4 ms·

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Condolezza_Rice#Iraq http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Condolezza_Rice#Iraq http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Condolezza_Rice#Role_in_author

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Condolezza_Rice#Iraq http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Condolezza_Rice#Iraq http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Condolezza_Rice#Role_in_authorizing_use_of_controversial_interrogation_techniques http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Condolezza_Rice#Role_in_authori... The facts have been on the record for years now. She's guilty, but there will never be a formal trial specifically because power will never turn on one of their own if there's nothing to gain.

notd97843 13y ago
Hate to break this to you, but Wikipedia is not due process. http://archive.is/vAWQa http://archive.is/vAWQa
- DominikR 13y ago
  That's usually the first thing that war criminals come up with to shield themselves from prosecution. "They just didn't know better" It doesn't matter if they knew or didn't, they are responsible for what they did. If ignorance was sufficient, they'd place a donkey in the white house and wash their hands in innocence.
  - gfsdg4g54 13y ago
    You're accusing her of war crimes. The burden of proof is on you to prove that she is a war criminal. Cite admissible evidence only, please (not Wikipedia links). We can try her in court once you give us the evidence. You only have to meet the plausible cause standard.
    - clavalle 13y ago
      Ok. Do we get a discovery process where we can sift through all of the correspondence and information they had in the run up to the Iraq war? No? It will be released 25 years after the fact /if/ they are not ordered to remained sealed. I guess we'll have to wait a little while for your admissible evidence. How convenient.
- JabavuAdams 13y ago
  I'm not sure what you're trying to prove. I don't care whether Bush et. al. lied about Iraq. I'm not here to prosecute them. I have not called them war criminals. I am disgusted by the way the Iraq war was sold to the American public. I'm disgusted by the legitimizing of torture, both legally and culturally, and I disdain anyone who was a part of that fiasco. As a non-American living in another country at the time it couldn't have been more apparent how different the "facts" were inside the US reality distortion bubble and outside of it. E.g. in Canada we watch both US and Canadian news shows. Watching the same events reported in both gives an incredible insight into the amount of propaganda that US citizens are subject to. Look up Knight Ridder's reporting on the run up to the Iraq war if you want to look at some good American coverage at the time.
schintan 13y ago
Was there a similar outcry when she joined the Stanford faculty ? Did everyone decide to shun Stanford ? If not , I am curious why her being a faculty member was acceptable and being on the board of Dropbox is not, since the outrage is for her being a liar and a war perpetrator and not due to her skills for the job.
- deleted 13y ago
  [deleted]
- frandroid 13y ago
  She was Stanford tenured faculty (and maybe even Provost) before joining the Bush administration, and took leave to take her appointments. She then rejoined Standford later. People did complain about that, anyway.

notd97843 13y ago

Hate to break this to you, but Wikipedia is not due process. http://archive.is/vAWQa http://archive.is/vAWQa

DominikR 13y ago
That's usually the first thing that war criminals come up with to shield themselves from prosecution. "They just didn't know better" It doesn't matter if they knew or didn't, they are responsible for what they did. If ignorance was sufficient, they'd place a donkey in the white house and wash their hands in innocence.
- gfsdg4g54 13y ago
  You're accusing her of war crimes. The burden of proof is on you to prove that she is a war criminal. Cite admissible evidence only, please (not Wikipedia links). We can try her in court once you give us the evidence. You only have to meet the plausible cause standard.
  - clavalle 13y ago
    Ok. Do we get a discovery process where we can sift through all of the correspondence and information they had in the run up to the Iraq war? No? It will be released 25 years after the fact /if/ they are not ordered to remained sealed. I guess we'll have to wait a little while for your admissible evidence. How convenient.
JabavuAdams 13y ago
I'm not sure what you're trying to prove. I don't care whether Bush et. al. lied about Iraq. I'm not here to prosecute them. I have not called them war criminals. I am disgusted by the way the Iraq war was sold to the American public. I'm disgusted by the legitimizing of torture, both legally and culturally, and I disdain anyone who was a part of that fiasco. As a non-American living in another country at the time it couldn't have been more apparent how different the "facts" were inside the US reality distortion bubble and outside of it. E.g. in Canada we watch both US and Canadian news shows. Watching the same events reported in both gives an incredible insight into the amount of propaganda that US citizens are subject to. Look up Knight Ridder's reporting on the run up to the Iraq war if you want to look at some good American coverage at the time.

schintan 13y ago

Was there a similar outcry when she joined the Stanford faculty ? Did everyone decide to shun Stanford ? If not , I am curious why her being a faculty member was acceptable and being on the board of Dropbox is not, since the outrage is for her being a liar and a war perpetrator and not due to her skills for the job.

deleted 13y ago
[deleted]
frandroid 13y ago
She was Stanford tenured faculty (and maybe even Provost) before joining the Bush administration, and took leave to take her appointments. She then rejoined Standford later. People did complain about that, anyway.