Democratic Underground Latest Greatest Lobby Journals Search Options Help Login

Need Help! Please list instances where Condi Lied with sources

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 » Archives » General Discussion: Presidential (Through Nov 2009) Donate to DU
funkybutt Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Jan-28-05 12:28 PM
Original message
Need Help! Please list instances where Condi Lied with sources
Edited on Fri Jan-28-05 12:33 PM by funkybutt
I believe Barbara Boxer's speach hit on many of the documented occurances.

All links and help is appreciated.

Somone on another message board said that that it is an OPINION not fact that Condi lied!
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
Fleshdancer Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Jan-28-05 12:37 PM
Response to Original message
1. here's a starting point:

RICE CLAIM: "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."

FACTS: 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 CongressThere are plenty of precedents for appearing in public and answering questionsThere 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 generisthe 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 made public that Rice is using to avoid appearing publicly before the 9/11 commission.

Source: Quote from Tony Snow Show -

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

FACTS: According to the Washington Post, "six days after the attacks on the World Trade Center and 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." 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."

Source: September 17th directive -
Source: Rumsfeld orders Iraq plan - /
Source: Shifting special forces -

Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
dandrhesse Donating Member (500 posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Jan-28-05 12:39 PM
Response to Original message
2. here is a link to the THOMAS web site
These are all the statements made by Senator Boxer regarding "conflicting statements" made by Rice, on 1/26 during the executive session, Senate debate over Rice's confirmation. ::

if you have a problem with the link just copy and paste the address into your browswer.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
RUDUing2 Donating Member (968 posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Jan-28-05 12:52 PM
Response to Original message
3. link

Condoleeza Rice's lie about the attacks of September 11, 2001:

"I don't think anybody could have predicted that they would try to use an airplane as a missile, a hijacked airplane as a missile." (This lie was told by Condoleeza Rice to the American people on May 16, 2002.)

The truth about Condoleeza Rice's lie:

George W. Bush himself was given a one-and-a-half page briefing on August 6, 2001. That briefing informed him that Osama Bin Laden's organization was capable of using a hijacked American airplane to conduct a major strike against targets within the United States. Furthermore, a month earlier, the Bush Administration was informed that terrorists had concocted plans to use airplanes as missiles. The truth is that experts did predict that terrorists would use hijacked airplanes as missiles, and those experts told George W. Bush about the threat. George W. Bush sat around and did nothing about it.


Condoleeza Rice's lie used to cover for her earlier lie about the attacks of September 11, 2001:

When the Bush Administration was confronted with evidence that Condoleeza Rice had lied, and that George W. Bush had received a briefing warning of terrorist plans to use hijacked airplanes as missiles against American targets, Condoleeza Rice said that Bush got the briefing because he had been so concerned about the elevated terrorist threat levels during the summer of 2001. (This lie was told by Condoleeza Rice to the American people on March 25, 2004.)

The truth about Condoleeza Rice's lie about her lie:

The Central Intelligence Agency has revealed that the terrorist briefing was in no way solicited by George W. Bush. Instead, the Central Intelligence Agency created the brief without any expression of interest from Bush because they thought that the matter was so critical that the President needed to be aware of the terrorist plans without further delay. The truth is that, in spite of the elevated terrorist threat levels just before September 11, George W. Bush did not bother to ask the CIA to be briefed about the methods Osama Bin Laden could use to kill Americans. Bush was on vacation on his dude ranch that month.


Another lie from Condoleeza Rice about Bush's preparations for terrorist attacks:

Embarrassed by reports of Bush's lack of preparation for attacks by Osama Bin Laden, Condoleeza Rice said, "In June and July when the threat spikes were so high we were at battle stations." (This lie was told to the American people by Condoleeza Rice on March 22, 2004)

The truth about this lie from Condoleeza Rice:

When the Clinton Administration got information about high threat levels for terrorist attacks, Bill Clinton ordered his officials to go to battle stations. Bush's anti-terrorism chief Richard Clarke has revealed that George W. Bush never ordered anyone to go to battle stations, even though the reported threat in the weeks before September 11, 2001 was much higher than anything ever reported during the Clinton Administration. Furthermore, George W. Bush ordered that a program to monitor Al Quaida suspects within the United States be discontinued. The truth is that Bush not only failed to order anti-terrorism officials to battle stations, he lowered America's protections against terrorism just as the terrorist threat was reaching record levels.


Still another lie from Condoleeza Rice about September 11:

"Our plan called for military options to attack al Qaeda and Taliban leadership, ground forces and other targets, taking the fight to the enemy where he lived." (Condoleeza Rice told the American people this lie on March 22, 2004)

The truth about this other lie from Condoleeza Rice:

The commission studying the context of the September 11 attacks found that the NSPD plan referred to by Condoleeza Rice in fact had no military component. Commission member Gorelick has stated, "There is nothing in the NSPD that came out that we could find that had an invasion plan, a military plan." George W. Bush's own Deputy Secretary of State, Richard Armitage, admitted to the commission that Condoleeza Rice's claim was completely inaccurate. When Armitage was asked, "Is it true, as Dr. Rice said, 'Our plan called for military options to attack Al Qaida and Taliban leadership'?", Armitage replied "No." The truth is that Condoleeza Rice knew that what she was saying was false. She just made up a claim in order to cover up the failure of George W. Bush to take adequate steps to protect America before September 11, 2001.
"According to contemporary political lore, the Bush clan exalts loyalty above every other virtue. Other politicians envy that inviolable code, whose power is reflected in the absence of leaks from the White House, in the lockstep obedience of politicians in Congress and around the country, and in the enormous cash donations from hundreds of wealthy 'friends.' This is how dynasties are built to endure. But at the highest level, in the inner councils, such feudal allegiances often require awful sacrifice and compromise. For those who now work for George W. Bush, loyalty means surrendering professional integrity and accepting public humiliation. Loyalty means uttering words and phrases that nobody can believe. Loyalty means misleading the people and the press about the gravest matters of state. Loyalty means lying. Consider the poignant case of Condoleezza Rice, who entered this administration as a respected academic expert on Russian affairs and the former provost of Stanford University. Unlike some of the figures around the President, Dr. Rice had no serious blots on her reputation when she was appointed national security advisor. From a family that suffered the indignities and deprivations of segregated Alabama, she has long been admired as an African-American woman who rose by dint of personal effort and scholarly ability as well as affirmative action. The list of honors, degrees, directorships and other achievements on her official rsum is extraordinary. After serving in the first Bush White House on the National Security Council, and then a stint in the 2000 campaign as a discreet adviser on foreign affairs, she had come to be regarded by the political clan as among its most reliable members. Sometimes she almost appeared to have been adopted by the President and his family. But during the past two years of international crisis, Dr. Rice has been dispatched to prevaricate repeatedly in defense of her boss. She was caught spreading a false story about Sept. 11, claiming that Air Force One flew the President to Oklahoma after the attack on the World Trade Center and the Pentagon because 'intelligence' indicated that terrorists were aiming for the White House and the Presidential jet. Later she testified that the U.S. government had never anticipated an assault by airliner, when 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. Memories are short in this country, so Dr. Rice escaped those embarrassing incidents with her reputation more or less intact. Then last year, as the determination of the White House to wage war on Iraq became plain, she began to promote dubious stories about Saddam Hussein's regime. As national security advisor, she had access to all of the sensitive intelligence about Iraq, so the press and Congress took her pronouncements seriously. More than anyone other than the President himself, Dr. Rice stoked fears about a 'mushroom cloud' rising over an American city unless the U.S. waged war on Iraq. To promote such dread, she warned that a shipment of aluminum tubes purchased by the Iraqis could only be intended for a uranium-enrichment device. Long after the International Atomic Energy Authority debunked that claim, the national security advisor continued to insist that it must be true. Still, she had gotten away with those whoppers as well, thanks to the complaisant national press corps. Lately, however, she has engaged in deceptions that are too obvious and too simple to ignore. Not only is she responsible for the false allegation about Niger uranium in the State of the Union address, but she dishonorably forced C.I.A. director George Tenet to say that was his fault rather than hers. Dr. Rice knew that the C.I.A. had questioned the veracity of the Niger uranium tale. She knew because Mr. Tenet had warned her deputy, Stephen Hadley, of its dubious quality three months earlier. Yet she permitted that sentence to be uttered by the President. Now she tells us that those 16 words were 'accurate' because the information was attributed to British intelligence. She wants us to believe that until last month she had never heard about the mission to Niger undertaken by former Ambassador Joseph C. Wilson IV, who reported back to the C.I.A. and the State Department that the Niger uranium story was a fake. But neither she nor the President, nor anyone else in authority, ever cared whether that story was true. It merely served a purpose, like the 'aluminum tubes' allegation, and the assertion that Saddam was assisting Al Qaeda, and the other prewar 'intelligence' myths designed to excite belligerence and undermine the U.N. inspection process. Dr. Rice played her role in that campaign with consummate loyalty indeed. She continues to do so, and in the process she has damaged herself permanently for an unscrupulous family of politicians. I hope they're grateful."
Dr. Rice soils previously unblemished record with string of deceptions
New York Observer, 16 July 2003

also /

GORELICK: Thank you, Mr. Chairman. And thank you, Mr. Clarke, for your testimony today. You have talked about a plan that you presented to Dr. Rice immediately upon her becoming national security adviser, and that in response to questions from Commissioner Gorton, you said elements of that plan, which were developed by you and your staff at the end of 2000 many elements became part of what was then called NSPD-9, or what ultimately became NSPD-9.

When Dr. Rice writes in the Washington Post, No Al Qaida plan was turned over to the new administration, is that true?

CLARKE: No. I think what is true is what your staff found by going through the documents and what your staff briefing says, which is that early in the administration, within days of the Bush administration coming into office, that we gave them two documents. In fact, I briefed Dr. Rice on this even before they came into office.

CLARKE: One was the original Delenda Plan from 1998, and the other document was the update that we did following the Cole attack, which had as part of it a number of decisions that had to be taken so that she characterizes as a series of options rather than a plan. Id like to think of it as a plan with a series of options, but I think were getting into semantic differences.

GORELICK: Thank you.

Id like to turn NSPD-9, the document that was wending its way through the process up until September 4th. The document is classified so I can only speak of it in generalities.

But as I understand it, it had three stages which were to take place over, according to Steve Hadley, the deputy national security adviser, over a period of three years.

The first stage was, we would warn the Taliban. The second stage was we would pressure the Taliban. And the third stage was that we would look for ways to oust the Taliban based upon individuals on the ground other than ourselves, at the same time making military contingency plans.

Is that correct?

CLARKE: Well, thats right. The military contingency plans had always been around, but there was nothing in the original draft, NSPD, that was approved by the principals to suggest U.S. forces would be sent into Afghanistan on the ground.

GORELICK: In addition to that, Director Tenet was asked to draft new additional covert action authorities. Is that right?

CLARKE: Thats right, in part because Mr. Hadley found the existing six memorandums of covert action authority to be talmudic its actually I think Mr. Hadley who gets credit for that word.

But it wasnt really meant to expand them significantly other than providing direct aid to Afghan factions.

GORELICK: Now you have just described, then, the skeleton, if you will, of what was approved by the administration as of September 4th. And we know that no further action was taken before September 11th.

GORELICK: And so I would read to you and these are questions I would have put to Dr. Rice had she been here, and I will put to her, the White House designee, Secretary Armitage. She says our strategy, which was expected to take years, marshalled all elements of national power to take down the network, not just respond to individual attacks with law enforcement measures. Our plan called for military options to attack Al Qaida and Taliban leadership, ground forces and other targets, taking the fight to the enemy where he lived.

Is that an accurate statement, in your view?

CLARKE: No, its not.

Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
zbdent Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Jan-28-05 01:11 PM
Response to Original message
4. If the Repukes can claim Clinton's incompetence based on an opinion
in the 9/11 commission report, then the facts of said commission report can be held against Condi, like the fact that a sworn testimony was given that she was informed about the threat of terrorism as soon as she was in office.
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 Thu Sep 21st 2017, 12:54 PM
Response to Original message
Advertisements [?]

Home » Discuss » Archives » General Discussion: Presidential (Through Nov 2009) 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