Democratic Underground Latest Greatest Lobby Journals Search Options Help Login

Rice Refutes New Book on Date That Bush Decided to Go to War

Printer-friendly format Printer-friendly format
Printer-friendly format Email this thread to a friend
Printer-friendly format Bookmark this thread
This topic is archived.
Home » Discuss » Latest Breaking News Donate to DU
UpInArms Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Apr-18-04 04:36 PM
Original message
Rice Refutes New Book on Date That Bush Decided to Go to War

Condoleezza Rice, President Bush's national security adviser, said today that the president decided in March 2003 to go to war against Saddam Hussein, not in January 2003, as a new book contends.

She said she was with Mr. Bush in Crawford, Tex., in January 2003 when he expressed his frustration with how weapons inspections were proceeding in Iraq. "He said, `Now, I think we probably are going to have to go to war, we're going to have to go to war,' " Ms. Rice recalled today on the CBS News program "Face the Nation." "It was not a decision to go to war. That decision he made in March when he finally decided to do that."

Ms. Rice's recollection corresponds with Mr. Bush's contention made in a televised news conference on March 6, 2003, that he had not yet decided whether to invade Iraq. "I've not made up our mind about military action," he said at the time.

But the new book "Plan of Attack," by Bob Woodward of The Washington Post contends that Mr. Bush decided in January to go to war and informed Secretary of State Colin L. Powell after the fact, in a 12-minute conversation that also covered other matters. Mr. Powell was the most skeptical among Mr. Bush's senior advisers about the wisdom of invading Iraq.



Guess they think that nothing get archived (the morans) - please see:,8599,235395,00...

"We're Taking Him Out"
His war on Iraq may be delayed, but Bush still vows to remove Saddam. Here's a look at White House plans

Sunday, May. 05, 2002

Two months ago, a group of Republican and Democratic Senators went to the White House to meet with Condoleezza Rice, the President's National Security Adviser. Bush was not scheduled to attend but poked his head in anyway and soon turned the discussion to Iraq. The President has strong feelings about Saddam Hussein (you might too if the man had tried to assassinate your father, which Saddam attempted to do when former President George Bush visited Kuwait in 1993) and did not try to hide them. He showed little interest in debating what to do about Saddam. Instead, he became notably animated, according to one person in the room, used a vulgar epithet to refer to Saddam and concluded with four words that left no one in doubt about Bush's intentions: "We're taking him out."

Dick Cheney carried the same message to Capitol Hill in late March. The Vice President dropped by a Senate Republican policy lunch soon after his 10-day tour of the Middle East the one meant to drum up support for a U.S. military strike against Iraq. As everyone in the room well knew, his mission had been thrown off course by the Israeli-Palestinian crisis. But Cheney hadn't lost focus. Before he spoke, he said no one should repeat what he said, and Senators and staff members promptly put down their pens and pencils. Then he gave them some surprising news. The question was no longer if the U.S. would attack Iraq, he said. The only question was when.

The U.S. appears ready to do whatever it takes to get rid of the Iraqi dictator once and for all. But while there is plenty of will, there still is no clearly effective way to move against Saddam. Senior Administration officials at the highest levels of planning say there are few good options. Saddam's internal security makes a successful coup unlikely. The Iraqi opposition is weak and scattered. And this is a war that the rest of the world, with the possible exception of Britain, is not eager for America to wage. While key allies in the Middle East, such as Saudi Arabia, Jordan and Egypt, would be more than happy to see Saddam go, they are too busy worrying about their own angry citizens and quietly profiting from trade with Iraq to help. A senior Arab official needed only one word to sum up the region's view of any possible military action: "Ridiculous." Yet Cheney gave the Senate policy lunch a very different view. He said the same European and Middle Eastern allies who publicly denounce a possible military strike had privately supported the idea.

Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
progressivebydesign Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Apr-18-04 04:42 PM
Response to Original message
1. Lies.. lies.. lies.. from the Bush Corporation.. That's not news. N/T
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
Bluebear Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Apr-18-04 04:43 PM
Response to Original message
2. She puts that gentle feminine face on lies.
They are really trotting her out a lot lately.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
maddezmom Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Apr-18-04 04:47 PM
Response to Original message
3. she thinks if she says something enough it's true
thanks for posting...
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
wryter2000 Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Apr-18-04 04:51 PM
Response to Original message
4. Good grief!
Can they honestly expect ANYONE to believe this? He was "war, war, war" 24/7 starting in the fall of 2002. Even if you don't believe any of the insiders who say he was hot for Saddam from day one, you couldn't possibly believe that he didn't make up his mind about invading until March 2003.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
UpInArms Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Apr-18-04 05:02 PM
Response to Reply #4
7. here's what I wrote in February 2002
If I could see it, then any fool should have been able to also.

Spoiling for a Fight
February 19, 2002

Plans are in the works, we are told, to attack Iraq and remove Saddam Hussein from power. Two hundred thousand American troops will be deployed and on the ground in the Middle East sometime this year. These are the schemes from our current administration. The administration from Hell. The administration with a master plan to rule the world for the oil and the spoils of war.

Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
Just Me Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Apr-18-04 04:53 PM
Response to Original message
5. They are becoming habitually refruits,...
,...can we find a way to treat them for their illness?

Jail,...would be good. Of course, we are reformists,, we should be willing to "reform" them for the rest of their lives and pour compassion all over them while they scream, "WE'RE NOT GUILTY!!!" of high crimes and misdemeanors,...of fraud against the American people and the world.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
daleo Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Apr-18-04 05:00 PM
Response to Original message
6. Who you gonna believe?
Condi, the habitual liar ("nobody could have imagined flying planes into buildings") or Woodward, who has usually stretches things in Bush's favor, not against him.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
Malva Zebrina Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Apr-18-04 05:03 PM
Response to Original message
8. Rice is disgusting--everyone who is interested knows she is a liar
Edited on Sun Apr-18-04 05:07 PM by Marianne
She has prostituted herself to serve her master who is an idiot

And sweet Laura is doing puff pieces for NPR about how concerned she is about "nature" :eyes: Laura is now attempting to save all the wildflowers that are present on their 1,600 acre spread in Crawford, dry gulch, Texas.

Laa tee da--tiptoe through the tulips, and let them eat cake. I will save the--err--ummmm--what exactlyu are the names of the wildflowers if any grow at all in the dry gulch?

I am willing to bet, once George is booted out of office, she will abandon this cheap little town that offers her nothing in the way of "shopping and eating" her two most favorite pastimes, as she told an interviewer when she was about to embark on one of her European tours. (at our expense)

There is nothing about Rice that is credible at all in spite of her doctorate. I am wondering if earning that docterate didn't just prepare her in the best way to "spin" and to avoid being "pinned" At any rate my respect for PHD's has diminished with the antics of this woman.

She is at this point, merely window dressing. Her sneering , ugly eyed, attempts to look severe, looks, before the cameras, are calculated to make her look "tough" and unrelenting. And THAT makes her CREDIBLE! LOL

In reality she is only a messenger and not a thinker. All of the money spent on that education has been for devious purposes with this woman.

\Where is Rumsfeld these days. And Powell?

We get a liar of a boot licker telling us all about how wonderful Bush the idiot is, and the other boot lickers are --where?

Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
Daisey Mae Donating Member (654 posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Apr-18-04 05:04 PM
Response to Original message
9. She is the NEW Official ***** LIAR IN CHIEF
She is brought out because the rest of the SLEAZE BALLS are actually more sleazy than her....Queen of LIARS She is pretty good at it ... She looked right into the camera and told America that the August 6 PDB was nothing but historical facts......LIAR. She came out after Richard Clarke's Book and called him s Scurrilous liar... He was proved true and she was proved LIAR.... They are banking on her blurring the truth to those who are too lazy to check the facts....They are already voting for the jackass...The Poles haven't changed....We have the facts on our side......LIES are on their side....... . THE TRUTH WILL SET US FREE !
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
Malva Zebrina Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Apr-18-04 05:09 PM
Response to Reply #9
12. Right--Liarrrrrrrr
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
pinkpops Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Apr-18-04 05:04 PM
Response to Original message
10. Refute means disprove
I just looked it up. This is not the first time I have seen "refutes" used incorrectly in news references to administration claims. I think the proper word would be "disputes"
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
frank frankly Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Apr-18-04 05:06 PM
Response to Reply #10
11. my exact thoughts, pinkpops
NYTimes is Pravda these days, these years...
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
boobooday Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Apr-18-04 05:33 PM
Response to Original message
13. She gets damage control duty every time
Because she is the smoothest bullshitter of the bunch. But the lies are unravelling, and it is getting harder and harder, even for her. Today, she looked a little more flustered than I've ever seen her, especially when asked about the $700 million Bush diverted from Afghanistan to Iraq.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
NJmaverick Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Apr-18-04 05:36 PM
Response to Original message
14. well if Rice says it, it must be true
After all she only has been caught lying what, like a hundred times?
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
Lindacooks Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Apr-18-04 11:13 PM
Response to Original message
15. Didn't the WH have to vet the book?
Now, we all know chimpy can't read, but hopefully SOMEbody there knows what to do with a book. They vetted it, it must be true.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
amandabeech Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Apr-18-04 11:25 PM
Response to Reply #15
16. And brigades of lawyers from Simon & Schuster's law firms
probably went over this book in excruciating detail vetting it for possible libel claims. Same thing for Clarke's book. No one has sued Clarke yet, as far as I know. I doubt if there will be suits here, either. That says something, although it is no guarantee that everything said is utterly the gospel truth and spin-free.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
Enraged_Ape Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Apr-18-04 11:31 PM
Response to Original message
17. What is this "refute" stuff?
According to Merriam-Webster, the primary definition of "refute" is:

1 : to prove wrong by argument or evidence : show to be false or erroneous

I see no such evidence here. It is the word of a proven liar (Condi) against Woodward's.

I SO wish I could be lame and completely useless in my job like America's so-called journalists are.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
truthisfreedom Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Apr-18-04 11:34 PM
Response to Reply #17
18. at least drudge got it right. "slams." which is line with "blasts" and
"rejects." new terms for "my opinion is stronger than your opinion because i can get more air time than you can."
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
DU AdBot (1000+ posts) Click to send private message to this author Click to view 
this author's profile Click to add 
this author to your buddy list Click to add 
this author to your Ignore list Wed Jan 17th 2018, 02:22 AM
Response to Original message
Advertisements [?]

Home » Discuss » Latest Breaking News Donate to DU

Powered by DCForum+ Version 1.1 Copyright 1997-2002
Software has been extensively modified by the DU administrators

Important Notices: By participating on this discussion board, visitors agree to abide by the rules outlined on our Rules page. Messages posted on the Democratic Underground Discussion Forums are the opinions of the individuals who post them, and do not necessarily represent the opinions of Democratic Underground, LLC.

Home  |  Discussion Forums  |  Journals |  Store  |  Donate

About DU  |  Contact Us  |  Privacy Policy

Got a message for Democratic Underground? Click here to send us a message.

© 2001 - 2011 Democratic Underground, LLC