Is anyone else watching the O’Donnell-Rice interview on MSNBC? Unbelievable. That woman couldn’t tell the truth if you asked her what time it is.
Update: If you missed it, you can watch it here. I recommend taking a stiff drink first.
The Mahablog
Politics. Society. Group Therapy.
How do you know she’s not telling the truth? Were you privy to white house intel briefs?
Her lips were moving.
Seriously, if you are so misinformed about what we’ve learned since about what intelligence they had, and the way the UN inspectors before the invasion were screaming out loud that there were no WMDs, and the way the Bushies fabricated evidence to obtain UN approval, and the fact that half of the stuff Condi was citing as a reason to invade Iraq in 2003 had happened more than a decade earlier … you must be a wingnut. I have no interest in conducting a seminar to educate you.
I just watched your interview with Condeliza Rice. Well done! Frustrating to hear her. She mentioned Canada among those countries that were part of the coalition. Dead wrong! I am a Canadian citizen and proud that Canada refused to participate in the war in Iraq.
tough, angry and still convinced that they were right. Unbelievable!
I’m getting at least as big of laughs watching a Red Skelton movie.
I found listening to her physically uncomfortable. She was SO entrenched in her BS answers and the lies that have been debunked over and over. It is a tribute to Lawrence that he was able to just keep calm in the face of such crap.
It’s hard to pick a part of it that was most annoying, but I think for me it was her justification of their assessment of Saddam’s threat. If you listened to her point, it was essentially that they couldn’t dare risk any level of threat because they had been so blindsided by 9/11. Without any hint of acknowledgment that any 9/11 blindsiding was their, and particularly her (as National Security Advisor) OWN SCREWUP, and that others had been trying to alert them to the al Qaeda threat, as we now know.
So basically, the reason we had to invade Iraq was because of the Bush administration’s refusal to listen to the stuff the Clinton people had told them about the al Qaeda threat, and their unwillingness to listen to Richard Clarke. Because the Bushies had just realized they were unable to evaluate intelligence about threats, EVERYTHING must be a SUPERDUPER OMG!!! threat. And that, somehow, is supposed to explain it and make it right??
(And then, of course, she just skipped explaining why we didn’t then invade North Korea, or one of the many other countries that were actually more of a threat to us than Saddam, rather than the one that was all wrapped up in Shrub’s daddy issues. Though later she did compare it to what we’re doing in Libya, where we aren’t invading and trying to set up a new economy and stock market and building a massive embassy and, and, oh, never mind.)
No, actually, now that I think about it, the most annoying bit was her explanation of how dangerous Iraq was to the US in terms of his failed attack on a small neighboring country 10 years previously, a country which didn’t have the benefit of the world’s largest military force, though when we lent it to them had no problem kicking Saddam out again. OOOOhhhh, very scary. Tell me again how Cleveland was at risk because Saddam once invaded the Kuwati desert and we kicked his butt right out of it. Riiiight.
I guess, if Condi had the ability to see things objectively and process facts critically she wouldn’t have been a member of the Bush administration in the first place, much less the worst National Security Advisor in history. It would be nice if one could at least hope she clings to these lies despite knowing on some level that they ARE lies, just because that’s what she needs to do to get out of bed in the morning and not shoot herself. But sadly, I can’t even give her that much credit. She’s not in denial. She’s smug.
I would love for someone to do something like a forensic social-psychological analysis of that whole crew to understand what caused them to make some of the decisions they made. The Bushies came into office so utterly arrogant, dismissing what the outgoing administration told them about terrorism. They actually downgraded al Qaeda as a threat, tossed the Hart-Rudman Commission report into the trash, and put anti-terrorism on the back burner. Condi herself repeatedly brushed off suggestions that threats from al Qaeda be taken seriously. Then came 9/11, and it’s like they flipped into hysteria mode and went dashing around in all directions to stamp out evildoers. They fixated on Saddam Hussein because some of them (Rummy, for example) had history with him. For Bush, it was personal. And they chose to invade Iraq because they wanted to invade Iraq. Condi’s argument, that she’s sticking to, is that they knew he used to be dangerous back in 1990, so he must still be dangerous, and they had to take him out. I remember at one point she said something to the effect that the question of what Saddam Hussein had been up to after 1998 or so “was not an interesting question.” She was fine with invading Iraq in 2003 based on what Saddam Hussein was doing in 1998.
And, of course, some of them (notably Dick the Dick) had a vested interest in a certain firm getting no-bid contracts. And there was oil!
It wasn’t any one thing that caused them to fixate on Iraq. It was a complex of things. And she’s still not able to face the truth of what her own incompetence brought about.
I didn’t see the interview, but I always have had an aversion to watching Condi Rice, especially when she was Bush’s right hand, I don’t know why. Without any analysis or understanding of what she has said versus the facts, she comes across to me as a forceful persuader – someone who can state things in a totally convincing fashion (maybe others were never fooled by her persona). Her expression shouts to me: “You must believe me!”
I would love for someone to put together a work about the whole topic of Lying. Do liars really believe what they say? Some do, is my guess, while others simply view their words as tools to manipulate others, regardless of their connection to reality. My experience with rightwingers (or sociopaths in general) is that if they’re willing to lie to others, they’re definitely lying to themselves, and they live in a some serious delusion. It’s a fascinating subject to me, because all of us have difficulty with the truth to varying degrees, some far worse than others, and I would argue that our entire country is buried in lies and bullshit. And there are those accomplished masters who are so convincing at it, that they can bullshit an entire country. On Bullshit (haven’t read) starts to get at what I’m talking about.
Carolyn Myss wrote about truth and lying:
Or, as some playwright said, “This above all: to thine own self be true, And it must follow, as the night the day, Thou canst not then be false to any man.”
Very rarely I miss watching TV. (Gave it up for sanity.) This may horrify you, but I come here to your blog for much of my current political news. Have publications that arrive by snail mail, too, but I had to wean myself off the daily horror show that modern media have become. Thanks for your updates.
“It is a tribute to Lawrence that he was able to just keep calm in the face of such crap.”
That’s the problem. Someone in the press needs to break into hysterical laughter when these jokers tell such lies. They need to be embarrassed for telling lies–especially the ones which cost the lives of many, many people.
That may be the way to go. O’Donnell didn’t laugh, but he was pushing her to tell the truth about as hard as one can push without physical assault, and she didn’t break.
Your a bigger loser than K.O. Keep giving those wallflowers that follow you some more crap to digest. She made you look like the fool you are.
[Memo from Maha: Note how Mr. Ryan cannot argue from facts and reason; like the mouth-breathing juveniles all teabaggers are, he can only call names. Mr. Ryan, see the commenting rules, particularly #2.]
Same reason Rachel Maddow has let Pat Buchanan bloviate: they expose themselves for what they are, and those who don’t perceive it probably never will. A frontal attack on these people lets them use defensive/sympathetic tactics, but their own revelation of themselves is sufficient for the critically-minded.
And they chose to invade Iraq because they wanted to invade Iraq.
Yep, and everything that followed that desire was pure justifications.
Notice how she made the leap from Saddam being a threat to the United States to him being a threat to world peace? A lot of responsibility was lost in that transition.
Shortly after the inaguration of Bush 43, there was a big bash at the Crawford ranch featuring country music, cowboy dress,loads of Texas oil tycoons, and barbecue.
I turned to my wife and told her we were screwed; Bush would soon take our country into into war in Iraq .
I thought about taking my meager savings and buying stock in Halliburton, KBR, and Lockheed Martin. My inner angel said that would be war profiteering, don’t do it.
I watched Condi’s interview. She is not a stupid person, and I think there is a concern that one day she may be on the dock in a war crimes trial.
Let’s not forget how many years after WW2 Nazi war criminals were still being hunted down. Things may change in the coming years; I sure hope so, because we can’t ever allow another invasion without good reason to happen.
It bothers me greatly that (the evil Neo-Cons )Perle, Wolofowitz, Abrams, Cheney, Dubya, Rice, Libby,Pipes are still on the loose; it also bothers me that the current administration
has done nothing to expose their crimes. I understand why, but I’m not happy about it.
Condi’s claim to fame is the deals she helped broker for Chevron in the former Soviet Central Asian Republics. Most Americans are not aware of this.
I will try to summon the fortitude to endure Condi’s psychotic (though I am not qualified to make that determination) stare.
I recall a video of her confronted by a young man, who was a budding journalist. He asked her a direct question about the activities at Gitmo. She deflected the question by asking him if he “knew that Gitmo had been found to be a ‘model facility’ by” (I forget the name) a recent comission. Then she went into attack mode and admonished the young reporter to “do his homework next time.” I remember feeling sorry for the young man, who was asking a question that all Americans should have been asking. She dodged when he tried to follow up.
When I checked out the comission report, it referred only to the PHYSICAL facility and not the treatment of the inmates. She had skillfully employed a half truth, which as close to the truth as she ever gets.
I am not a licensed mental health professional, but I’d bet what’s left of my 401K that she has a serious personality disorder. I’ve spent enough time “on the street” to have a little alarm advising “don’t make eye contact” when I see her affect. I would love to see a psyche workup of the whole crowd too. I suppose I shouldn’t make light of it. Despite all the harm she and her cohorts have done, I really do think she is a deeply disturbed and troubled individual.
Now that that’s over cue “Condi, Condi” by Steve Earle, which is a song written from the perspective of an alternative world where she might have been a decent person.
It is impossible not to ask ourselves, “What kind of society enables people like the those of the Bush administration?” I’ve confronted this question in one form or another nearly everyday since the 2000 election. The answers vary, but they are seldom encouraging.
——–
Off topic, but I would like to see a simple study done of hard core Libertarians and Randians. Some experiments have shown that people committing acts of kindness have an internal release of endofins, and they experience pleasure when they lend a helping hand. Some have indicated that this negates any moral superiority to helping others, since helping yields a “payoff”. Therefore, the “good Samaritan” is selfishly pursuing pleasure. (How clever!!!!)
I wonder if an experiment would show that Libertarians and Randians have a reduced experience of endorfin release, or no release at all when they come to someone’s aid. I guess we could also see what sort of endorfin release they get when the “find” an old lady’s purse with no witness present.
When I saw that O’Donnell had Kinda Sleezy Spice-girl on, I turned off the TV and immediately went to my room to continue the book I was reading.
At last the author of that book wasn’t trying to resell me on a work of total fiction where I know the plot, loathe the characters, and can’t believe the premise because it’s so stupid only a total moron could believe it, which will never end, and whose ramifications will still be felt long after I’m worm-chow. (Kind of like Atlas Shrugged without the violent shagging).
Also, too, early this week, Kinda Sleezy Spice was on TV saying how Little Boots and his bullhorn moment may have been the most important moment in US history. Yes, you read that right – IN US HISTORY. Really, Kinda Sleezy Spice? Really?
Every day they have to tell themselves and try to sell us on the fiction that the petulant and ignorant little shit they put up there as a figurehead was an important, thoughtful, and effective leader, so that in their own minds they seem like supporters of greatness, and not enablers to a childish sociopathic numbskull too stupid and socially awkward to work at the front counter of your local WaWa or 7-11, and not trustworthy enough to work in the back stocking goods and materials because you’d know what he wasn’t shoveling out the back door for his cronies, or pocketing for himself, he’d be stuffing in his face. And if you caught him doing it, and asked him “Why?” He’d say because HE COULD – THAT’S WHY! And that his Daddy would bail him out if you made any trouble, and was that trouble really worth your job or your career? He’d say he’d leave as soon as he cleaned the place up of anything saleable or edible, and you’d marvel at his audacity, but realize there wasn’t anything you can do about a total sociopath like this but keep you and the people you care for out of his line of sight.
The Bush Crime Family still can’t believe that their son Michael didn’t succeed the Godfather, but that the son who was a combination of Sonny and Fredo did. And hard as they try to spin, Caligula was not Augustus. Hell, he wasn’t even capable enough to be Nero. But they can’t kill this Little Boots. It’s too late.
I’m warning you, the reason they try to make this Little Boots into something he never was, is that they’re going to try to sell you Michael/Nero/Jeb, and he’ll be coming to stores near you. – if not in ’12, then definitely in 2016.
Note how Mr. Ryan cannot argue from facts and reason….
Yes, not only does he substitute insults for sensible argument, he also doesn’t correctly punctuate or spell his insults. Sloppy work: the hallmark of today’s Right.
I’m not touching Patrick Ryan’s comment.
God knows where his hands were during Kinda Sleezy Spice’s interview.
Though I have my suspicions.
To paraphrase Rumpsfeld
“You go to war with the intelligence you have”.
We were going to war the day Gore won Florida. 9/11 just made it easier.
Gather round, children, and look at this two minute clip from the FOX Republican Debate last night. Hear the applause that torture receives:
http://videocafe.crooksandliars.com/heather/first-republican-presidential-debate-raise
Listen to ‘Little Ricky Frothy Lube and Fecal Matter’ lie through his pearly white horse teeth.
And when Ron Paul is your voice of sanity, that should tell people something.
And you’d think people running for President might be familiar with the oath they want to take. Here it is:
“I do solemnly swear (or affirm) that I will faithfully execute the Office of President of the United States, and will to the best of my ability, preserve, protect and defend the Constitution of the United States.”
It doesn’t say ‘protect the people,’ morons, it says “Constitution.” It’s The Constitution and its laws that are supposed to protect the people.
You remember that relic, don’t you?
That piece of paper we used to follow back when we were a nation of laws and not a nation of cowardly and violent perps, justifying whatever we want to do to protect ourselves.
There are, at least, a few people out there trying to keep those lawless tendencies in check. It may be a losing battle thanks to “Torture Creep.”
So, no, Mr. Cain, sorry to tell you that you can’t stomp on that little goatherding boys testicles like you’re trying to make wine just because you suspect he knows where the next in line for Al Qaeda leadership is hiding. At least not with impunity. Or, at least not yet.
Say what you will about Condi, but when she was traipsing through the Green Zone wearing her flack jacket and a piss pot on her head…She was like totally hot. Dita Von Teese move over!
WEEEE Dogies,
She was hotter ‘n a stewed possum on saterday night! ‘specially if yur inta that Dom thingie……
The absolutely worst thing about Condi Rice is that she is TEACHING at a major, top tier university and using that bully pulpit to reproduce herself. Gads, what a problem. One was bad enough.
In a related story,Go to Buzzflash and see “The Ed show, Col. Wilkerson :Rumsfeld is delusional”.
The only countries thay can travel to are Israel and Saudi Arabia. Cool bunch of friends there!
Liars like Rice count on politeness from their interviewers. This should stop. When someone is lying to your face they have thrown away any expectation of courtesy from you.
May have missed it in these comments, but did anyone realize that her answer to the question, at least one of her answers to the question, as to why we invaded Iraq was because from the time Saddam went to war with Iran (1980) he has been a “threat” to America.
O’Donnell neglected to follow up and ask her why we financially and otherwise supported Saddam during that entire 9 year war – given that he was a “threat” to American security.
O’Donnell is usually pretty good at this stuff, but he slipped up on a few ‘dead bodies’ she threw into her last night’s garbage.
[i]It is a tribute to Lawrence that he was able to just keep calm in the face of such crap.[/i]
Actually, I don’t think Lawrence did a good job with this interview. He cut Condi off a number of times in mid-sentence, and she let it be known that the interview would stop right there if he kept doing it. And in that, I have to agree with Condi. She may be a persuasive liar, but you won’t win a debate with her by cutting her off. In fact, she cleverly turned this around, using it to make Lawrence look insecure. If this was a Debate 101 class, I’d give Lawrence a “D”.
The “rudely cut off your opponent strategy” made Bill O’Reilly famous, and his neocon peers on AM talk radio happily employ the cut-off button whenever they start losing a debate with a caller. In fairness, Lawrence didn’t come off as bad as O’Reilly, who seems like a bully. But whenever I see/hear anyone, right or left, use the cut-off technique, it makes me angry, and it’s an automatic loss for whoever’s doing it.
None of this is to say I believe Condi’s “facts,” though it’s possible that she has convinced herself of these lies. After all, how else can she look herself in the mirror? A question that I wish I could ask her how, as a black person, she sleeps at night knowing that Bush got into power by disenfranchising black voters in Florida with Jim Crow style voter scrub lists.
Condi Rice is an intelligent woman, well-educate and articulate. It’s such a pity she wasted her talents defending such a jerk as George Bush. I really don’t know how she lives with herself.
Disagree. Condi’s answers were all the same old boilerplate lies she’s been telling for years. If he hadn’t interrupted her, the “debate” wouldn’t have been worth putting on television, because it all would have been the same old crap she’s already spewed out. The whole purpose of the interview was to challenge the lies, to try to force her to confront the truth. If anything, I didn’t think he challenged her enough.
I agree with you that she probably believes what she’s saying is true, which makes it all the more pathological. The kind of “interview” she needs probably would take several hours and involve a tag team of psychologists.
Bill Bush wrote:
I don’t think so; I think she probably gets along well with him and he’s basically an MSNBC staffer. I’ve listened to Pat Buchanan since the 1970’s and have always found him to be a bigoted conservative. However, he’s also intelligent and has a good sense of humor – the kind of guy you would enjoy having a drink with (although I don’t drink), as opposed to George Bush. I’ve often seen him joking around in a friendly way with liberals on talk shows, even though their politics diverge widely. If you avoid politics, he’s probably a fun guy to be around.
Felicity wrote:
You make an excellent point. Also, Saddam couldn’t win the war after 9 years, even though Iran was sending children into some battles. This was the vaunted “military power” that Bush 41 “bravely” went up against … and cleaned up in a couple of days.
Condi Rice is an intelligent woman, well-educate and articulate.
All of which are subsumed by her ambition, amorality, capacity for self-deception and eagerness to serve power no matter how dispicable its aims.
A conscience would tear apart most people before they got anywhere close to participating in the dirty, murderous acts in which she played an integral role . This makes her a rare ‘talent’ for evil greed-driven assholes like Cheney and Bush looking for pliable tools.
“she comes across to me as a forceful persuader – someone who can state things in a totally convincing fashion” Very true. She’s an accomplished sociopath, who can speak bad Russian , play Rachmaninoff while skating backwards AND humming The Star Spangled Banner. That’s what qualifies as tenure material at Stanford these days.
Of anyone is interested, and I’m sure you will be, a couple of her ex Stanford students were asked to comment on her as a professor – “She’s a real light-weight.”
A few other Riceisms I’ve picked up through the years: When Secretary of State, she was “ignored” in the ME. Next, declaring that “American values are universal” she later backed up that ignorant remark with advocating regime change, are you ready, in Iraq, Spain, Italy, Great Britain, Hungary, Ukraine, Norway, Slovakia, Poland and Australia.
It’s a wonder the country survived her stewardship as Sec of State.