Condalezza Rice and Denial and Deception

As I got out of the car today at the local Safeway, I noticed that the people in the cars on either side of me had their radios tuned to the Senate confirmation hearing for Condalezza Rice.

I wondered why anyone would waste their time listening to what any of these Bushies have to say – it just words to them.  They will say whatever is expedient.  They aren’t concerned with truth.

Later in the day, I heard that California Senator Barbara Boxer questioned the "truthfulness" of Secretary of State to be Condalezza Rice.

"Rice answered the day’s harshest questioning, from Sen. Boxer, with a rare
note of strain in her voice. Boxer came close to accusing Rice of
having lied in her public statements about the run-up to war in Iraq.

"Your loyalty to your mission you were given overwhelmed your respect for the truth, and I don’t say it lightly," Boxer said."

"I have never, ever lost respect for the truth in service of anything," Rice
replied coolly. "It is not my nature, it is not my character. And I
would hope that we can have this conversation … without impugning my
credibility or my integrity."

Oh really?  Here’s a piece written by Rice from the White House website:

"Last week’s finding by inspectors of 12 chemical warheads not included in Iraq’s declaration was particularly troubling. In the past, Iraq has filled this type of warhead with sarin  a deadly nerve agent used by Japanese terrorists in 1995 to kill 12 Tokyo subway passengers and sicken thousands of others. Richard Butler, the former chief United Nations arms inspector, estimates that if a larger type of warhead that Iraq has made and used in the past were filled with VX (an even deadlier nerve agent) and launched at a major city, it could kill up to one million people. Iraq has also failed to provide United Nations inspectors with documentation of its claim to have destroyed its VX stockpiles."

Appropriately, this piece is titled, IRAQ – Deception and Denial.

I’m no expert in logic, debating, or elocution, but I can detect bull shit when I see it and there’s something seriously wrong with the reasoning of the above statement.

If it isn’t outright lying, it certainly lacks credibility.

What I can see is that she begins by speaking about the 12 112mm warheads found by the UN inspectors.

Here’s one account –

"On a 16 January 2003, an UNMOVIC multidisciplinary team visited the  Ukhaider Ammunition Storage Area (170km southwest of Baghdad), and  found "11 empty 122 mm chemical warheads and one warhead that 
requires further evaluation. The warheads were in excellent condition  and were similar to ones imported by Iraq during the late 1980’s."  Further samples were taken from the 12th warhead on 18 and 28 January 2004. Both this warhead and the storage building are  under IAEA seal."

"In subsequent interviews, the UNMOVIC Executive Chairman provided  more details on the find:

These things were laying in boxes. They had never been opened. They were covered by bird droppings, so they’d been there for some time. But they had never been opened, actually, and they  were in excellent conditions. They were from pre-1990, so at the  time when they were able to have these things legally. But of 
course, they should have been properly declared and, in fact, destroyed."

So Rice argues that we have a bunch of empty warheads that COULD POSSIBLY contain gas.  Then she tells us that if an entirely different kind of missile were loaded with an entirely different kind of gas it could kill millions of people.

Then she goes on to tell us that Iraq has not documented the destruction of the entirely different kind of gas with the UN.

Recall she started out talking about 122mm rocket projectiles and sarin gas and ends up talking about a different, larger missile and VX gas!

This seems kind of sloppy thinking for a former Stanford Provost and a person with a PhD.

It seems to me I’ve read somewhere that it’s possible to string together a bunch of statements that are individually true, but end up with an conclusion that’s false,  but since I was never a Provost or a PhD, someone else is going to have to explain the formal errors in logic in Dr. Rice’s writings.

I just know that it doesn’t smell right.

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in: Logo

You are commenting using your account. Log Out /  Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )


Connecting to %s

%d bloggers like this: