FRIED RICE: 'Condi' Lies Again



Exhibit designed by the docent Shark

On Sunday, 3/29, National Security Adviser Condoleezza Rice appeared on
CBS's 60 Minutes; unlike Richard Clarke, Rice refused to admit
responsibility for her role in the worst national security failure in
American history, and stopped short of apologizing to the families who lost
loved ones on 9/11.

Her manner varied from somnambulent to the look of a chicken on a freeway,
and like others in the Administration, she avoided making direct answers,
instead choosing to restate vague generalities in the hope that the reporter
would move on.

As a matter of fact, the basic thrust of her interview was "9/11 was bad,
but let's move on" -- which is what you'd expect from a habitual liar and
someone with something to hide.

But true to form, she nervously stumbled when telling the LIES and
DISTORTIONS that follow:


RICE'S LIE: "The administration took seriously the threat" of terrorism
before 9/11.

FACTS:
* President Bush himself acknowledges that, despite repeated warnings of an
imminent Al Qaeda attack, before 9/11 "I didn't feel the sense of urgency"
about terrorism. ("Bush At War" by Bob Woodward)
* Newsweek reports that his attitude was reflected throughout an
Administration that was trying to "de-emphasize terrorism" as an overall
priority.
* Only two of the hundred national security meetings the Administration held
during this period addressed the terrorist threat;
* The White House never held one meeting of its counterterrorism task force.
(wash. post)
* The Administration was actively trying to cut funding for
counterterrorism, and "vetoed a request to divert $800 million from missile
defense into counterterrorism" despite a serious increase in terrorist
chatter in the summer of 2001.(newsweek & veto)

RICE'S DISENGENUOUS WHINE: "I don't know what a sense of urgency any greater
than the one we had would have caused us to do anything differently. I don't
know how...we could have done more. I would like very much to know what more
could have been done?"

FACTS:
* the Administration could have stopped trying to de-emphasize terrorism in
the months before 9/11;
* the Administration could have stopped trying to cut funding for
counterterrorism in the months before 9/11;
* the Administration could have held more meetings of top principals to get
the directors of the CIA and FBI to share information, especially during the
major intelligence spikes occurring in the summer of 2001.

(9/11 Commissioner Jamie Gorelick said on ABC this morning, the lack of
focus and meetings meant agencies were not talking to each other, and key
evidence was overlooked. With better focus and more urgency, the FBI's
discovery of Islamic radicals training at flight schools might have raised
red flags. Similarly, the fact that "months before Sept. 11, the CIA knew
two of the al-Qaeda hijackers were in the United States" could have spurred
a nationwide manhunt. But because there was no focus or urgency, "No
nationwide manhunt was undertaken," said Gorelick. "The State Department
watch list was not given to the FAA. If you brought people together, perhaps
key connections could have been made.")

WHY RICE REFUSES TO TESTIFY UNDER OATH:"Nothing would be better from my
point of view than to be able to testify, but there is an important
principle involved here it is a longstanding principle that sitting national
security advisors do not testify before the Congress."

WHY SHE CAN AND SHOULD: Republican Commission John F. Lehman, who served as
Navy Secretary under President Reagan said on ABC this morning that "This is
not testimony before a tribunal of the Congress...There are plenty of
precedents for appearing in public and answering questions...There are
plenty of precedents the White House could use if they wanted to do this."

9/11 Commissioner Jamie Gorelick agreed, saying "Our commission is sui
generis...the Chairman has been appointed by the President. We are
distinguishable from Congress." Rice's remarks on 60 Minutes that the
principle is limited to "sitting national security advisers" is also a
departure from her statements earlier this week, when she said the principle
applied to all presidential advisers. She was forced to change this claim
for 60 Minutes after 9/11 Commissioner Richard Ben-Veniste "cited examples
of non-Cabinet presidential advisers who have testified publicly to
Congress."

Finally, the White House is reportedly moving to declassify congressional
testimony then-White House adviser Richard Clarke gave in 2002. By
declassifying this testimony, the White House is breaking the very same
"principle" of barring White House adviser's testimony from being public
that Rice is using to avoid appearing publicly before the 9/11 commission!


RICE LIES AGAIN: "Iraq was put aside" immediately after 9/11.

FACTS: According to the Washington Post, "six days after the attacks on the
World Trade Center the Pentagon, President Bush signed a 2-and-a-half-page
document" 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." The President therefore did
not put Iraq aside -- he merely deferred it to a second phase, after
Afghanistan.

(In terms of resources, the Iraq decision had far-reaching effects on the
efforts to hunt down Al Qaeda in Afghanistan. As the Boston Globe reported,
"the Bush administration is continuing to shift highly specialized
intelligence officers from the hunt for Al Qaeda leader Osama bin Laden in
Afghanistan to the Iraq crisis."

In other words, RICHARD CLARKE was not the only person saying this.

Unless Rice testifies before the 9/11 commission UNDER OATH, EVERYTHING SHE
SAYS IS SUSPECT.

But what else is new for the Bush Administration?

Posted: Mon - March 29, 2004 at 11:45 AM      

©