Posted by | February 14, 2008 16:06 | Filed under: Top Stories

Florida Congressman Robert Wexler confronted Condi Rice on those 935 false statements revealed by the Center For Public Integrity, 56 of which were made by Rice.

h/t Crooks and Liars

Wexler: You repeatedly pumped up the case that Iraq had weapons of mass destruciton and exaggerate the relationship between Iraq and al Qaeda. Madame Secretary, can you plase tell us, isn’t it true that you had intellignce that cast doubt on your repeated claims that Iraq had weapons of mass destruction?

Rice: No, it’s not true, congressman…I take my very integrity seriously. I did not at any time make a statement that I knew to be false…


In my 2003 book, Red, White and Liberal, I made the case that Rice was not always above-board in her statements, to put it kindly:

…the President used his (2003) State of the Union speech to claim that Hussein had high strength aluminum tubes suitable for nuclear weapons production. A month earlier,
appearing on CNN’s Late Edition, Rice said this about the aluminum tubing:

“Saddam Hussein is actively pursuing a nuclear weapon. We do know that there have been shipments into Iraq of aluminum tubes that really are only suited to nuclear weapons programs.”

But the National Intelligence Estimate, published in October 2002, and declassified on July 18, 2003, had a dissenting view from Powell’s intelligence unit stating it “considers it far more likely that the tubes are intended for another purpose, most likely the production of artillery rockets.”

And, while we’re at it, I discovered another Rice inconsistency:

Also contradictory were the comments of Condoleeza Rice, who is often held up as proof that Bush is race-friendly. On one hand, she claimed to support the Bush position on the Michigan case during her Meet the Press appearance on January 19, 2003. On the other hand, she stated, “It is important to take race into consideration if you must, if race-neutral means do not work.” She went on to acknowledge that she, herself, benefited from affirmative action when she was hired to teach at Stanford. “I think they saw a person that they thought had potential, and yes, I think they were looking to diversify the faculty.” She went on to use the very argument liberals have used for years in defending affirmative action: “I think there’s nothing wrong with that in the United States. It does not mean that one has to go to people of lower quality. Race is a factor in our society.” So, she was defending Bush’s opposition to affirmative action while pointing out it was responsible for her own success, and telling us why affirmative action is such a good idea. I have to stop writing for a moment. I’m scratching my head.

Click here for reuse options!
Copyright 2008 Liberaland
By: Alan

Alan Colmes is the publisher of Liberaland.