Rice Robustly Wrong

After a softball gushing suckup propaganda piece "interview" conducted by Friend-Of-Bush Katie Whoreick, Rice must have felt pretty good. Couric the ever-faithful tool accomplished her mission, portraying a softer gentler Condoleezza Rice in a neat little prerecorded interview. The rest of the MSM has allowed Rice's lies during that interview to remain unchallenged. Media Matters, excellent analysis:Couric fails to challenge "scary smart," " 'girly' and fun" Rice on a host of issues.
Couric with Rice Katie Couric Profiles America's Secretary Of State
Condoleezza Rice has been at the president?s side in defending the war in Iraq and the war on terror and she is not just towing the line. As Katie Couric reports, Condi Rice is a true believer.
This is a totally insincere and useless "profile":Condi likes to listen to U2 while she exercises and she can play the piano. She's a "true believer" in war, torture and whatever else the neothugs believe in. Katie didn't probe what that means. This was a puff piece par excellence. Katie Couric, always a tool, has earned her neocredentials well.
Reinventing Condoleezza
"Nobody can go back and reinvent the past," Condoleezza Rice told Katie Couric on "60 Minutes" Sunday night. But this nugget of truth came amid a flood of retrospective reinvention in which Rice equated the war in Iraq with the civil-rights struggle of the 1960s — and left me wondering whether I was hearing polished sophistry or a case of total denial.
That's all this misadministration does with facts, REINVENTS them as new lies. Condi's "beliefs" got tougher to defend after Bill Clinton spoke on Faux Gnus. Rice gave an interview to the New York Post, owned by News Corp. which also owns the Fox News Channel after Clinton's appearance on Fox. (Link below)
~~~
FLATLY FALSE? Condi says Clinton's statements were "flatly false" but the facts prove otherwise:

-"What we did in the eight months was at least as aggressive as what the Clinton administration did in the preceding years."
Not true, WaPo documentation here.

-"The notion somehow for eight months the Bush administration sat there and didn't do that is just flatly false — and I think the 9/11 commission understood that."
Robustly Wrong. "Think" it's true to your detriment, Condi. The Commission understood no such thing. 9/11 Commission Hearings (PDF)

-"We were not left a comprehensive strategy to fight al Qaeda."
Condi you're a blatant LIAR! Richard Clarke clearly documents it in his book, "Against All Enemies" and talks about it on 60 Minutes.
~~~

Time Magazine documented it in 2002 in a tidy nutshell. Perhaps Condosleezza Rice should read it and see how she lied. They're a bunch of LIARS and war profiteers.


George W. Bush meets with senior staff in a daily briefing at his ranch in Aug. 2001

Transcript Interview, New York Post Editorial Board/Condoleezza Rice
...
QUESTION: By now I assume you’ve seen Bill Clinton’s performances. How do you respond to his specific accusation that the eight months before 9/11 the Bush Administration, in his words, didn’t even try to go after al-Qaida?

SECRETARY RICE: I’d just say read the 9/11 report. We went through this. We went through this argument. The fact of the matter is I think the 9/11 Commission got it about right. Nobody organized this country or the international community to fight the terrorist threat that was upon us until 9/11. I would be the first to say that because, you know, we didn’t fight the war on terror in the way that we’re fighting it now. We just weren’t organized as a country either domestically or as a leader internationally.

But what we did in the eight months was at least as aggressive as what the Clinton Administration did in the preceding years. In fact, it is not true that Richard Clarke was fired. Richard Clarke was the counterterrorism czar when 9/11 happened and he left when he did not become Deputy Director of Homeland Security some several months later. We were not left a comprehensive strategy to fight al-Qaida. For instance, big pieces were missing, like an approach to Pakistan that might work, because without Pakistan you weren’t going to get Afghanistan. And there were reasons that nobody could think of actually going in and taking out the Taliban, either the Clinton Administration or the Bush Administration, because it’s true you couldn’t get basing rights in Uzbekistan and that was the long pole in the tent.

So I would make the divide September 11, 2001 when the attack on this country mobilized us to fight the war on terror in a very different way. But the notion that somehow for eight months the Bush Administration sat there and didn’t do that is just flatly false. And you know, I think that the 9/11 Commission understood that.

QUESTION: So you’re saying Bill Clinton is a liar?

SECRETARY RICE: No, I’m just saying that, look, there was a lot of passion in that interview and I’m not going to – I would just suggest that you go back and read the 9/11 Commission report on the efforts of the Bush Administration in the eight months, things like working to get an armed Predator that actually turned out to be extraordinarily important, working to get a strategy that would allow us to get better cooperation from Pakistan and from the Central Asians, but essentially continuing the strategy that had been left to us by the Clinton Administration, including with the same counterterrorism czar who was Richard Clarke. But I think this is not a very fruitful discussion because we’ve been through it; the 9/11 Commission has turned over every rock and we know exactly what they said.
...
QUESTION: Is Castro dead?

SECRETARY RICE: I don’t think so.

QUESTION: Is Bin Laden dead?

SECRETARY RICE: I don’t know.

QUESTION: Is Francisco Franco dead? (Laugher.)

SECRETARY RICE: We could go down the list. Right.

QUESTION: Thank you very much.

SECRETARY RICE: Thank you. Thank you very much.

(rest at link)