RICE : *queen
do these signs mean?)
Rice arrived in Washington a respected authority on
Russian politics. But power is a powerful drug. It has
undermined the integrity of many. Dr. Rice can be counted
among the victims.
9-11, Rice spread the false story that Bush
was flown to Oklahoma after the attack because "intelligence"
indicated the White House and Air Force One were also
targets. There was no such intelligence.
she testified the U.S. government had never anticipated
an attack by an airliner, despite what we now know to
have been many such warnings received and then ignored
by the Bush administration.
Joe Conason writes "in fact there had been many
warnings of exactly such tactics-most notably during
the summer of 2001, when Western intelligence services
set up anti-aircraft batteries around the Genoa summit
to protect the President."
Rice began shilling for Bush's attack on Iraq. She began
warning us that the aluminum tubes were only for the
production of atomic weapons and that we risked an atomic
attack. On CNN's "Late Edition" Rice said
the tubes "are only really suited for nuclear weapons
programs, centrifuge programs." She also said,
"The problem here is that there will always be
some uncertainty about how quickly he can acquire nuclear
weapons, but we don't want the smoking gun to be a mushroom
also spread the allegation that Iraq had tried to purchase
"yellowcake uranium" from Niger, another untruth.
She appears to have been a primary reason Bush included
it in his State of the Union address. On July 11, 2003,
Rice told the press aboard Air Force One: "Had
I known that there was a forged document here, would
I put this in the State of the Union? No."
"Yes." If they believed what they were saying,
why did the U.S. refuse for months to turn over their
'proof' to the International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA)?
When the IAEA did get the "evidence" they
quickly found out the documents were crude forgeries.
Given all the other misrepresentation, errors, untruths,
and lies, this is not evidence of carelessness, but
instead a campaign for war, regardless of the evidence.
interpretation becomes even stronger considering that
Stephen Hadley, Rice's deputy, disclosed that two CIA
memos and a phone call from CIA Director George Tenet
had persuaded him to take a similar passage about Iraq
and uranium out of a presidential speech three months
before the State of the Union address. According to
an AOP report, "Hadley said one of the memos casting
doubt on the intelligence was sent to Rice. She doesn't
recall reading it, the NSC's spokesman said."
helps at this point, and Brad DeLong gives us a refreshing
dose while discussing Rice's handling of the uranium
issue. Writes DeLong (an economist at Berkeley):
knew that intellectual standards at Stanford are low,
but this is ridiculous. Ex-Stanford professor and
provost Condoleeza Rice complains that it is not fair
for her to be tested on footnotes that she did not
know were there:
Mallets Toward One (washingtonpost.com): Meanwhile,
reporters keep hounding the administration over
President Bush's use of the bogus Iraqi uranium
procurement allegation. They pestered national security
adviser Condoleezza Rice last week on Air Force
One. When an intelligence agency demurs from a consensus
view in an assessment, it "takes a footnote,"
Rice explained. The State Department's Intelligence
and Research (INR) office doubted the story about
Iraq trying to buy uranium from Niger, she said,
and that "standard INR footnote was 59 pages
in the back," so she and Bush didn't know...
You know those little superscript numbers you occasionally
see in the text? Those are called "footnote numbers."
For every footnote in the back, there is a number.
That's how you know that if you are a serious rather
than a casual reader of National Intelligence Assessments,
you are supposed to turn to the back of the report
and read the footnote.
yes, professors, graduate students, and Assistants
to the President for National Security are always
responsible for material in the footnotes.
July 15, 2003; 05:13 PM
more silliness from Rice, see also:
is a liar, incompetent, or both. You decide.
In the uproar over the falsehoods in Bush's
State of the Union address, Rice first tried to blame
George Tenet, director of the CIA. "Maybe someone
knew down in the bowels of the agency, but no one in
our circles knew that there were doubts and suspicions
that this might be a forgery" she said. But as
early as October, 2002, Tenet personally warned Rice's
deputy, Steve Hadley, not to use the Africa/uranium
Rice crossed another ethical line, where dishonesty
became ruthlessness. For Tenet, if anyone in the inner
circles of Bush's power, had tried to warn the government
not to use the uranium claim.
and Rice on english
Rice's appeared on Fox News to explain the yellowcake
debacle. In a statement that would have done Bill Clinton
proud, Rice said, "The statement that (Bush) made
was indeed accurate. The British government did say
that. Not only was the statement accurate, there were
statements of this kind in the National Intelligence
Estimate." In other words, rather than telling
us that Iraq was guilty of these actions, which is what
we all foolishly thought he said, Bush was essentially
giving a school report, telling us that the British
government had made claims about Iraqi guilt. Imagine
that. How foolish of us.
why then did Tenet "take the blame" by stating
the uranium yellowcake ore statement should not have
been included in the president's speech? After all,
all Bush was doing was reporting on a British report.
Why did Bush, Rice, and
Rumsfeld try and confuse
us by saying first that Bush's assertion was not accurate
and then saying that it was? The answer is simple, and
Rice told the public in May 2002 that a pre 9-11 intelligence
briefing for the president on terrorism contained only
a general warnings and historical information. Nothing
specific. But according to the Congressional report
on 9-11, Bush's briefing a month before the suicide
hijackings included, as an AP story reported, "recent
intelligence that al-Qaida was planning to send operatives
into the United States to carry out an attack using
high explosives." AP adds "The White House
defended Rice, saying her answers were accurate given
what she could state publicly at the time about still-classified
continued, " The Sept. 11 congressional investigators
underscore their point three times in their report,
using nearly identical language to contrast Rice's answers
with the actual information in the presidential briefing."
Basically, the White House had explicit reports that
Al Qaeda was planning an attack, that they planned to
use planes to fly into major buildings.
president's daily briefing on Aug. 6, 2001, contained
"information acquired in May 2001 that indicated
a group of bin Laden supporters was planning attacks
in the United States with explosives,'' the report stated.
"stated, however, that the report did not contain
specific warning information, but only a generalized
warning, and did not contain information that al-Qaida
was discussing a particular planned attack against a
specific target at any specific time, place, or by any
specific method." More tricky language the
report did not tell her that four aircraft were to be
hijacked on 9-11, and that the four targets were the
two WTC towers, the Pentagon, and whatever the fourth
would have been. But most of us would expect that less
specific reports would have led to heightened security.
a May 2002 press briefing, Rice said that "I don't
think anybody could have predicted that these people
would take an airplane and slam it into the World Trade
Center, take another one and slam it into the Pentagon;
that they would try to use an airplane as a missile,
a hijacked airplane as a missile."
writes the congressional report states that "from
at least 1994, and continuing into the summer of 2001,
the Intelligence Community received information indicating
that terrorists were contemplating, among other means
of attack, the use of aircraft as weapons.''
Bushies resorted to their most frequently given reason
for lying to us: national security. "Dr. Rice's
briefing was a full and accurate accounting of the materials
in question without compromising classified material
that could endanger national security,'' National Security
Council spokesman Sean McCormack said. How keeping this
information from us helped any security but the election
possibilities of the White House is difficult to grasp.
The entire story is even worse, but check for yourselves:
(this is a pdf file)
By 'spades' we only mean politicians.
It is an unfortunate coincidence that 'spades' has also
been used as an offensive reference to African Americans.
For hundreds of years, the spades suit has been thought
of as the most powerful in the deck and hence has been
associated with politicians, people in government. This
is the only sense we intend to give the term.