FACT: Rice’s statement confirms previous proof that the Administration was focusing on Iraq immediately after 9/11, despite having no proof that Iraq was involved in the attack. Rice’s statement also contradicts her previous denials in which she claimed "Iraq was to the side" immediately after 9/11. She made this denial despite the President signing "a 2-and-a-half-page document marked ‘TOP SECRET’" six days after 9/11 that "directed the Pentagon to begin planning military options for an invasion of Iraq." [Source: Condoleezza Rice, 3/22/04, 3/22/04; Washington Post, 1/12/03]
CLAIM: "Given that this was a global war on terror, should we look not just at Afghanistan but should we look at doing something against Iraq?"
FACT: The Administration has not produced one shred of evidence that Iraq had an operational relationship with Al Qaeda, or that Iraq had anything to do with the 9/11 attacks on America. In fact, a U.S. Army War College report said that the war in Iraq has been a diversion that has drained key resources from the more imminent War on Terror. Just this week, USA Today reported that "in 2002, troops from the 5th Special Forces Group who specialize in the Middle East were pulled out of the hunt for Osama bin Laden in Afghanistan to prepare for their next assignment: Iraq." Sen. Bob Graham (D-FL) confirmed this, noting in February of 2002, a senior military commander told him "We are moving military and intelligence personnel and resources out of Afghanistan to get ready for a future war in Iraq." [Sources: CNN, 1/13/04; USA Today, 3/28/04; Sen. Bob Graham (D-FL), 3/26/04]" Common Dreams
This is a partial list of distortions, half truths and outright fabrications provided to the 9/11 Commissioners by Condoleeza Rice. Evidently, she just makes this stuff up. You can see more at the citation below.
From the beginning she has been an enabler of the nuttiness that serves for foreign policy in the Bush Administration. Many in the Administration are pursuing strange Utopian visions in the Middle East. These visionaries seek the lighting of a "torch" that would set the region on fire with revolutionary change leading to something like the transformation that the original French Revolution brought to Europe. This is a good thing? I think not, but, one thing such an American policy is surely NOT, and that is, Conservative. I am a Conservative. We Conservatives do not believe in revolution. We believe in evolution in social matters and a decent and prudent respect for the cumulative experience and habits of all peoples. The American War of Independence was more a rebellion against parliamentary tyranny than it was revolution. We Conservatives do not think that the French Revolution was an unmixed blessing for anyone. That Revolution led to many bad things; the Napoleonic Wars, the Communist Manifesto, The Bolshevik Revolution, Communist rule in China, Cuba, and North Korea, etc. The neocons are many things, but one thing they are definitely not, is Conservative. As one of them said to me "the con in neocon is the con part."
Rice is not Conservative either. She seems to believe that writing laws and framing constitutions and holding elections are panaceas which will result in massive social and psychological changes wherever they are applied. There is not evident for that but she seems to believe it as do her co-believers in the administration.
In her case, she seems to have extrapolated lessons she learned from her childhood in civil-rights era America to believe that changes in law and legal practice lead to actual change in people en masse. The probability that legal change made a big difference in America because Southern white people were ready for that change is something that seems to have "missed" her. She also seems to have "missed" a lot of the facts with regard to what happened in eastern Europe after the collapse of the USSR. In that case, societies more or less resumed the pattern of what they had been before the red tide flowed over them. The point being that they had already possessed deep seated cultural patterns of Western organization and thought and that they merely resumed them.
None of that is true in the lands of Islam. In places like Egypt and Iraq there have been considerable western cultural penetrations over centuries but what that has done is to create splits in society between those who more or less accepted Westernization (democracy in Bush terminology) and those who did not. This process leaves behind crusted over wounds in society which threaten to break open under stress destabilizing countries and creating conditions ripe with the possibility of secession and civil war. Some of the neocons say that this chaos would be welcome as a necessary pre-condition for Utopia. Madness. The centrifugal social forces present in all Middle East countries are so strong that they will tear all these states apart if released.
Rice has supported and enabled such foolishness. She continues to do this. There will be a day of reckoning, and she will be remembered.