PDA

View Full Version : The Rice Lies (some of them)


Chris A
March 27th, 2004, 08:13 AM
From Center For American Progress

Condoleezza Rice's Credibility Gap

A point-by-point analysis of how one of America's top national
security officials has a severe problem with the truth

March 26, 2004

Pre-9/11 Intelligence

CLAIM: "I don't think anybody could have predicted that they would try to use an airplane as a missile, a hijacked airplane as a missile." – National Security Adviser Condoleezza Rice, 5/16/02

FACT: On August 6, 2001, the President personally "received a one-and-a-half page briefing advising him that Osama bin Laden was capable of a major strike against the US, and that the plot could include the hijacking of an American airplane." In July 2001, the Administration was also told that terrorists had explored using airplanes as missiles. [Source: NBC, 9/10/02; LA Times, 9/27/01]

CLAIM: In May 2002, Rice held a press conference to defend the Administration from new revelations that the President had been explicitly warned about an al Qaeda threat to airlines in August 2001. She "suggested that Bush had requested the briefing because of his keen concern about elevated terrorist threat levels that summer." [Source: Washington Post, 3/25/04]

FACT: According to the CIA, the briefing "was not requested by President Bush." As commissioner Richard Ben-Veniste disclosed, "the CIA informed the panel that the author of the briefing does not recall such a request from Bush and that the idea to compile the briefing came from within the CIA." [Source: Washington Post, 3/25/04]

CLAIM: "In June and July when the threat spikes were so high…we were at battle stations." – National Security Adviser Condoleezza Rice, 3/22/04

FACT: "Documents indicate that before Sept. 11, Ashcroft did not give terrorism top billing in his strategic plans for the Justice Department, which includes the FBI. A draft of Ashcroft's 'Strategic Plan' from Aug. 9, 2001, does not put fighting terrorism as one of the department's seven goals, ranking it as a sub-goal beneath gun violence and drugs. By contrast, in April 2000, Ashcroft's predecessor, Janet Reno, called terrorism 'the most challenging threat in the criminal justice area.'" Meanwhile, the Bush Administration decided to terminate "a highly classified program to monitor Al Qaeda suspects in the United States." [Source: Washington Post, 3/22/04; Newsweek, 3/21/04]

CLAIM: "The fact of the matter is [that] the administration focused on this before 9/11." – National Security Adviser Condoleezza Rice, 3/22/04

FACT: President Bush and Vice President Cheney's counterterrorism task force, which was created in May, never convened one single meeting. The President himself admitted that "I didn't feel the sense of urgency" about terrorism before 9/11. [Source: Washington Post, 1/20/02; Bob Woodward's "Bush at War"]

CLAIM: "Our [pre-9/11 NSPD] plan called for military options to attack al Qaeda and Taliban leadership, ground forces and other targets -- taking the fight to the enemy where he lived." – National Security Adviser Condoleezza Rice, 3/22/04

FACT: *9/11 Commissioner Gorelick: "There is nothing in the NSPD that came out that we could find that had an invasion plan, a military plan." Deputy Secretary of State Richard Armitage: "Right." Gorelick: "Is it true, as Dr. Rice said, 'Our plan called for military options to attack Al Qaida and Taliban leadership'?" Armitage: "No, I think that was amended after the horror of 9/11." [Source: 9/11 Commission testimony, 3/24/04]

Condi Rice on Pre-9/11 Counterterrorism Funding

CLAIM: "The president increased counterterrorism funding several-fold" before 9/11. – National Security Adviser Condoleezza Rice, 3/24/04

FACT: According to internal government documents, the first full Bush budget for FY2003 "did not endorse F.B.I. requests for $58 million for 149 new counterterrorism field agents, 200 intelligence analysts and 54 additional translators" and "proposed a $65 million cut for the program that gives state and local counterterrorism grants." Newsweek noted the Administration "vetoed a request to divert $800 million from missile defense into counterterrorism." [Source: New York Times, 2/28/04; Newsweek, 5/27/02]

Richard Clarke's Concerns

CLAIM: "Richard Clarke had plenty of opportunities to tell us in the administration that he thought the war on terrorism was moving in the wrong direction and he chose not to." – National Security Adviser Condoleezza Rice, 3/22/04

FACT: Clarke sent a memo to Rice principals on 1/24/01 marked "urgent" asking for a Cabinet-level meeting to deal with an impending al Qaeda attack. The White House acknowledges this, but says "principals did not need to have a formal meeting to discuss the threat." No meeting occurred until one week before 9/11. [Source: CBS 60 Minutes, 3/24/04; White House Press Release, 3/21/04

CLAIM: "No al Qaeda plan was turned over to the new administration." – National Security Adviser Condoleezza Rice, 3/22/04

FACT: "On January 25th, 2001, Clarke forwarded his December 2000 strategy paper and a copy of his 1998 Delenda plan to the new national security adviser, Condoleezza Rice." – 9/11 Commission staff report, 3/24/04

Response to 9/11

CLAIM: "The president launched an aggressive response after 9/11." – National Security Adviser Condoleezza Rice, 3/22/04

FACT: "In the early days after the Sept. 11, 2001, attacks, the Bush White House cut by nearly two-thirds an emergency request for counterterrorism funds by the FBI, an internal administration budget document shows. The papers show that Ashcroft ranked counterterrorism efforts as a lower priority than his predecessor did, and that he resisted FBI requests for more counterterrorism funding before and immediately after the attacks." [Source: Washington Post, 3/22/04]

9/11 and Iraq Invasion Plans

CLAIM: "Not a single National Security Council principal at that meeting recommended to the president going after Iraq. The president thought about it. The next day he told me Iraq is to the side." – National Security Adviser Condoleezza Rice, 3/22/04

FACT: According to the Washington Post, "six days after the attacks on the World Trade Center and the Pentagon, President Bush signed a 2-and-a-half-page document marked 'TOP SECRET'" that "directed the Pentagon to begin planning military options for an invasion of Iraq." This is corroborated by a CBS News, which reported on 9/4/02*that five hours after the 9/11 attacks, "Defense Secretary Donald Rumsfeld was telling his aides to come up with plans for striking Iraq." [Source: Washington Post, 1/12/03. CBS News, 9/4/02]

Iraq and WMD

CLAIM: "It's not as if anybody believes that Saddam Hussein was without weapons of mass destruction." – National Security Adviser Condoleezza Rice, 3/18/04

FACT: The Bush Administration's top weapons inspector David Kay "resigned his post in January, saying he did not believe banned stockpiles existed before the invasion" and has urged the Bush Administration to "come clean" about misleading America about the WMD threat. [Source: Chicago Tribune, 3/24/04; UK Guardian, 3/3/04]

9/11-al Qaeda-Iraq Link

CLAIM: "The president returned to the White House and called me in and said, I've learned from George Tenet that there is no evidence of a link between Saddam Hussein and 9/11." – National Security Adviser Condoleezza Rice, 3/22/04

FACT: If this is true, then why did the President and Vice President repeatedly claim Saddam Hussein was directly connected to 9/11? President Bush sent a letter to Congress on 3/19/03 saying that the Iraq war was permitted specifically under legislation that authorized force against "nations, organizations, or persons who planned, authorized, committed, or aided the terrorist attacks that occurred on September 11." Similarly, Vice President Cheney said on 9/14/03 that "It is not surprising that people make that connection" between Iraq and the 9/11 attacks, and said "we don't know" if there is a connection. [Source: BBC, 9/14/03]

Chris A
March 27th, 2004, 08:58 AM
Adam, your "yawn" and attempt to counteract is rather telling. Why don't you, instead, look at my post and tell us what you think is wrong with it?

BTW That thread title should of course read Rice, not "Race," but the BBS won't allow me to correct it.

Chris A
March 27th, 2004, 10:11 AM
Originally posted by Adam Lozo
The source - Center for American Progress - is a liberal think tank with the goal of removing Bush from office. The sources they used to support the arguments set forth are also liberal outfits with the same agenda.

That generated the Yawn...very appropriate IMO as I'd expect nothing different from them. Had this come from Sean Hannity I'd have a different reaction.

Overall I'm disappointed in posts like these for two reasons. 1 - I come to this forum to hear folks give their personal opinion, not to read articles penned by other people. 2 - Posts like this only serve to polarize voters rather than seeking insight and truth.

Are you implying that Rice does not have an agenda??? I don't think it is any secret that CAP wants Bush out of the White House, nor--for that matter--is it a secret that Fox News (your sole source here) wants to keep Bush in his appointed job.

You mention Sean Hannity--there are few people I can think of who are less biased.

So you consider The Washington Post, the 9/11 Commission, Newsweek, CBS, Chicago Tribune, NBC, BBC, etc. to be liberal outfits. Well, some of them may be, but none are as blatantly slanted as Fox.

As for "seeking insight and truth," I think that's what it is all about. Rice makes statements and research finds quotes and events that contradict them. CAP is by no means the only source for such comparisons, and when someone refuses to testify under oath, yet makes herself available to every media outlet imaginable, something is wrong, something is being kept from the public. If Rice is telling the truth (and she is not known to do so), why is she and the White House afraid to do so in public and under oath? She didn't even want to be sworn in when she talked to the Commission privately. Hey, it doesn't take a PHD to figure that one out!

a.j. zeitlin
March 28th, 2004, 04:32 AM
As National Security Adivisor, Dr. Rice, a Sovietologist by training and a cold warrior by inclination, often dithers (her clumsiness relative to the current Clarke controversy is almost painful to watch). It doesn't take a genius to realize that her influence inside the White House remains minimal; she continues to get her marching orders from the Defense Department.

Saundra Hummer
March 31st, 2004, 05:37 PM
I think we have come a long way down the wrong road.

I know that this is a thread about Ms. Rice, however this is how I feel about how the facts of the matter have been presented. I'm not a pro administration Republican, however, when things aren't as they should be in any administration, it doesn't bother me to admit it. When mistales have been made, own up, and move on.

Now on to how I feel about the press, and broadcast journalists, and their being all too willing to add to the spin doctors agenda.

There was a time when the air waves weren't so clogged with agenda's.

It would be nice if reporters could be less biased, and in a perfect world, not biased at all in their delivery of the news. Fox, and Brett Hume are such an obvious display of biased reporting, that I either tune him out, or say to myself, if this is how he sees things, then I obviously (usually) want to think the opposite. Sour, droll, biased, uck!

I admit that there are others on the show on Sunday mornings that present opposite view points, and Bill Crystal presents a more reasonable view point of the conservatives. For OP Editorials, this I suspose is fine, but this type of reporting, has spilled over into too much of the news, what we like to think of as our regular news. This news should be presented as unbiased as is possible. We expect someone to put forth their beliefs in OP Eds. but please.....leave that type of reporting out of our regular news. Let us make up our own minds, instead of trying to lead us by the nose.

Saundra Hummer
March 31st, 2004, 07:26 PM
If the Democrats win the White House, I feel sorry for them in the extreme!

What a mess to try to clean up. All over the board, not just in one area, but everywhere. Every cabinet member better be up to the task, as it is going to be a hard roe to hoe! Frankly I don't see how any administration is going to clean up these messes in short order, as things are so terrible, that it will take years and years of everything going right to be able to accomplish these goals.

I'm afraid that the world has gone quite mad, terrorism all around the world, compound that with less than honest governments, and where does the hope lie?

A sickening mess!

Chris A
April 1st, 2004, 05:31 AM
The Democrats will eventually win the White House and the sooner they do, the less they have to clean up. Can you imagine what further destruction a Bush regime would cause if handed another 4 years? Just winning back our friends and allies will be a monumental task.

bubber
April 1st, 2004, 05:50 AM
Originally posted by Saundra Hummer
If the Democrats win the White House, I feel sorry for them in the extreme!

What a mess to try to clean up. All over the board, not just in one area, but everywhere. Every cabinet member better be up to the task, as it is going to be a hard roe to hoe! Frankly I don't see how any administration is going to clean up these messes in short order, as things are so terrible, that it will take years and years of everything going right to be able to accomplish these goals.

I'm afraid that the world has gone quite mad, terrorism all around the world, compound that with less than honest governments, and where does the hope lie?

A sickening mess!

Saundra, I think the world needs a US working together with the UN, EU and all other positive forces to make the planet a better place for all of us. For some time now, it's been as if the oceans
have divided us more than ever, in spite of all talk about globalization.

The process has to be initiated from the White House, I believe.

JPW
April 4th, 2004, 03:04 AM
Originally posted by Chris A
Just winning back our friends and allies will be a monumental task.
Who are the friends and allies that have been "lost" who are worth winning back, I wonder.

Chris A
April 4th, 2004, 05:25 AM
Originally posted by JPW
Who are the friends and allies that have been "lost" who are worth winning back, I wonder.

Well, for one thing, it would be a step forward if we just had a duly elected president who wasn't regarded as a buffoon, but we need to fix the damage Bush and his dilettante diplomats have done to our relationships with France, Germany, and Russia. Other countries have also lost respect for us, and--since the Bush people never seem to learn from their missteps--things ain't gonna git better as long as he holds that appointed position.

JPW
April 5th, 2004, 05:28 AM
Originally posted by Chris A
France, Germany, and Russia.
While I'm not a fan of Bush (or his hand-puppet Blair), I don't think losing the "respect" of France or Germany in particular is of any importance. Au contraire, it's France and Germany who have been acting like spoilt brats - essentially, of course, that is what they are.
In any case, "repect" in a political sense is simply the currency of Realpolitick.

bubber
April 5th, 2004, 07:11 AM
JPW, I'm a little confused here: Vladimir the great is a good guy, but his collegues in France and Germany are not. Who else in Europe act like spoilt brats?

Chris A
April 5th, 2004, 08:26 AM
http://www.blackcommentator.com/84/84_images/84_cover_up.jpg

Interesting article in:

http://www.blackcommentator.com/new/images/bc_black_logo_all.gif

Go there and read an African American perspective. (http://www.blackcommentator.com/84/84_cover_condi.html)


BTW, JBW, how do you feel about Sharon?

JPW
April 9th, 2004, 12:56 PM
Originally posted by Chris A

BTW, JBW, how do you feel about Sharon?
Why Chris, Sharon was a lovely girl. And I'd love to get back in contact. If you have her telephone number...

JPW
April 9th, 2004, 01:07 PM
Originally posted by bubber
JPW, I'm a little confused here: Vladimir the great is a good guy, but his collegues in France and Germany are not. Who else in Europe act like spoilt brats?
I would never say that a shadow warrior come in from the cold is a "good" guy (or girl...), but Russia's agenda and interests are reasonably clear in a faberge egg kind of way.
In Western Europe who else is there apart from France and Germany? The whole point of the modern European project has been to bind these two together. Everyone else is along for the ride and the the German cash.

bubber
April 9th, 2004, 11:50 PM
Not the whole point, but the most important one, as a foundation for building some kind of union that hopefully one day will balance the giant across the Atlantic.