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.

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.

Ms Rice's recent public displays of statesman-like "resolve" and "backbone" on the issue of torture are reptilian (to put it mildly), but are par for the course in Uncle Sam's long history of politically-appointed and publicly-salaried apologists. Blumenthal may not be aware of it, trapped in the Beltway mentality as he is, but the U.S. is notorious for its principled defenses of the unprincipled. Has he forgotten the morally challenged and dim-witted Ms Albright of the Clinton Years? Has he forgotten her public defense (on prime time TV) of economic sanctions so barbaric that they were conservatively estimated to have killed some 500,000 Iraqis, most of them children? This, Ms Albright haughtily reminded us, was a price "we" were willing to pay to "bring Saddam into line" in the "peaceful" attempt at "regime change" that preceded our current more bellicose barbarity.

Unfortunately, the tortured and morally reprehensible doublespeak that is the stock-in-trade of US "public diplomacy" did not begin with Ms Rice. Nor, indeed, with Ms Albright. America's open embrace of its manifest imperial "destiny" may be relatively recent, but its penchant for lies, innuendo, half-truths and distortions is as old as the Imperial Republic. David Harvey in his recent best-selling analysis of "The New Imperialism" reminds us that "Even internally, [the U.S] has a history of ruthlessness that belies its attachment to its constitution and the rule of law. ... [The] amazing thing," he goes on, "is how much is both known and documented from official or quasi-official sources [about this ruthlessness] and what a grizzly, despicable, and deeply disturbing record it is."

Ms Rice's recent tortured defense of torture in the interests of "Freedom" is a sad but not entirely unexpected addition to that record.