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.
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.
posted by Ken Sanders at
9:49 AM
0 Comments:
Post a Comment
<< Home