Is Condi Rice a bad political scientist?

Both Matt Yglesias and Ryan Powers are going after Condoleezza Rice for the following comments she made in a CNN interview:  QUESTION: Do you regret your role in the Iraq war? SECRETARY RICE: I absolutely am so proud that we liberated Iraq. QUESTION: Really? SECRETARY RICE: Absolutely. And I’m especially, as a political scientist, not as Secretary of State, not as National Security Advisor, but as somebody who knows that structurally it matters that a geostrategically important country like Iraq is not Saddam Hussein’s Iraq, that this different Iraq under democratic leadership (emphasis added). Both Matt and Ryan make the argument that since most political scientists opposed the war in Iraq -- and they did -- Rice is out of bounds here.  The CAP boys have half a point, but let's not go overboard.  First, their half-a-point --I agree with Matt and Ryan that Iraq was not a geostrategic threat.  It is worth remembering, however, that Iraq was causing some major strategic headaches at the time of the invasion.  That said, I also think Matt and Ryan are misreading Rice a little here.  In the follow-up to the excerpted portion above, Rice says, "we are at a place now where because of difficult decisions that the President took we have an Iraq that is well on its way to being a multiethnic, multiconfessional democracy."  So what Rice is talking about is the potential benefits of having a democracy spanning the Tigris and Euphrates.  And on this point, Rice is correct to assert that there were/are political science-y reasons for thinking that a stable, democratic Iraq was a Good Thing for the United States and the rest of the world.  Don't just take my word on this -- let's go to Shadi Hamid:  Middle Eastern states, almost all of them dictatorships, constantly bicker amongst themselves and enter into relatively childish diplomatic rows over perceived and personal slights. There is no common Arab policy to any regional or international problem, because there seem to be little structural incentives to induce Arab leaders to make an effort to agree on big issues. Part of the problem is when foreign policy is largely determined by either one person, or a very small coterie of elites around the royal court, then foreign policy initiatives have less force of legitimacy and are less sustainable because they can always be reversed fairly easily. One could posit - as I will right now - that if Middle Eastern countries were relative democracies, they would be much more willing to cooperate with each other, and would be more willing to play strong, confident leadership roles in tacking difficult regional issues. Turkey, of course, is a good example of how this might look in practice.  Now, let me stress that the political science consensus on this point is hardly uniform.  Most realists would dismiss the notion that regime type matters all that much.  And even some democratic peace proponents would point out that while consolidated democracies are just peachy, consolidating democracies are often more trouble than they are worth.  That said, however, based on these comments Condi Rice does not need to turn in her APSA card anytime soon.