Here's an article that more fully explores what I was thinking when I heard Condoleezza Rice talk about "structural" problems that kept getting in the way of taking action. What's the point of being President or National Security Advisor if -- after identifying "structural problems" -- you can't correct them? Rice's testimony seemed to be an attempt to justify her and Bush's sluggishness and passivity. She reinforced the idea that this White House only responds to its ideology, not to what's going on in the real world. SS # # # # # "Actually, what is clear to me now-after watching Rice's testimony and then reading some of the more astonishing quotes from it last evening in various news reports-is that Rice isn't a national security adviser at all. That is, her job-unlike that of all the others, such as Henry Kissinger, Zbigniew Brzezinski, John Poindexter, Anthony Lake and Sandy Berger-was, and is, not to give the president national security advice but instead to carry out orders given by those who actually were devising national security policy: Cheney, Rumsfeld, Wolfowitz and Feith. Rice was simply a glorified supervisory bureaucrat. Her job was to take and carry out orders- http://slate.msn.com/id/2098339/ ------------------------------------------------------------------ To change your Lit-Ideas settings (subscribe/unsub, vacation on/off, digest on/off), visit www.andreas.com/faq-lit-ideas.html