Denial and Deception

Longtime readers of Cascada Observer know that Condoleeza Rice bugs me. She is my number two target of derision and ranting here, after the IIC. It is certainly reasonable to be skeptical of the truth of any member of the Grand Old Prevaricators, but my animosity and anger towards Dr. Rice dates to her testimony to the 9-11 commission that the August 6 PDB was just a "historical document".

I've decided to root around in Google for more inflammatory material from Dr. Rice. Let's start with this pre-war opinion. In the piece she asks, "Has Saddam Hussein finally decided to voluntarily disarm?". Rice answers, "Unfortunately, the answer is a clear and resounding no." Her reasoning? Because when South Africa, Kazakhstan, and Ukraine 'voluntarily' disarmed, they behaved differently than Iraq. What utter lack of imagination. In other words, no positive evidence (of course, now established beyond all rational doubt), ignorance of the facts being established by restarted inspections, and fantasies.

Next is this CNN report with some juicy Rice quotes from her visit to Baghdad in 2005. CNN said:

Although the U.S. decision to launch the war in 2003 was condemned in many nations and the original justification -- Saddam's alleged weapons of mass destruction -- turned out to be based on flawed intelligence, Rice said, "This war came to us, no the other way around."

Rice told the Associated Press in December 2006 that

Iraq is “worth the investment” in American lives and dollars and said the U.S. can still win a conflict that has been more difficult than she expected.

She's all over the map. First, the Iraq war came to us. Then, it is an investment, and more difficult that expected. She probably recalls being told it would be a "cakewalk".

Just last month, Michael Hirsh published a devastating critique of Rice, with the underwhelming title "Rice Admits Error on Iraq". Her error:

Asked whether she and the Bush administration had made any mistakes early on "that you're perhaps trying to redeem yourself for," she responded with her trademark steely smile. ..."If I had to do it all over again, we would have had the balance between center, local and provincial better. But that's the kind of thing you learn over time."

Hirsh attributes to Larry Diamond of the Hoover Institution and Judith Yaphe of the National Defense University the view that

every expert in the region, going back to the British occupation after World War I, has known how crucial it was to build relations with the provinces and tribal leaders in Iraq. Prewar reports by both the Future of Iraq Project, run out of the State Department, and NDU had emphasized this at a time when Rice was national security adviser, Yaphe says. "If you look at Saddam's rule, he knew very well how important local and tribal leaders were," says Yaphe. She also says that Rice's idea that this was a "fairly new model" is wrong. "It seems to me anybody in that area understands that full well. That's how that system has operated there for a long time."

Here is one that slipped by me. While Rice was on the Board of Directors of Chevron, they were illegally paying kickbacks to Saddam Hussein. Rice should have known about this, and it would be enough to force her to resign if she was in the cabinet of any respectable president.

Anne Gearan writes about Elisabeth Bumiller's new book about Rice.

Alone in the Oval Office three months before the U.S. led-invasion of Iraq, President Bush asked Condoleezza Rice whether she believed war was the proper course, a new book about the close presidential adviser said.
"Yes," the book quotes Rice as telling Bush, ...
"Everybody knew what the consequences meant," Rice said ...
The book says Rice was surprised by the sudden question from Bush.

This is a gem. She directly contradicts her old quote that "this war came to us". I don't know how you reconcile "Everybody knew what the consequences meant" with "more difficult that expected." Maybe they thought they knew what the consequences meant, but they knew not what the hell they were doing. Most stunning in this quote is that after two years as NATIONAL SECURITY ADVISER to the president, she claim to have been SURPRISED that the president would ask her advice? About going to war? This is just mind boggling.

In this interview about Iraq, Rice brings up Colombia.

I was discussing the issue of Colombia with some of the Colombians. They reminded me that in 1998, 1999, 2000, the FARC would kidnap people right out of the center of Bogotá. The Ambassador was describing to me how people felt they had to travel in convoys to prevent being kidnapped. Nobody thinks about Colombia in those terms in 2007.

Well, maybe not. Read this excerpt from the State Department Travel Warning for Colombia and judge for yourself:

Terrorist groups such as the Revolutionary Armed Forces of Colombia (FARC) and the National Liberation Army (ELN), and other criminal organizations, continue to kidnap civilians for ransom or as political bargaining chips. No one can be considered immune from kidnapping on the basis of occupation, nationality, or other factors. The FARC have held three American official contractors hostage since February 2003.

U.S. government officials and their families in Colombia are permitted to travel to major cities in the country, but only by air. They are not allowed to use inter- or intra-city bus transportation. They also are not permitted to travel by road outside of urban areas at night. All Americans in Colombia are urged to follow these precautions.

Nothing about convoys, because you are advised not to travel by road!