The three running themes of Condoleeza Rice's political career are 1) Incompetence, 2) Dishonesty and 3) the absolute refusal of anyone to challenge her on either.

Remember "No one expected them (the 911 hijackers) to use airplanes as missiles"? Well, no one but writers and film-makers dating back to the 1970's, intelligence agencies, military planners and your kid sister. Remember her remarkable testimony before the 9/11 Commission? Rice is the teflon demagogue, a smoother shinier version of Colin Powell.

It's nice to see someone call her on her endless free pass. That said, the article was somewhat of a disappointment in its narrow focus and lack of attention to the larger issues of her career.

As a representative of a socio-economic group that still bears a double disadvantage (being female and African American), Condoleeza Rice has been given a good-will bonus. It is sad to see her wasting this capital in pursuit of policies that will ultimately harm this great country rather than make it more secure. Logic dictates that the �war on terrorism� (I shudder using this dumb phrase) can never be won. The threat of terrorism can be minimized using a balanced policy that adheres to international laws and treaties, as this administration is about to learn. The current U.S. policy is an unmitigated public relations disaster as the article correctly points out.

Condoleezza Rice's dishonesty, ruthless selfishness, and professional incompetence are already almost legendary. As in most criminal organizations, loyalty is the trait you want above all else; and that is Rice's one attribute- for power she will be loyal. Even if it severely endangers our personal security, betrays our constitution and Bill of Rights; which it has, or destroys what little was left of our credibility and cooperation with the world; which is now the case.

It's a stain on every one of our hands until we the people demand accountability from this government. Throughout history the consequences for inaction or just looking the other way (see Germany 1930's) are almost always disastrous.

Why are we debating the undebatable? It feels like an ugly distraction from just standing up for the basic human rights we granted ourselves at our founding. Like for starters- no government has the right to disappear and torture civilians anyplace, anytime. And if seized by any government we have the right to know why we are being detained and have access to an attorney. This is settled law everywhere except in banana republics. Imagine if this German guy was your brother or your father. Have we really lost all faith in the rule of law over the assurances of an obvious tyrant (Dick Cheney)?

Condoleezza Rice, pathetic disgraced shill that she is, will never be able to sell this country's perverted policies to any but the corrupt, the stupid, or the desperate. I like to believe that some of humanity has, thankfully, evolved beyond needing to debate the necessity of debasing ourselves and our fellow humans by practicing the very acts of barbarism we preach against and use as justifications to start our wars.

The fact is the war is over here. We are obviously in the worst constitutional crisis since the civil war; our government and our media mostly pretend otherwise, and most Americans go along with it because that's the easiest thing to do- until it's not. That we could even allow an administration such as this to operate outside the constitution, with an unaccountable, one party rule (Republicans + Democrats = WA DC) in the 21st century speaks volumes; it says we are losing this war to save our own democracy, and quite possible many of our own lives.

It�s up to us.

Sycophants and demagogues have an instant understanding of the nuances. Three days after 9/11 Dick Chaney said on "Meet the Press" something like "We are now entering a dark time" as we search out the terroists. Did Condi Rice understand that to mean that torture was permissable - that this country was allowed to trangress all bounds of decency? Words do have a meaning, however corrupted. This leads to the unbelievable reality that we are now actually debating whether torture is "good"! Chaney presses for it in the Congress - Rice denies the obvious in Europe.

Colin Powell, upon leaving the post of Secretary of state:

"I want my soul back! Where is my soul? Has anyone seen my soul? Condi, have you seen my soul?"

Condoleezza Rice, wiping the corners of her mouth with a napkin:

"Yes! And it was delicious!!"

I hereby nominate Caterpillar Condi is the greatest Salon graphic of all time. Somebody make T-Shirts!

In the paragraph:

"Torture is a term that is defined by law," said Rice. "We rely on our law to govern our operations." She neglected to explain that "torture" as she used it has been defined by presidential findings to include universally defined methods of torture, such as waterboarding, for which U.S. soldiers were court-martialed in 1902 and 1968 specifically on the basis of having engaged in torture."

I believe that the word "include" is probably meant to be "exclude". Is the point that Rice is lying

outright when she says the US doesn't torture because waterboarding is torture and the US does it?

Or is the point that she's evading the question because she and her cohorts have specifically excluded (via the finding) waterboarding from their definition of torture?

Blumenthal is right to write about the truth of Condi Rice. However, I believe that we need to see the bigger picture. When involved in a mistake, a person must either admit the error or pretend that nothing is wrong. If we are engaged, knowingly, in an illegal activity, then we must cover it up with lies and other forms of disinformation. Condi Rice is simply the purveyor of pretense and cover-up, being fed her information by Cheney, Rumsfeld, etal. I doubt that she has expressed an original thought publicly since coming to the WH in 2001.

Remember Richard Nixon's secret incursion into Cambodia early in his first administration? He believed that an illegal act was necessary to end the Viet Nam War "honorably." He had his minions out stumping the "talking points" trying to pretend that the truth was not the truth. It didn't work then and it will not work now. Hopefully we do not need to have a return to "Kent State" in order to mobilize the American public. The best way to save the democracy and end the war in Iraq is to show these people the door in November of 2006 and 2008. The ballot in November 2006 must be a referendum on the war in Iraq and the Election in 2008 needs to be a referendum on the right wing Christianists of this society. Otherwise, we will still be voting on these issues in 2010 and 1012 as the death toll in Iraq mounts.