(h/t Heather)

David Gregory launched a pillow soft environment for Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice to perpetuate her public relations revisionism on the Bush Legacy™. The only way Gregory could have made it any cushier on her would have been to ask for gauzy soft focus on her camera.

My irony meter (sharply honed from years of watching impotent journalism like this) redlined when Gregory asks Rice if she harbors any regrets of her days representing the Worst. Presidency. Ever. Does she 'fess up to any qualms about lowering our nation's moral authority by torturing? Does she feel a bit squeamish about her role in invading and occupying a country that posed no threat to us while giving aid to countries that could? Does she regret not picking up that extra pair of Jimmy Choos while New Orleans drowned?

Nah....Rice's regrets center around her inability to garner world support to do something about Sudan. And gosh, why is it that the rest of the world seems so reticent to assist the US? Could it be that you blew all good will by entering an unnecessary war and demonizing any country who questioned the wisdom of such action? But the best part is Rice's rationalization for why the US doesn't just go it alone:

(A)cting unilaterally in an Arab country or in a Muslim country that is that complex, that far away, really did not seem to be an option.

Ah...would that you had learned that lesson much, much earlier. Perhaps then you would not have the genocide you did cause while you wring your hands impotently over Darfur.

Does David Gregory point that out? Surely, you jest. Living in the vacuum of the Beltway Bubble where little factoids like that don't rear their ugly heads, Gregory ropes in a little Clinton blame too:

MR. GREGORY: Isn't it amazing, the last 16 years of American leadership, two presidents, two big regrets stand out: Rwanda and Darfur.

SEC'Y RICE: Yes.

MR. GREGORY: The failure to prevent and protect innocent people from genocide.

Um, David, I don't know if you bother to look past the White House talking points faxed to you prior to the show, but they've failed to prevent and protect innocent people in far more areas than Darfur. Heard about New Orleans? Iraq? Afghanistan? Hell, look at the memorial for unnecessary deaths erected near my home. Of course, part of the talking points for the Bush Legacy Upgrade is that they have protected innocent lives...so Gregory asks nary a follow-up to this load of lies:

I will say that we've also been engaged in activities that have protected innocent people. Look at Saddam Hussein's record of, really, genocide inside of Iraq, what he did to Shia populations, to Kurdish populations, actually using weapons of mass destruction. Look at what the Taliban did to populations in Afghanistan. And so, in those circumstances, where the marriage of our values and our security interests has put us forward in a more active military way, we have tried to protect innocent people.

I'm curious, Condi, did you bother to read the Levin/McCain report? Your "values" have left us less safe.

Nice of David to let you get away with your lies. Good to see that you can count on Tim Russert's successor to continue to be the go-to guy when you need to "catapult the propaganda."

Transcripts below the fold

SEC'Y RICE: I've learned, too, that sometimes the things you'd most like to do something about, you really have difficulty unless the international community really mobilizes. David, one of the real regrets I've had is that we haven't been able to do something about Sudan.

MR. GREGORY: Mm-hmm.

SEC'Y RICE: And we've tried to ameliorate the humanitarian...

MR. GREGORY: Genocide in Darfur.

SEC'Y RICE: Right. Exactly. The horrible lives that the people of Darfur are living, the horrible tragedy that is unfolding there. Now, it's true, we've been able to do a lot about the humanitarian situation. We've even been able to support getting some peacekeepers onto the ground; and where there are peacekeepers, there's less violence. But we could've done so much more had there...

MR. GREGORY: Why didn't we act unilaterally?

SEC'Y RICE: Well, because acting unilaterally in an Arab country or in a Muslim country that is that complex, that far away, really did not seem to be an option. The president considered it. He thought about it. He thought about what we could do unilaterally. But in fact, instead, we've tried to mobilize the international community and international opinion. And frankly, given that, just a couple of years ago at the UN, the leaders of the world stood up and said, "We have a responsibility to protect, if a government will not protect its own people." And then we've had trouble getting anybody to do anything about it.

MR. GREGORY: Mm-hmm.

SEC'Y RICE: The United States has, by the way, imposed unilateral sanctions in Sudan. We have been the country that's been the most active in resisting calls to interfere with the international criminal court investigation of the leadership there, despite the fact that we're not members of the international court. So I think we've done a lot unilaterally, but we could've done a lot more if the international community were better mobilized.

MR. GREGORY: Isn't it amazing, the last 16 years of American leadership, two presidents, two big regrets stand out: Rwanda and Darfur.

SEC'Y RICE: Yes.

MR. GREGORY: The failure to prevent and protect innocent people from genocide.

SEC'Y RICE: Right. Yes. Although I will say that we've also been engaged in activities that have protected innocent people. Look at Saddam Hussein's record of, really, genocide inside of Iraq, what he did to Shia populations, to Kurdish populations, actually using weapons of mass destruction. Look at what the Taliban did to populations in Afghanistan. And so, in those circumstances, where the marriage of our values and our security interests has put us forward in a more active military way, we have tried to protect innocent people. But yes, it's, it's really not a very good sign for the international community, and it does not reflect well on the Security Council that Darfur has...

MR. GREGORY: And that all of this happened on the continent of Africa, whether it's...

SEC'Y RICE: Well, and that it all happened on the continent of Africa. I was just at the UN last week. We talked about Zimbabwe.

MR. GREGORY: Mm-hmm.

SEC'Y RICE: This is another circumstance in which the international community, most of it, including, by way—by the way, several African states—Botswana, the leadership of Kenya, and others—are saying that the regime of Robert Mugabe has got to go.

MR. GREGORY: Mm-hmm.

SEC'Y RICE: You've got a cholera epidemic there. You have humanitarian disaster in terms of food. You have the goons of the Mugabe regime going around and, and detaining people and, and frightening people, terrorizing people. again, the international community, in that circumstance, needs to act.