Quotation of the day.

[bktheirregular]

"It's bad policy to speculate on what you'll do if a plan fails when you're trying to make a plan work."

Condoleeza Rice, U.S. Secretary of State.

No matter what the context, that statement is so wrong that I can't find the words...

Good night, all. Lord knows I'm not going to sleep well.

Comments

[nycdeb.livejournal.com]

"It's bad policy to speculate on what you'll do if a plan fails when you're trying to make a plan work."

You know what else is bad policy, Condi? Piss Poor Planning. Oh and tunnel vision.

[bktheirregular]

No kidding. And they apparently didn't get the memo that you can't alter Murphy's Law with presidential signing statements.

[aadler]

Actually, it makes sense. It would be extremely dumb to have NO alternative plan in mind, and you might even make it clear that there were fallback positions without going into details. Overall, however, those with the responsibility of making things happen don’t need to be saying publicly, “Oh, yeah, this really might not work.” If a leader is that uncertain, you become uncertain about him/her.

(And, yes, if you’re already convinced the leader in question is going down the wrong road, it doesn’t make much difference to you. But not everyone is so convinced.)

[bktheirregular]

It's not about preconceptions. If Congress asks the Secretary of State what the Administration's Plan B is, in case Plan A fails, the Secretary of State doesn't have the right to scold Congress for negative thinking. Congress has a right to know, and a need to know, and "trust me" isn't an answer.

[aadler]

Ideally, you’re right. However, in an environment where political business is routinely enacted through dueling press releases (and leaks), public posture is an important consideration. Plus, there HAS been quite a bit of negative thinking, in that certain elements — whatever their own opinions might be — have a vested interest in seeing the official line discredited or undermined.

[bktheirregular]

And that justifies keeping the Congress in the dark? Congress would be derelict in its collective duty in not asking the tough questions - and "negative thinking" can be the product of serious concerns, not simply nay-saying.