Why We Know Rice is Lying

Today the confirmation hearings began for Secretary of State-designate Condoleezza Rice. With no doubt about her ultimate confirmation, the hearings could not be expected to result in much of anything interesting. It was a given that Rice would be questioned regarding the invasion of Iraq and, specifically, the nonexistent weapons of mass destruction. Such questions were indeed asked with Democrats feigning conviction and doing their best to perpetuate the myth that there is some meaningful distinction between Democrats and Republicans. I say feigned conviction since any "tough" questions asked by Democrats are sure to be immediately followed by the abject acquiescence to President Bush's appointment of Dr. Rice.

Nevertheless, there was an exchange during the hearings that will surely make it to the highlight reels of the evening news (minus any analysis, of course). As reported by Reuters, there was a "heated" exchange between Dr. Rice and California Senator Barbara Boxer. Sen. Boxer accused Dr. Rice that she and the Administration sent U.S. troops into Iraq "because of weapons of mass destruction." Then, admonishing Dr. Rice that it was "too soon" to "rewrite history," Sen. Boxer accused Dr. Rice of changing the mission in Iraq when no WMD were found. (An aside: note that Sen. Boxer did not condemn outright the prospect of rewriting history. Rather, Sen. Boxer merely opposes the premature rewriting of history. All things in good time.)

In response, Dr. Rice declared that "it wasn't just weapons of mass destruction." Indeed, according to Dr. Rice's testimony, the U.S. invaded Iraq because Saddam Hussein supported terrorism, attacked Kuwait and Israel, and need to be deposed in light of the realities of a post-September 11 world. Then, the piece de resistance: Dr. Rice asked that Sen. Boxer "refrain from impugning [Rice's] integrity" or from implying that Dr. Rice "take[s] the truth lightly."

Perish the thought.

On January 23, 2003, the New York Times published a column by Dr. Rice entitled "Why We Know Iraq is Lying." In that column, Dr. Rice laid out the case for war against Iraq. The focus of Dr. Rice's column was exclusively Iraq's alleged failure to voluntarily disarm in violation of United Nations Security Council Resolution 1441. Dr. Rice hammered away at Iraq's failure to provide inspectors with unimpeded and unrestricted access to weapons facilities, as well as Iraq's "high-level commitment to maintain and conceal its weapons." Again and again, Dr. Rice discussed the many and various ways Iraq had failed to rid itself of WMD.

In a press briefing on February 24, 2003, Dr. Rice talked only about Resolution 1441 and Iraq's material breach thereof. Dr. Rice explained that 1441 provided the U.S. with all the authorization necessary to invade Iraq and force it to disarm itself of its WMD. Likewise in an interview with ZDF German Television on July 13, 2003. So too in an interview with Wolf Blitzer on CNN Late Edition, also on July 13, 2003.

No mention of supporting terrorism. Nothing about attacks on Kuwait and Israel. (Certainly nothing about Israel's unprovoked attack on Iraq.)

So, what are we to make of all this? Did Saddam's alleged support of terrorism contribute to the decision to invade Iraq? Possibly. What about his invasion of Kuwait and launching of missiles into Israel? Perhaps. The truth is, there may have been a litany of reasons why Dr. Rice and the Bush Administration believed it was necessary to invade Iraq - shoring-up American military presence in the Middle East, perpetuating American hegemony, ensuring American access to the world's second-largest oil reserves, etc. However, these were not the reasons presented to the American public by Dr. Rice or the Administration. The presented reason for invading Iraq was the threat posed to the United States by Saddam's alleged possession of WMD - Saddam Hussein was a "grave and gathering threat" to the United States because he possessed WMD.

This conclusion is borne out by the results of a survey released on January 16, 2003 by the Pew Research Center for the People and the Press. According to that survey, seventy percent of Americans opposed going to war with Iraq if U.N. inspectors failed to uncover weapons programs. Likewise, a CNN/USA Today/Gallup poll from March 22-23, 2003 showed that a majority of those polled believed war with Iraq was justified only if WMD were found.

In sum, regardless of Dr. Rice's alleged regard for the truth, she and the rest of the Bush Administration sold the Iraq war to the American people on the basis of WMD. Oh yeah. There was that thing about Iraq's connection to 9/11. By now, however, only Dick Cheney clings to that outright lie.

Condi need not worry - neither the Senate nor the news media will further impugn her unassailable integrity. She'll be rubber-stamped as the new Secretary of State where she will continue her refusal to take the truth lightly.

Narrowing the Divide

Everyone is familiar with California's "three strikes" law. Get three criminal convictions, go to prison for life. With little fanfare, the White House was recently outed on its "no strikes" policy. As reported on January 3, 2005, the White House is preparing to end the "indefinite" incarceration of some "unlawful enemy combatants." Good news you say? Sorry. It now plans to hold them permanently. To that end, the Pentagon has built a new 100-cell prison, dubbed "Camp 5," on Guantanamo Bay. It also plans to ask Congress for $25 million to construct "Camp 6," with an additional 200 beds.

Pentagon spokesman Bryan Whitman described Camps 5 and 6 as the "evolutionary" solution to a "long-term" problem of the United States' global war on terror: what to do with those detainees who will never appear before any form of tribunal due to a lack of evidence. Camp 6 would be specifically for those detainees the government believes have no further intelligence to be extracted. The detainees won't have it so bad - Camp 6 will be modeled after U.S. prisons and the detainees will be allowed to "socialize." So what that they'll never again see the light of day.

In short, the United States intends to permanently imprison individuals. Those individuals will never receive even minimal due process - not out of concerns for national security - but, according to the government, because there is insufficient evidence to warrant imprisonment.

When asked about the White House's new "long-term" plans, Scott McClellan characteristically avoided providing a straight answer, preferring to distinguish a "prison" from a "detention facility." Instead, he trotted out the White House mantra of "a different kind of war" against an enemy "unlike any we have ever seen before," with "no regard for the rule of law."

Kettle, please meet Pot.

This is nothing new, of course. The White House, since the inception of its never-to-end war on terror, has consistently ignored the law while simultaneously decrying the enemy as lawless. The White House, until very recently, considered the Geneva Conventions "quaint" and considered only trauma akin to "organ failure" to be within the definition of torture. At the same time it (rightfully) condemns the beheadings in Iraq as barbarous without the slightest acknowledgment that torture and executions fall within the same continuum of evil.

At that same press conference, Mr. McClellan further distinguished "us" from "them" by pointing out that "they have no regard for innocent civilians." If only the White House and Pentagon had such regard. In both Afghanistan and Iraq, civilian casualties have far out-paced those of combatants. Granted, those casualties can be attributed, in part, to the nature of the conflicts themselves - close quarters, urban warfare, non-uniformed enemies, etc. However, such civilian casualties can be (theoretically) justified only if one believes that invading Afghanistan and Iraq were necessary measures. If, on the other hand, the invasions were not necessary ....

Assuming the United States was justified in invading both sovereign nations and bombing them into oblivion (Shock and Awe, anyone?), where is the regard for innocent civilians? When presented with evidence of civilian casualties, the United States shrugs its shoulders, mumbles something about regrettable accidents, and then moves on. Accepting as true the White House's post facto basis for invading both countries - to liberate the subjects of despots and tyrants - one would think it would take every possible measure to ensure it did not kill the recipients of its beneficence.

Additionally, how many times may one commit a regrettable accident before the act is no longer considered accidental? Once? Twice? Hundreds of times? When does a regrettable accident become indifference? If one indifferently kills innocent civilians, does one really have any regard for their deaths?

Then again, one must break some eggs to make an omelette. What are the deaths of a relatively few innocent civilians when compared to "saving" entire nations? One can almost hear terrorists offering the same justification for their actions.