I read on CNN that Secy State Rice had this to say in Iraq today to American diplomats and troops:
Is she implying that Iraq was in any way even partially responsible for the September 11th attacks? My understanding is that there is no evidence of this. If she is not implying that, then what does she mean by “this war came to us”?
She is clearly implying that. And referring to September 11th as a ‘fine day’ is one of the most tactless things you can do, especially for a political figure. How on earth did this woman get where she is?
While Ms. Rice is obviously lying about Iraq and 9/11 - no surprise there - the reference to 9/11 as a “fine day” clearly refers to the fact that it was a remarkably beautiful day, weather-wise. Iv’e seen it mentioned many times that it was a gorgeous day in New York, sunny and warm and clear, which provides a sort of poetic contrast to the horrors that ensued.
Looks very much to me that she knows all too well the difficulties faced in Iraq and she’s simply lying to try justify things.
She will certainly know that things do not look like they are improving at all fast, the story about lots of insurgents being killed in a major operation, over 100 looks horrifyingly like the enemy body totals that were touted daily in Vietnam, which were often exagerrated, and in the end were meaningless because the war there was not decided upon casualty rations, but on a willingness to endure.
I know this situation has it own imperatives and driving forces, even the scale is very much smaller, all the same, when you have to start lying, transparently so, just to reassure the masses, its not really a good sign.
Its as if they are looking for a fragile reassurance that things are going really really well, and lots of good things are being accomplished, when we all know there is a huge amount to do, and it is likely to take a lot of time to settle things down.
The danger now is that the US and Iraq government forces lose any popular consent, or that there develops a much more widespread and deep rooted opposition that maybe starts to take on a political aspect too, so that the insurgents actually start to look like freedom fighters and a potential government in waiting.
Has to be said though, this was always a likely possibility, and the US was warned.
The administartion is put in the awkward position of having to encourage people to continue the war in Iraq while not being able to mention the actual reason why we went to war. As a result they have to put togeather a bunch of awkward sentences like the one quoted, with freedom, 9/11 and Iraq all sort of generally muddled togeather but not specifically relating them to eachother, in order to rally the troops.
Happily Rice is a very smart women and has spent many years in academe, so I have no doubt she will be able to sail through these symantic entanglements and come through with many similar statements that serve the purpose without sounding too terribly awkward.
I am surprised at you guys, you totally missed this one!
This is the first in a continuing series of policy statements from the chastened and wise Bush administration. It explicitly recognizes America’s failings especially as it relates to support for despotic regimes for reasons of political expediency, and implicitly acknowledges that the failures of colonialism are the root causes of Islamic terrorism, hence, “9/11”.
Witness as well her recent reference to the Koran as “Holy”.
The Bushiviks have seen the error of their ways, and are determined to repudiate failed policies. As a form of penance, George Tenet will resign again.
My dear friend, Elucidator, has been under a lot of stress lately, what with the burden of leading the sarcastic wing of the progressives around here. The strain has gotten to him. We have whisked him away to a secret location in the outskirts of Bimidji. It is our hope that a few days of quiet in a darkened room with a cool cloth on his feverish forehead will restore him to his old self, again.
Unless, of course that was sarcasm.
Did someone really expect the Secretary of State to make a rush trip to Baghdad to tell the government that it is all the US’s fault, we’re real sorry that they have some twenty-five thousand dead, that a hundred or so of their citizens are being blown up every week and that they are sitting in the dark with sewage rising to their ankles, but we are confident that we will still find WMDs and a Saddam- Osama link? Hell no! The speech is as conventional as a graduation address. We are in this fight together, the fight was forced on us, if we persevere good thing will happen, there will be pie in the sky by and by, these are ideas for which we are prepared to fight to the last Iraqi.
Some body once said if you are going to speak the truth you had best have one foot in the stirrup. So far as I can tell that need not be the Secretary’s concern. At this point she doesn’t even need a horse.
Rice, yeah.
I think she means “This region’s oil came to us. The United States, along with the rest of the free world, believed somehow for a number of years that putting Saddam in power and giving him WMD’s to use against Iran was a good thing.” she said. "We cared about oil and US bases. "
Well, I think that is what she’s saying. The US valued stability over democratic values in the Middle East, and that led to “ideologies of hatred” that led to 9/11.
Of course, no surprise. Her job title should be Liar-In-Chief. That’s what diplomats do. Of course, some of us hate it more when it’s a Republican liar. But if either Gore or Kerry had won against GWB we’d still be hearing lies from that office, just different ones.
That seems pretty clear to me. I’m not seeing the eeeeevil lies.
Are you sure? She’s saying “We brought 9/11 on ourselves”? Wouldn’t this be, you know, a whopping concession to make on behalf of the entire administration because I’ve been programmed to think until now that the 9/11 folks just hated freedom…? Suddenly, I don’t know what to believe.
Perhaps the leader will bring Condi back into line with the conventional wisdom presently.
True… to a point. When she talks about that “fine September day in 2001” she does seem to be referring to the entire mideast region as being unstable and ripe for instigationg terrorist attacks.
But what is she talking about when she says “this war was brought to us”? She is apparently talking about the US war against Iraq. Who brought it? When? In what ways did this “war” manifest itself?
This is all true. Except the country we cared about the stability of was not the one we went to war with. And propping up the house of Saud did indeed come back to haunt us on 9/11. If the war was motivated by a desire to shake up KSA and reform it, without destabilizing the oil supply too badly, then even the first part would be true, from Condi’s point of view at least.
Enjoy,
Steven
Nah, George has that one all for himself.
To hear the John Bolton apologists say it, a diplomat’s job is to piss off everyone around him, and to abuse them if they’re sufficiently pissed off yet.
Untestable hypothesis. But if those lies didn’t involve the deaths of 1,600+ American servicemen and Primus-knows-how-many Iraqi civilians, then those hypothetical lies aren’t as offensive, IMO.
Not the war in Iraq, the overall war against Mideast-sponsored terrorism of which the Iraq conflict is one of several campaigns.
I don’t see any lies in the quoted text (from her perspective). It is pretty much boilerplate neo-con dogma. We “should” have imposed democracy on the MENA region years ago, by force, if necessary, and on September 11, 2001, we (the U.S.) paid the price for not having imposed that democracy years earlier. (This, of course, gets the Bush administration off the hook for the attacks, because those attacks were actually the result of the failures of previous administrations. (Of course, we are not supposed to look too closely at the fact that GWB spent his first 7 1/2 months establishing the most isolationist administration in the U.S. since Cooldige.))
(And while I’m here, I’ll note that the “one fine day” phrase has been used as a rhetorical device for years and years, often ironically. That choice of words is not insulting to anyone.)
Now, I disagree with the neo-cons at nearly every level of analysis and decision, but it is not accurate to describe someone as lying who is simply repeating dearly cherished beliefs. When Kent Hovind tries to attack evolutionary theory, he is lying because he claims to be a scientist and he continues to repeat errors that he has had to publicly retract. When Jerry Falwell attacks evolutionary theory, he is not lying because he is simply believing the nonsense that people like Hovind have fed him and lacks the knowledge and the will to see their lies. This makes Falwell deluded, but not a liar.
The adminstration (including Rice) has lied repeatedly and often about the true nature (and their true intent) in our assault on Iraq, but this particular quote is not one of those lies, per se, just self-serving rhetoric to reinforce their world view.
It sounds similar to Bush’s recent comments about the US trading Eastern Europe’s freedom for stability at Yalta. It makes me wonder if the administration is launching an “Instability is a GOOD thing” PR campaign.
It’s not “Instability is a good thing”. It’s “Slavery is too high a price to pay for stability.”
Tell that to the Palestinians.