![[personal profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/user.png){kind=small}
...not that she phrased it that way.
Condoleezza Rice was asked specifically about whether the intelligence the White House used about WMD to justify the war was current, or whether it was the same-old/same-old unverifiable stuff about Iraq that's been knocking about for years.
Rice is insisting the White House was using new, recent, and persuasive intelligence.
From an article on the Reuters feed at Yahoo:
"There was enrichment of the intelligence from 1998 over the period leading up to the war," Rice said on the "Fox News Sunday" program. "And nothing pointed to a reversal of Saddam Hussein's very active efforts to acquire weapons of mass destruction... It was very clear that this continued and it was a gathering danger. Yes, I think I would call it new information and it was certainly enriching the case in the same direction."
The thing of it is, Rice has testified before Congress repeatedly on this issue. Under oath. And she's mentioning something she never has in the past.
So either she illegally failed to reveal the truth to Congress previously, or she's lying. Pick one.
If I was on the relevant committees, I'd send her a subpoena tomorrow.
Condoleezza Rice was asked specifically about whether the intelligence the White House used about WMD to justify the war was current, or whether it was the same-old/same-old unverifiable stuff about Iraq that's been knocking about for years.
Rice is insisting the White House was using new, recent, and persuasive intelligence.
From an article on the Reuters feed at Yahoo:
"There was enrichment of the intelligence from 1998 over the period leading up to the war," Rice said on the "Fox News Sunday" program. "And nothing pointed to a reversal of Saddam Hussein's very active efforts to acquire weapons of mass destruction... It was very clear that this continued and it was a gathering danger. Yes, I think I would call it new information and it was certainly enriching the case in the same direction."
The thing of it is, Rice has testified before Congress repeatedly on this issue. Under oath. And she's mentioning something she never has in the past.
So either she illegally failed to reveal the truth to Congress previously, or she's lying. Pick one.
If I was on the relevant committees, I'd send her a subpoena tomorrow.
