ShortNews
+ + + 3 BRANDNEW NewsTickers for your Website! + + + easy configurable in less than 1 Minute + + + GET'EM NOW! + + +

   Home | Join | Submit News | MyShortNews | HighScores | FAQ'S | Forums 0 Users Online   
   
                 01/24/2018 06:57 AM  
  ShortNews Search
search all Channels
RSS feeds
  ShortNews User Poll
Are you excited about the holiday season?
  Latest Events
  4.360 Visits   4 Assessments  Show users who Rated this:
Quality:Very Good
Back to Overview  
10/17/2005 11:15 AM ID: 50733 Permalink   

Rice Admits Truth About Going to War with Iraq

 

On Meet the Press, Condoleezza Rice deviated from traditional justifications for war against Iraq offered by the Bush administration, such as WMD's and 9/11 links, and explained that it was part of a plan to create "a different kind of Middle East".

Justifying the war in Iraq Rice said, "When we were attacked on September 11, we had a choice to make. We could decide that the proximate cause was al Qaeda and the people who flew those planes into buildings...or we could take a bolder approach."

Rice went on to say that removing Saddam was necessary, yet made no mention of Osama bin Laden. This justification for war in Iraq is contradictory to earlier interviews were Rice has stated, "we don't want the smoking gun to be a mushroom cloud".

 
  Source: www.msnbc.msn.com  
    WebReporter: manilaryce Show Calling Card      
  Recommendation:  
ASSESS this news: BLOCK this news. Reason:
   
  26 Comments
  
  Give me a break!  
 
“or we could take a bolder approach”.

Like why not just take over the Middle East and steal the oil? We will squash the American people under the thumb of tyranny and massive debt, kill everyone in our quest for oil profits and start WWIII in a vain attempt to overthrow the world.

“we don’t want the smoking gun to be a mushroom cloud”.

No that would set the oil fields on fire and burn up valuable oil profits. Come on Con just spill your guts, tell the whole truth for once in your miserable life.

 
  by: Valkyrie123     10/17/2005 03:05 PM     
  wow  
 
i think they read to much into her statement I watched Meet the Press too and just felt it was the same crap different day.
 
  by: emp3r0r     10/17/2005 03:49 PM     
  Interesting...  
 
Here's the video if anyone wants to check it out: http://movies.crooksandliars.com/...
 
  by: treyjazz   10/17/2005 03:57 PM     
  Got to love that Condoleezza!  
 
Well, Esso (Exxon) has named a oil tanker after her, so she must have something people love!
 
  by: know_your_rights   10/17/2005 04:31 PM     
  Couched in the same crap She does admit it  
 
Shes saying we went after Iraq because of 9/11 and because iraq is in the middle east! Thats what happend when u let a bunch of oil company prevaricating pundits run a major power.

"But the fact of the matter is that when we were attacked on September 11, we had a choice to make. We could decide that the proximate cause was al-Qaeda and the people who flew those planes into buildings and, therefore, we would go after al-Qaeda and perhaps after the Taliban and then our work would be done and we would try to defend ourselves.

"Or we could take a bolder approach, which was to say that we had to go after the root causes of the kind of terrorism that was produced there, and that meant a different kind of Middle East. And there is no one who could have imagined a different kind of Middle East with Saddam Hussein still in power. I know it's difficult, but we have ahead of us the prospect, and I think the very good prospect of a foundation for a democratic and prosperous Iraq that can solve its differences by politics and compromise, that becomes an anchor for a Middle East that is changing."

 
  by: mmmman     10/17/2005 05:07 PM     
  And Tim Russert is such an ass  
 
If he were a real reporter he would have gone after her claimed 9/11 -> Al Qaeda -> Middle East -> Iraq -> Saddam connections, instead of just accepting it. Its not news its propaganda.
 
  by: mmmman     10/17/2005 05:10 PM     
  not the same crap  
 
yeah, she said it pretty non-chalantly, but she did admit that we went into iraq because it's in the middle east (a region they had planned to change in their image), not because it posed any real threat. unfortunately the host didn't pick up on what she was saying and just went on to the next question.
 
  by: manilaryce     10/17/2005 05:16 PM     
  Perhaps I'm being a wet blanket, but...  
 
...this seems to be a lot of editorializing, given that that source is merely a transcript. I know that this is the interpretation of her comments going around, but given that the source is just the raw transcript, wouldn't this submission be more of an editorial than a summarization of the source? Obviously, Rice didn't state in the transcript that this was an admission of the "truth about going to war with Iraq," or admit that it was a deviation from previous explanations.

That's just how I'm reading this and perhaps I'm wrong, but there seems to be more here than what the source actually says.
 
  by: MomentOfClarity     10/18/2005 12:02 AM     
  @MomentOfClarity  
 
i don't believe i've changed the meaning of her words
in paraphrasing it. whether it was an accident that she
said this or not, it does oppose previous justifications
offered by this administration for going to war. in this
sense i believe it is news worthy and in contradiction
to previous interviews she's given.
 
  by: manilaryce     10/18/2005 01:18 AM     
  @Manilaryce  
 
I know you don't believe that you've not changed the meaning of her words, but then, you believe in that interpretation of what she said (I might also, I'm not sure yet). Although I'm sure that Rice would disagree with that interpretation, I'm not really trying to get into the factuality of what she said and what you reported. Clearly, one could take this interpretation and argue its validity. What I am wondering about is the reporting as is required by Shortnews. My understanding has always been that you cannot report what is not in the source, and this interpretation, supporting quotes, and so forth, are not. That's what I'm wondering about, and whether or not, in supporting a particular interpretation, this crosses into punditry.
 
  by: MomentOfClarity     10/18/2005 01:32 AM     
  there's more  
 
the source listed is a transcript for
people to read and see for themselves
if they agree or not. however, there
are news sources reporting about this
interview which i also used as
secondary sources. the huffington
report is one of them along with
commentary by crooks and liars
(previously posted by treyjazz). this
is not my individual interpretation,
but one taken from those sources which
have reported on it. i'm sure there are
others that i haven't found. if you
find opposing interpretations that
would also be interesting to read.
 
  by: manilaryce     10/18/2005 01:52 AM     
  American Media  
 
Blame the American media for these fellow users and the section of gullable public that echoed and spread the word according to Bush. It's getting to the point where whatever they say about Iraq is so recycled and attuned to the current situation that it's no longer worth asking them about Iraq...they won't give us a straight answer. First it was WMD, then Saddam now Elections. Let's grill these war criminals and don't say that their not! Just because Insurgents and Al-Qaeda say there are doesn't mean that they're not (Bush Adminstration).

I believe if you change your objective in going to war you should have to answer to people. Because they whent to war to save people from a mushroom cloud not Saddam (Added bonus, not 1st priority). Now that weapons haven't been found, why are they there???? If there objective after weapons was removal of Ba'ath party regime why wasn;t it done 10 years ago...its not about the regime peoples...and it sickens me that they are continuing to lie!
 
  by: Mr-Anderson   10/18/2005 04:36 AM     
  @ Myself for previous post  
 
"Blame the American media for these fellow users" ....lol meant to read Blame the American media 'MY' fellow users.

Very sorry, big typo.
 
  by: Mr-Anderson   10/18/2005 04:37 AM     
  @Manilaryce  
 
The quote is there, I've read and heard it. But, that's all there is. My point of contention, subtleties aside, is that this is your opinion here, and simply because other opinions on the left match it does not make it any less a slanted piece. Rice said what she said, and it was newsworthy, but your opinion is for the Comments section (to paraphrase the SN FAQ). The news is supposed to be a paraphrasing of the source, nothing more.
 
  by: momentofclarity     10/18/2005 05:39 AM     
  3 words  
 
Downing Street Memo
 
  by: molecular   10/18/2005 08:14 AM     
  more to come  
 
i have a feeling there's more evidence to emerge that'll verify what most of us know already. whether or not it'll be covered by the mainstream media is another matter.

moment, you are entitled to your opinion about this piece.
 
  by: manilaryce     10/18/2005 10:44 AM     
  This is obviously  
 
a completely different definition of the word "Truth" to the one I'm used to.
 
  by: CrisW   10/18/2005 12:32 PM     
  (the truth)  
 
"Or we could take a bolder (violent) approach, which was to say that we had to go after the root causes (i.e., 600,000 Iraqi children killed by U.S. sanctions, unconditional U.S. support of Israel, U.S. occupation of Mecca and Medina, U.S. buttressing of oppressive, apostate regimes in Egypt, Saudi Arabia and Jordan) of the kind of terrorism that was produced there, and that meant a different kind of Middle East (one in which the only Muslims left alive are those who are too timid to follow the Quran's requirement that they defend their faith from attack).
 
  by: l´anglais     10/18/2005 02:28 PM     
  Ironic  
 
To see how some people continue to insist that the operation in Iraq is somehow about oil.

Really, that kind of thinking is bordering on deliberately being obtuse.

The US does not have the power to confiscate Iraq's oil. Iraq, as a middle eastern country is a member of OPEC, which sets how much oil each country may produce based on the estimated reserves of oil in the countries claims. The US cannot increase this limit, they have no power in the issue at all.

Not to mention that even if the US did pump Iraq dry it wouldn't cover the cost of the Iraq operation anyway.

Now, it's possible that the real reason was to provide unprecedented opportunity for Haliburton and co to make a fortune - at least that one stands up to even the most basic scrutiny.

I think that people who are still arguing 'Oil' as the motivation behind the war need to consider this:

fanatic Noun
1. fanatic - a person motivated by irrational enthusiasm (as for a cause); "A fanatic is one who can't change his mind and won't change the subject"--Winston Churchill
 
  by: lauriesman     10/18/2005 08:18 PM     
  @lauriesman  
 
i agree that the war was not entirely about oil. the destruction and subsequent reconstruction of iraq made alot of corporations alot richer. however, oil can not be left out of the equation given the fact that it is a diminishing resource, and we're the top consumer. whether it yeilds high profit is not as important as the simple fact that we need it for food production, transportation, and every industry in between.

as you were stating, iraq is part of OPEC, but their production hasn't met OPEC quota agreements for over 6 years. in 2000 iraq switched its oil export payments to the euro. this was a financially smart move due to the rise of the euro. as a result, other opec nations were considering backing the petroleum industry with the euro as well. well, needless to say, opec decided not to make the switch afterall due to the obvious. the entire oil market is still based on the american dollar and thus, subject to the market.
 
  by: manilaryce     10/18/2005 08:56 PM     
  Follow the Cash  
 
Numbers coming from a major in the canadian army:

Cost of each american stationed in Iraq per day is 1000$.
After purchasing his food and paying for miscelaneous services provided by haliburton, the take home money is around 100$.
There is 100K soldiers in Iraq.
That is 100K x 1000 = 100 million dollars per day.
That explains the 3 Billions spent each month.
This cash is paid by the american government (guess where they get their cash from.)
90% of the cash goes to haliburton & co.
10% goes in the soldiers pockets.

So, this war will cost each american 120$ each year. (3Billion*12month/# of americans), so it is not really a big deal except that it is funding a very elite group of people making them rich enough to own a larger piece of the american pie.
 
  by: kmazzawi     10/19/2005 05:58 AM     
  bah  
 
You can quote Winston all you want it does not change the fact the American people where victims of a bait and switch by this administration.

We went there for WMD’s and Sodom Hussein for helping the 911 terrorist. All we find are lies. There are no WDM’s and Iraq had no connection to the terrorists. So why did we go there?

If we did go in for oil, and if the government goes bankrupt it’s no matter to people like defense contractors and Halliburton.

What makes your quote funny is Bush, Cheney and co. all have ties with defense contractors and energy companies.

The only other reason I can think of is immense incompetence on the part of the administration and our intelligence agencies.

Now if some has a different theory as to why our money and solders have been sucked into a quantum singularity please chime in.
 
  by: emp3r0r     10/19/2005 03:44 PM     
  Now we've got the trial of So Damn Insane  
 
That should keep americans distracted from worrying about Dubya MD's for a while :)
 
  by: CrisW   10/19/2005 03:56 PM     
  !@CrisW  
 
lol
 
  by: MmmMan     10/19/2005 07:11 PM     
  "Your Just Fanning The Flames of Hatered!"  
 

 
  by: tiggyfiggy   10/31/2005 01:09 AM     
  did any of you see snl this week?  
 
lol
(Condoleeza Rice is a) "bucked tooth white women with a tan." - Finesse Mitchell
 
  by: emp3r0r     10/31/2005 06:03 AM     
 
 
Copyright ©2018 ShortNews GmbH & Co. KG, Contact: info@shortnews.com