clarke's attack and the week of foot dragging before agreeing to testify. In fact, some still predict that she will exit the White House if Bush wins a second term, if not before. Time Magazine bluntly asked, "Is Condi the Problem?"

Her excuse that publicly testifying before the 9/11 commission violates executive privilege was always debatable. National security advisors have on several occasions in past years testified before congressional commissions, Clinton's national security adviser Sandy Berger, being one, and President Carter's national security adviser Zbigniew Brzezinski, being another.

Condi, as Bush affectionately calls her, is thought by some to be the weak link in Bush's top chain of command. Her expertise is on the Soviet Union and its military relations with East European satellite countries, and not on how to assess and fight terrorism. By the time she took the reins as Bush's security advisor, the Soviet Union was out of business, and many of the Eastern European countries had either been reconfigured or had become allies of the U.S. There were long stretches during the intense debates over Bush's Iraq war policy, the terrorism war, foreign policy and security matters, when Rice sunk from public view. During those time lapses, Secretary of State Colin Powell, Secretary of Defense Donald Rumsfeld, and even Vice President Dick Cheney became familiar fixtures on talk shows explaining Bush policy. This led some Bush watchers to ask, "Where's Condi?"

But Condi isn't likely to be the sacrificial lamb for alleged Bush administration's 9/11 failures, at least not yet. The sole reason that Rice became an issue in the tit for tat between Clarke and Bush over who's to blame for 9/11 is because Clarke singled her out by name for blame. Yet, from what can be gleaned from the spate of recent tell-all accounts of the inner workings of the Bush administration, her role is not too make policy but to follow Bush policy directives. Rice is perfectly suited for that role. As a close personal family friend and political ally of Bush Sr. and now Bush, she has always been the consummate team player. Like a good team player she takes orders, follows directions, and does not stray one inch from the Bush administration political script.

Bush officials have quickly circled the wagons around her. In their furious counter attack on Clarke, they virtually branded him a liar, and a self-serving, book peddling opportunist, while downplaying Rice's role, or barely mentioning her at all. Republican congressional leaders also gently let Rice off the hook, by attacking Clarke, and mostly omitting any mention of her.

Rice also has dual political value for Bush. Her appointment as security advisor, a first for a black and a woman, appears to confirm Bush's oft-repeated boast made during the 2000 presidential campaign, and largely dropped since, that diversity would be the new watchword in the Republican Party. Though polls taken after Bush appointed her his national security advisor, and Powell his Secretary of State, found that black hostility to Bush remained intense, many blacks, Jesse Jackson included, still publicly expressed admiration for Rice and Powell. When Clarke attacked Rice, many blacks privately grumbled that Rice might be made the scapegoat for alleged Bush intelligence failings.

But Rice's conservative views on social and domestic issues are generally in line with Bush's, and that plays well with conservative voters who Bush needs to beat presumed Democratic presidential rival John Kerry. That was glaringly evident on the hot button issues of reparations and affirmative action. When Bush refused too allow the U.S. to participate in the U.N. World Racism Conference in Durban in 2001, ostensibly because of its anti-Israel tilt, and backing of reparations, Rice denounced reparations, and claimed the conference had been "hijacked."

When Bush backed the white students in their lawsuit against the University of Michigan's affirmative action program last year, Powell openly criticized him, while Rice praised him. During her tenure as provost at Stanford University during the 1990s, student groups claimed that Rice attempted to gut affirmative action and women's programs and oppose increased minority hiring at the school. Rice denied the charge, but her reflexive backing of Bush in the University of Michigan case indicated that in a heated battle on a contentious racial issue, Rice is loathe to break ranks with her boss.

During her long association with Bush as a family friend and political confidant, Rice has loyally and aggressively defended Bush against all enemies. Her week-long refusal to publicly testify before the 9/11 commission is the latest proof of that abiding loyalty. Don't write her political epitaph yet.