Category Archives: UN Abassador Susan Rice

“Hubris”: New Documentary Reexamines the Iraq War “Hoax”

Hubris:

Noun
  1. Excessive pride or self-confidence.
  2. (in Greek tragedy) Excessive pride toward or defiance of the gods, leading to nemesis.

Members the Senate are increasingly coming up with Benghazi questions to justify slowing down the process of approving President Obama’s nominees for his cabinet.   When they heard that UN Ambassador Susan Rice might be considered for the Secretary of State position upon Hillary Clinton’s departure, they claimed that Rice lied about Benghazi on national TV.  They promised that she would not be approved because of those lies.

Now certain key Senators are holding the Secretary of Defense nominee hostage because of…wait for it…more Benghazi questions.  Chuck Hagel, the DOD nominee had nothing to do with Benghazi at all.

The hypocrisy is astounding.  Here’s why…

Mother Jones

An MSNBC film, hosted by Rachel Maddow and based on Michael Isikoff and David Corn’s book, finds new evidence that Bush scammed the nation into war.

A decade ago, on March 19, 2003, President George W. Bush launched the invasion of Iraq that would lead to a nine-year war resulting in 4,486 dead American troops, 32,226 service members wounded, and over 100,000 dead Iraqi civilians. The tab for the war topped $3 trillion. Bush did succeed in removing Saddam Hussein, but it turned out there were no weapons of mass destruction and no significant operational ties between Saddam’s regime and Al Qaeda. That is, the two main assertions used by Bush and his crew to justify the war were not true. Three years after the war began, Michael Isikoff, then an investigative reporter for Newsweek (he’s since moved to NBC News), and I published Hubris: The Inside Story of Spin, Scandal, and the Selling of the Iraq War, a behind-the-scenes account of how Bush, Vice President Dick Cheney, and their lieutenants deployed false claims, iffy intelligence, and unsupported hyperbole to win popular backing for the invasion.

Our book—hailed by the New York Times as “the most comprehensive account of the White House’s political machinations”—was the first cut at an important topic: how a president had swindled the nation into war with a deliberate effort to hype the threat. The book is now the basis for an MSNBC documentary of the same name that marks the 10th anniversary of the Iraq war. Hosted by Rachel Maddow, the film premieres Monday night in her usual time slot (9PM ET/PT). But the documentary goes beyond what Isikoff and I covered in Hubris, presenting new scoops and showing that the complete story of the selling of that war has yet to be told.

One chilling moment in the film comes in an interview with retired General Anthony Zinni, a former commander in chief of US Central Command. In August 2002, the Bush-Cheney administration opened its propaganda campaign for war with a Cheney speech at the annual Veterans of Foreign Wars convention. The veep made a stark declaration: “There is no doubt that Saddam Hussein now has weapons of mass destruction. There is no doubt he is amassing them to use against our friends, against our allies, and against us.” No doubt, he proclaimed, Saddam was arming himself with WMD in preparation for attacking the United States.

Zinni was sitting on the stage during the speech, and in the documentary he recalls his reaction:

It was a shock. It was a total shock. I couldn’t believe the vice president was saying this, you know? In doing work with the CIA on Iraq WMD, through all the briefings I heard at Langley, I never saw one piece of credible evidence that there was an ongoing program. And that’s when I began to believe they’re getting serious about this. They wanna go into Iraq.

That Zinni quote should almost end the debate on whether the Bush-Cheney administration purposefully guided the nation into war with misinformation and disinformation.

But there’s more. So much more. The film highlights a Pentagon document declassified two years ago. This memo notes that in November 2001—shortly after the 9/11 attacks—Secretary of Defense Donald Rumsfeld met with General Tommy Franks to review plans for the “decapitation” of the Iraqi government. The two men reviewed how a war against Saddam could be triggered; that list included a “dispute over WMD inspections.” It’s evidence that the administration was seeking a pretense for war.

The yellowcake uranium supposedly bought by Saddam in Niger, the aluminum tubes supposedly used to process uranium into weapons-grade material, the supposed connection between Saddam and Osama bin Laden—the documentary features intelligence analysts and experts who at the time were saying and warning that the intelligence on these topics was wrong or uncertain. Yet administration officials kept using lousy and inconclusive intelligence to push the case for war.

Through the months-long run-up to the invasion, Colin Powell, then the secretary of state, would become the administration’s No. 1 pitchman for the war with a high-profile speech at the UN, which contained numerous false statements about Iraq and WMD. But, the documentary notes, he was hiding from the public his deep skepticism. In the film, Lawrence Wilkerson, Powell’s chief of staff at the time, recalls the day Congress passed a resolution authorizing Bush to attack Iraq:

Powell walked into my office and without so much as a fare-thee-well, he walked over to the window and he said, “I wonder what’ll happen when we put 500,000 troops into Iraq and comb the country from one end to the other and find nothing?” And he turned around and walked back in his office. And I—I wrote that down on my calendar—as close for—to verbatim as I could, because I thought that was a profound statement coming from the secretary of state, former chairman of the joint chiefs of staff.

Wilkerson also notes that Powell had no idea about the veracity of the intelligence he cited during that UN speech: “Though neither Powell nor anyone else from the State Department team intentionally lied, we did participate in a hoax.”

A hoax. That’s what it was. Yet Bush and Cheney went on to win reelection, and many of their accomplices in this swindle never were fully held accountable. In the years after the WMD scam became apparent, there certainly was a rise in public skepticism and media scrutiny of government claims. Still, could something like this happen again? Maddow remarks, “If what we went through 10 years ago did not change us as a nation—if we do not understand what happened and adapt to resist it—then history says we are doomed to repeat it.”

Comments Off

Filed under Iraq War, Iraq War Lies, President George W. Bush, UN Abassador Susan Rice, United States Senate

Susan Rice: A Victim of GOP Hypocrisy?

I reject the notion that the three Senators who questioned UN Ambassador Susan Rice’s professional competence as the next Secretary of State was racially motivated.

I do believe it was unabashedly partisan in nature.  It seemed to be a new angle toward side-lining the President’s political agenda for the next four years.

Mother Jones

[...]

The outrage expressed by Republican lawmakers—spurred by the ambassador reciting intelligence-community-generated talking points that turned out to be partially inaccurate—is very different from their response to another administration official named Rice who was accused of misleading the American public on a matter of national security.

That, of course, is Condoleezza Rice. When George W. Bush nominated Condoleezza Rice as secretary of state, some of the same Senate Republicans who are currently attacking Susan Rice supported Condi wholeheartedly, despite her role in helping to make the case for war in Iraq based on bogus intelligence. Back then, Republicans were much more willing to chalk up Condoleezza Rice’s parroting of flawed intel to well-intentioned mistakes as opposed to outright deception, even when the evidence said otherwise. Here’s how some of Susan Rice’s most vocal critics responded to the Bush administration’s disastrous handling of pre-war Iraq intelligence and the nomination of Condoleezza Rice.

Comments Off

Filed under GOP Malfeasance, UN Abassador Susan Rice

Susan Rice withdraws from consideration for secretary of state



This should make Senators McCain, Graham and Ayotte quite happy.  I’m not…

The Washington Post

U.N. Ambassador Susan Rice withdrew her name from the list of candidates for secretary of state Thursday afternoon, ending a weeks-long fight with Republicans over statements she made on television talk shows shortly after the attack that killed four Americans in Benghazi, Libya, on Sept. 11.

In a letter to President Obama, Rice said: “I respectfully request that you no longer consider my candidacy at this time.T he position of Secretary of State should never be politicized. . ..I am saddened that we have reached this point, even before you have decided whom to nominate. We cannot afford such an irresponsible distraction from the most pressing issues facing the American people.”

Obama, who had defended Rice on several occasions in recent weeks, accepted her decision and issued the following statement:

“Today, I spoke to Ambassador Susan Rice, and accepted her decision to remove her name from consideration for Secretary of State. For two decades, Susan has proven to be an extraordinarily capable, patriotic, and passionate public servant. As my Ambassador to the United Nations, she plays an indispensable role in advancing America’s interests. Already, she has secured international support for sanctions against Iran and North Korea, worked to protect the people of Libya, helped achieve an independent South Sudan, stood up for Israel’s security and legitimacy, and served as an advocate for UN reform and the human rights of all people. I am grateful that Susan will continue to serve as our Ambassador at the United Nations and a key member of my cabinet and national security team, carrying her work forward on all of these and other issues. I have every confidence that Susan has limitless capability to serve our country now and in the years to come, and know that I will continue to rely on her as an advisor and friend. While I deeply regret the unfair and misleading attacks on Susan Rice in recent weeks, her decision demonstrates the strength of her character, and an admirable commitment to rise above the politics of the moment to put our national interests first. The American people can be proud to have a public servant of her caliber and character representing our country.”

Comments Off

Filed under UN Abassador Susan Rice

Oops! McCain Once Offered Identical Assessment As Susan Rice On Benghazi Attack

Sen. John McCain (R-AZ)

It will be extremely interesting to see Senator McCain wiggle out of this conundrum…

Think Progress

Just three days after the Sept. 11 attacks in Benghazi, Libya, Sen. John McCain (R-AZ) said there were “demonstrations” at the U.S. diplomatic mission there and that the attackers “seized this opportunity to attack our consulate.” McCain also said during this Sept. 14 press conference on Capitol Hill that he wasn’t certain whether al-Qaeda perpetrated the assault.

Yet McCain has been leading a smear campaign against U.S. Ambassador to the U.N. Susan Rice for essentially making the same assessment two days later on the Sept. 16 Sunday talks shows. Making clear that a more thorough forthcoming investigation would provide better information for “definitive conclusions,” here’s what Rice said about the Benghazi attack on that day, from CBS’s Face the Nation:

SUSAN RICE: Based on the best information we have to date, what our assessment is as of the present is in fact what began spontaneously in Benghazi as a reaction to what had transpired some hours earlier in Cairo where, of course, as you know, there was a violent protest outside of our embassy — sparked by this hateful video. But soon after that spontaneous protest began outside of our consulate in Benghazi, we believe that it looks like extremist elements, individuals, joined in that — in that effort with heavy weapons of the sort that are, unfortunately, readily now available in Libya post-revolution. And that it spun from there into something much, much more violent.

McCain has since blasted Rice for making this assessment. Here’s what McCain said on CNN last month during the height of his smear campaign against the U.N. Ambassador:

MCCAIN: It was obvious within 24 hours that the station chief from the CIA had said this was a terrorist attack. It was obvious to one and all that this was not a “spontaneous demonstration” because in real time, they saw there was no demonstration. … Everybody knew that it was an al Qaeda attack, and she continued to tell the world through all of the talk shows that it was a “spontaneous demonstration” sparked by a video. That is not competence in my view

But McCain’s analysis of what occurred in Benghazi in the days after the attack on Sept. 14 mirrors Rice’s assessment during her Sept. 16 Sunday show appearances, saying that the attackers took advantage of a demonstration at the U.S. diplomatic mission:

MCCAIN: It’s hard to know exactly what took place and how long it was planned, and — I don’t have that information. I know very well that there were demonstrations, that there was a group of either al-Qaida or some radical Islamists who — about 15 of them, armed with RPGs and other lethal weapons, that seized this opportunity to attack our consulate. And it was an act of terror. It wasn’t an act of a mob getting out of control. We should understand that. This was a calculated act of terror on the part of a small group of jihadists, not a mob that somehow attacked and sacked our embassy.

So both McCain and Susan Rice believed at roughly the same point after the the Sept. 11 Benghazi attacks that the terrorists took advantage of a spontaneous demonstration against an anti-Islam video at the U.S. diplomatic mission there. And like Rice, McCain couldn’t say definitively if it was al Qaeda. When asked if it was al-Qaeda during his Sept. 14 press conference, McCain said, “It certainly was extremist elements. If it’s not al-Qaida, it’s certainly one of the affiliated organizations.”

As is now known, on Sept. 16, Rice was presenting the assessment of what happened in Benghazi that was given to her by the U.S. intelligence community and that assessment turned out to be inaccurate. CIA officials initially thought that al Qaeda was responsible for the attack, but intelligence officials agreed that a more general term of “extremists” would suffice in Rice’s talking points.

The Arizona Republican has also claimed that Rice should have changed her assessment because shortly before her appearance on Face the Nation, a top Libyan official “said that this was an al Qaeda attack.” But in fact, the official, Mohamed Yousef el-Magariaf, didn’t give a definitive assessment and said only “a few of them” were connected to the terror group, and that others were “affiliates and maybe sympathizers.” But even if el-Magariaf had been more sure, it would have been irresponsible for Rice to endorse and share a view she knew to be inconsistent with what U.S. intelligence officials had provided.

2 Comments

Filed under John McCain, Terrorism, UN Abassador Susan Rice

Rice vs. Rice: What changed for John McCain since 2004?

Rice vs. Rice: What changed for John McCain since 2004?

Remember Condoleeza Rice’s  ’smoking gun’ turning into a “mushroom cloud” statements on all the Sunday talk shows to justify the Bush Administration declaring war in Iraq?

Remember Condoleeza Rice’s answer to a question at the 9/11 Commission hearings:   “I believe it said, “Bin Laden determined to strike inside the United States”.

Just sayin’…she gave very bad intel and all one heard was crickets when it came to the GOP criticizing Rice’s remarks.  What’s so different in the Susan Rice instance?

Salon

The Republican senators attacking Susan Rice today never batted an eyelash when Condi Rice advanced bad intel

The president has just been reelected and looks to replace his secretary of state with a Ms. Rice who has already served in a senior administration position. The minority party in the Senate is threatening to obstruct her confirmation because she propagated faulty intelligence. The administration defends her, saying she merely recited the most credible intelligence of the moment and had no intention of misleading anyone, but the senators’ questions persist.

No, that’s not today! That was eight years ago when George W. Bush appointed his national security adviser, Condoleezza Rice, to be the nation’s top diplomat a week after winning reelection.

Today, for the second straight day, President Obama’s U.N. ambassador, Susan Rice, whom he may nominate to be secretary of state, met with recalcitrant Republican senators on Capitol Hill to try to assuage them. And today, for the second straight day, the Republican senators immediately found reporters and informed the world that they were not satisfied. Today it was Republican Sens. Susan Collins and Bob Corker. Yesterday it was Sens. Kelly Ayotte and Lindsey Graham, along with the ringleader of the opposition, Sen. John McCain. The senators say that Rice misled the American people when she went on Sunday morning political talk shows after the Sept. 11 Benghazi attack and, citing talking points provided to her by the intelligence community that later proved to be false, said the attack grew out of a protest against an anti-Islam film.

Eight years ago, when Bush appointed Condoleezza Rice in 2004, Democrats said that she misled the American people when she propagated intelligence that later proved to be false. In her case, it was about Iraq’s alleged weapons of mass destruction. She also sent a letter to Senate Democrats in March 2003 claiming that the U.S. had briefed U.N. weapons inspectors on what they knew about Iraq’s WMD program (they had not). And Democrats also charged that she concealed the CIA’s doubts about whether Iraq had sought uranium from Niger — she said there was “consensus” within the administration when in fact there was not; the story turned out to be false.

So what did the Republican senators questioning Susan Rice today say about the Condoleezza Rice committing the very same alleged crime then? A Nexis search turns up nothing from Collins or Graham of relevance. (Ayotte and Corker were not yet in the Senate.) McCain actually defended her. All three then-senators voted for her confirmation.

Whereas McCain is today giving the intelligence community the benefit of the doubt and placing the blame on Susan Rice, in 2004 his finger was pointed squarely at the intelligence community. “The president of the United States was told by the director of intelligence that the weapons of mass destruction information was a ‘slam dunk … So it was great failures, and we all know that the CIA has to be reformed,” McCain said on “Meet the Press” in November 2004 while discussing Rice’s nomination. A few days later he told Lou Dobbs on CNN: “I serve on the Commission on Weapons of Mass Destruction, and there is no doubt that the CIA is dysfunctional and there needs to be significant and fundamental changes made.”

During Rice’s confirmation hearings, where Democrats grilled her on the faulty intelligence, Rice echoed McCain. “Obviously, there were problems with the intelligence concerning Iraq (and) weapons of mass destruction,” Rice said.

But she should not be held responsible for their mistake, she explained. Asked why she told everyone in the lead-up to the war that Saddam Hussein was reconstituting his nuclear weapons program, Rice replied: “The majority of agencies in the intelligence community did. I was representing, Senator — and I’ve made this available for the record — the views of that majority.” She even expressed outrage at the CIA’s failure: “We cannot have a situation where the director of the CIA, when asked about Iraq, weapons of mass destruction, tells the president of the United States that it’s a quote, ‘slam dunk,’ when nothing could have been further from the truth.”

Continue Reading Here…

Comments Off

Filed under UN Abassador Susan Rice

Would You Like Some Crow With That Rice, Senator McCain?

The Daily DishAndrew Sullivan

The irascible douche now acknowledges there is no evidence that Susan Rice was responsible for editing CIA talking points after the Benghazi attack, and that the DNI gave her what she subsequently went on TV with. End of scandal. No formal retractionor apology of course:

Today’s news comes just a week after McCain went on national television and claimed that Rice’s “talking points came from the White House, not from the DNI. He added on Fox that “I think it’s patently obvious that the talking points that Ambassador Rice had didn’t come from the CIA. It came from the White House.” For weeks, McCain has lambasted the administration forengaging in “either a cover-up or the worst kind of incompetence” on the Benghazi attack.

Of course, McCain believed it was perfectly obvious that Saddam had WMDs in Iraq. And so did I. I’ve learned to wait for the facts a little bit longer before jumping to conclusions of conspiracy or mendacity.

 

2 Comments

Filed under John McCain, UN Abassador Susan Rice

Soledad O’Brien destroys GOP over Benghazi, Susan Rice (video)

Rep. Joe Heck (R-Nevada) is apparently not on the same page as Senators John McCain and Lindsay Graham on this issue…although his original statement was meant to be the standard talking point the two senators want to send out to the press, Rep. Heck unitentionally muddies the waters a bit…

America BlogJohn Aravosis

I am seriously loving CNN’s Soledad O’Brien of late. Have always enjoyed her work, but lately the woman has been on fire when it comes to dealing with political types who are clearly playing games with the truth.  (As part of my homage to Soledad, see this post detailing her feat of “Sol-splaining” the truth to political hacks.)

Today it was GOP Rep. Joe Heck of Nevada, who was on Soledad’s show to talk about John McCain and Lindsay Graham trying to kill UN Ambassador Susan Rice’s expected nomination to be Secretary of State. McCain and Graham are upset with Rice because they thinks he lied, or didn’t know enough, about the situation in Libya immediately following the attack on our consulate and CIA outpost there.

soledad-obrien-1

Soledad is not impressed.

During their talk, Soledad pointed out – as I do in my post this morning – that McCain and Graham seem to be taking a hypocritical stance on Susan Rice’s nomination since they didn’t seem to have any problem with Condi Rice’s nomination to the same job, even though she did something far worse than Susan Rice. Condi aided the Bush administration in lying its way in to a war, Iraq, that has cost us trillions of dollars and countless American, and Iraqi, lives. That’s a lot bigger than 4 casualties at a US consulate in Libya.

In response, GOP Rep. Heck , who’s on the House Intelligence Committee, which is investigating the administration over the Libya attack, appears to exonerate Susan Rice, and instead prove that Condi Rice should have been the one blocked from becoming Secretary of State. The video is below, but here’s NYT columnist Charles Blow’s take on what Heck just said:

CHARLES BLOW: What I’m trying to figure out, are you saying that Condoleeza Rice actually should have known, because she had more intimacy with the information [WMD in Iraq] and then still said something that she knew was wrong, and that in fact Susan Rice is a sacrificial lamb because she was put out as the face of the administration for something that she didn’t know anything [about], so in fact that’s more of a defense of Susan Rice than it is a condemnation of Susan Rice. That’s how it sounds to me.

SOLEDAD O’BRIEN: That’s what it sounds like to me, so, forgive me sir, will you walk us through this one more time. You think it’s different because Condoleeza Rice actually had first-hand knowledge?

And Heck just continues reiterating that Susan Rice’s situation is far worse than Condis’ because Condi was heavily involved in Iraq war planning and Susan Rice was not heavily involved in what happened in Benghazi. Which only goes to prove that Susan Rice shouldn’t be the Republican party’s scapegoat.

Then again, far be it for the Republicans to turn down the chance to beat up on a woman, and a black woman at that. Rice should consider herself fortunate that she wasn’t a Latina too.

Here’s the video – great television, and a great job by Soledad and Charles Blow.

2 Comments

Filed under GOP Hypocrisy, Soledad O’Brien, UN Abassador Susan Rice

The Ultimate Guide To McCain’s Smear Campaign Against Susan Rice

This is the same John McCain who referred to then Senator Barack Obama as “that one” in a 2008 presidential debate. It seems Senator McCain is still bitter over the loss of that race.

Think Progress

Sen. John McCain (R-AZ) launched an all-out assault on the U.S. Ambassador to the United Nations Susan Rice yesterday in an attempt to block her from becoming the next Secretary of State. McCain claims that Rice’s role in disseminating information about the attacks on U.S. assets in Benghazi, Libya in September means she’s “not qualified” to be the nation’s top diplomat. Because of these alleged missteps on Benghazi, McCain said, “I will do everything in my power to block her from becoming Secretary of State.”

But the evidence to back up McCain’s attacks on Rice is thin, if non-existant. Below is a list of McCain’s main attacks on Rice, and why they’re either false or misleading:

1. McCain attacks Rice for saying anti-Islam video may have sparked Benghazi attack. Referring to Rice’s suggestion on Sept. 16 that the Benghazi attacks may have been sparked by animosity over an anti-Islam video, the Arizona Republican claimed yesterday on Fox News that Rice “went out and told the American people something that was patently false and defied common sense.” He added on CNN: “It was obvious to one and all that this was not a ‘spontaneous demonstration’ because in real time, they saw there was no demonstration.”

REALITY: Rice was merely repeating U.S. intelligence assessments. The Washington Post’s David Ignatius reported that CIA talking points on the Benghazi attack dated Sept. 15, or the day before Rice’s Sunday show appearances, stated that “[t]he currently available information suggests that the demonstrations in Benghazi were spontaneously inspired by the protests at the U.S. Embassy in Cairo and evolved into a direct assault against the U.S. Consulate and subsequently its annex.”

And this is exactly what Rice said, for example, on CBS’ Face the Nation on Sept. 16. “Soon after that spontaneous protest began outside of our consulate in Benghazi, we believe that it looks like extremist elements, individuals, joined in.”

And on Sept. 16, Rice did not, as McCain suggests, offer a definitive assessment of what took place. In fact, she cautioned that it could change after an investigation. “[T]here’s an FBI investigation which is ongoing,” she said. “And we look to that investigation to give us the definitive word as to what transpired.”

Read more here…

Comments Off

Filed under John McCain, UN Abassador Susan Rice

Obama Defends Susan Rice Against ‘Outrageous’ McCain, Graham Attack

As Ezra Kline noted on Facebook:

Obama’s defense of Susan Rice strongly reminded me of this scene from “The American President.” “You want a character debate, Bob? You better stick with me, ’cause Sydney Ellen Wade is way out of your league.”

I love this President’s tenacity and resolve.  Basically he’s letting his GOP haters become his motivation for moving forward on his plans regardless of the same old tired intimidation tactics.

I guess they didn’t get the memo: It’s a new day and your ideas are as tired and stale as your party.

TPM LiveWire

President Obama on Wednesday defended Susan Rice, the U.S. ambassador to the United Nations and a possible replacement for Hillary Clinton as secretary of state, against criticism from Sens. John McCain (R-AZ) and Lindsey Graham (R-SC) on the Benghazi attacks in Libya.

“If Sen. McCain and Sen. Graham want to go after somebody, they should go after me,” Obama told reporters at the White House. “I’m happy to have that discussion with them. But for them to go after the U.N. ambassador? Who had nothing to do with Benghazi? To besmirch her reputation? It’s outrageous.”

He further added that if the senators are going after Rice “because they think she’s an easy target,” “[t]hen they’ve got a problem with me.”

Graham and McCain objected to any talk of Rice as secretary of state at a press conference on the Hill earlier on Wednesday, with Sen. Graham saying she is “so disconnected from reality that I don’t trust her.” McCain maintained that they would “do whatever is in our power,” alluding to a filibuster, to block Rice should Obama decide to go forth with the nomination.

Moments after Obama spoke, Graham released a statement doubling down on his objection to Rice:

“Mr. President, don’t think for one minute I don’t hold you ultimately responsible for Benghazi.  I think you failed as Commander in Chief before, during, and after the attack.

“We owe it to the American people and the victims of this attack to have full, fair hearings and accountability be assigned where appropriate. Given what I know now, I have no intention of promoting anyone who is up to their eyeballs in the Benghazi debacle.”

Watch the video below:

2 Comments

Filed under President Barack Obama, UN Abassador Susan Rice