It is no secret that I disagree with the administration's policies in Iraq. But I wanted to hear what the secretary of state had to say, not a collection of protesters.

In retrospect, however, I had to rethink my position.

Had the four protesters not interrupted Rice's speech with chants of "Stop the killing, stop the suicide, U.S. out of Iraq," she would not have responded with the following:

"Ladies and gentlemen, ladies and gentlemen, it is a wonderful thing that people can speak their minds. And it is a good thing that they can now do so in Baghdad."

Without this brief interruption, Rice would have gone through her prepared remarks without mentioning Iraq. Moreover, during the hourlong session, which was hosted by the Commonwealth Club in San Francisco, there was no mention of torture, Abu Ghraib or Guantanamo Bay.

There was nothing said about the recent Newsweek retraction that Rice initially called "appalling." Her most newsworthy item was her support for the Senate to confirm the embattled John Bolton as United Nations ambassador.

It was a disappointing performance from one who has such a compelling story. From humble beginning to becoming the first African-American woman to be named secretary of state is no small accomplishment. Forbes magazine calls Rice the "Most powerful woman in the world."

But how can a "wartime" secretary of state have roughly 25 minutes of prepared remarks and not mention the conflict that to date has cost the lives of more than 1,600 American husbands, wives, mothers, fathers, sons and daughters, along with many thousands of Iraqis?

The subject of Iraq did come up in the vetted question-and-answer period. In what may have been the most curious moment of the speech, Rice offered strong words against those who have been critical of the war effort.

When asked whether she was confident the Iraq army and police could control their country, Rice's response included this stern historical reminder:

"And when you think they aren't going to make it -- when you want to criticize what they're doing and it's taking a long time and this and that -- just remember, not to this date, have they made a compromise as bad as the one in 1789 that made my ancestors three-fifths of a man. So let's be humble about what they're going through."

Did the secretary of state pull the race card from the bottom of her deck?

What does the Compromise of 1789 have to do with a preemptive strike, in which the primary reason for action has changed several times, justified with bad and inaccurate intelligence that, according to the Downing Street memo, fit the evidence around the policy and fortified by the use of torture and abuse?

Rice is correct that nothing to date in Iraq is as bad as the Compromise of 1789, but does that justify what appears to look more and more like a Faustian bargain?

Rice's false choice is simply following the administration playbook to the letter.

When Vice President Dick Cheney was recently asked about Amnesty International's condemnation of the United States for what it called "serious human rights violations" at Guantanamo Bay, the vice president responded, "For Amnesty International to suggest that somehow the United States is a violator of human rights, I frankly just don't take them seriously."

Likewise, White House Press Secretary Scott McClellan disputed the secret Downing Street memo, saying that it was "flat-out wrong." Yet, by his own admission, he had not read it.

How long will this administration be allowed to dismiss facts by using conjecture, denial and historical gymnastics?

I wasn't expecting Rice to admit in totality the shortcomings of the administration's war on terror policy, but her failure to mention them in an authentic way only cheapens the great office she represents.

Byron Williams writes a weekly political/social commentary at Byronspeaks.com. Byron serves as pastor of the Resurrection Community Church in Oakland, California.

© 2005 Working Assetes