Senator R. Byrd, during a one hour speech, lays bare the outright lies
and hyping of the threats of Iraq's WMD program and ties with Al Quaida.

It is amazing that instead of putting this animal in jail (or better
still, the gas chamber), they are nominating her to one of most
influential offices in the country. This is truly the height of
corruption.

SENATOR ROBERT BYRD: To put it plainly, Dr. Rice has asserted that the
president holds far more of the war power than the Constitution grants
him. This doctrine of attacking countries before a threat has fully
materialized was put into motion as soon as the National Security
Strategy was released. Beginning in September 2002, Dr. Rice also took a
position on the front lines of the administration's efforts to hype the
danger of Saddam's weapons of mass destruction. Dr. Rice is responsible
for some of the most overblown rhetoric that the administration used to
scare the American people into believing that there was an imminent
threat from Iraq. On September 8, 2002, Dr. Rice conjured visions of
American cities being consumed by mushroom clouds. On an appearance on
CNN, she warned, "The problem here is that there will always be some
uncertainty about how quickly he (meaning Saddam) can acquire nuclear
weapons. But we don't want the smoking gun to be a mushroom cloud." That
was Dr. Rice speaking. Dr. Rice also claimed that she had conclusive
evidence about Iraq's alleged nuclear weapons program. During that same
interview, she also said, "We do know that he is actively pursuing a
nuclear weapon. We do know that there has been shipments going into
Iraq, for instance, of aluminum tubes that are really only suited for
nuclear weapons programs."

Well, my fellow senators, we now know that Iraq's nuclear program was a
fiction. Charles Duelfer, the Chief Arms Inspector of the CIA's Iraq
Survey Group, reported on September 30, 2004 as follows: “Saddam Hussein
ended the nuclear program in 1991, following the Gulf War.” The Iraq
Survey Group found no evidence to suggest concerted efforts to restart
the program. But Dr. Rice's statements in 2002 were not only wrong; they
also did not accurately reflect the intelligence reports of the time.
Declassified portions of the CIA's National Intelligence Estimate from
October 2002 make it abundantly clear that there were disagreements
among our intelligence analysts about the state of Iraq's nuclear
program. But Dr. Rice seriously misrepresented their disputes when she
categorically stated, "We do know that Saddam is actively pursuing a
nuclear weapon." Her allegation also misrepresented to the American
people the controversy in those same intelligence reports about the
aluminum tubes. Again, Dr. Rice said that these tubes were really only
suited for nuclear weapons programs. But intelligence experts at the
State Department and the Department of Energy believed that those tubes
had nothing to do with building a nuclear weapon, and they made their
dissent known in the October 2002 National Intelligence Estimate. This
view, which was at odds with Dr. Rice's representations, was later
confirmed by the International Atomic Energy Agency and our own CIA arms
inspectors.

Well, Dr. Rice made other statements that helped to build a case for war
by implying a link -- a link -- between Iraq and September 11. On
multiple occasions, Dr. Rice spoke about the supposed evidence that
Saddam and al Qaeda were in league with each other. For example, on
September 25, 2002, Dr. Rice said on the PBS Newshour, "No one is trying
to make an argument at this point that Saddam Hussein somehow had
operational control of what happened on September 11. So, we don't want
to push this too far. But this is a story that is unfolding and it is
getting clear, and we're learning more, but, yes, there clearly are
contacts between al Qaeda and Iraq that can be documented. There clearly
is testimony that some of the contacts have been important contacts, and
that there is a relationship there." Well, what Dr. Rice did not say was
that some of those supposed links were being called into question by our
intelligence agencies such as the alleged meeting between a 9/11 ring
leader and an Iraqi intelligence agent in Prague that has now been
debunked. These attempts to connect Iraq and al Qaeda appear to be a
prime example of cherry-picking intelligence to hype the supposed threat
of Iraq, while keeping contrary evidence away from the American people,
wrapped up in the red tape of top secret reports.

Dr. Rice pressed the point even further, creating scenarios that
threatened tens of thousands of American lives, even when that threat
was not supported by intelligence. On March 9, 2003, just 11 days before
the invasion of Iraq, Dr. Rice appeared -- where? -- on "Face The
Nation." What did she say? She said, "Now, the al Qaeda is an
organization that's quite dispersed, and quite widespread in its effects
be it clearly has had linked to the Iraqis, not to mention Iraqi links
to all kinds of other terrorists. And what we do not want is the day
when Saddam Hussein decides that he has had enough of dealing with
sanctions, enough of dealing with, quote, unquote, containment, enough
of dealing with America, and it is time to end it on his terms by
transferring one of these weapons just a little vial of something, to a
terrorist for blackmail or for worse." Now, how scary is that? But the
intelligence community had already addressed this scenario with great
skepticism. In fact, the CIA's National Intelligence Estimate from
October, 2002, concluded that it had low confidence -- quote, “low
confidence,” close quote -- that Saddam would ever transfer any weapons
of mass destruction -- weapons that he did not have, as it turned out --
to anyone outside his control.

This is yet more evidence of an abuse of intelligence in order to build
the case for an unprovoked war with Iraq. And what has been the effect
of the first use of this reckless doctrine of preemptive war? In the
most ironic and deadly twist, the false situation described by the
administration before the war, namely that Iraq was a training ground
for terrorists poised to attack the United States is exactly the
situation that our war in Iraq has created. But it was this unjustified
war that created the situation that the President claimed he was trying
to prevent. Violent extremists have flooded into Iraq from all corners
of the world. Iraqis have taken up arms themselves to fight against the
continuing US occupation of their country.

SENATOR ROBERT BYRD: There are also many unanswered questions about Dr.
Rice's record as National Security Adviser. Richard Clarke, the former
White House counterterrorism adviser, has leveled scathing criticism
against Dr. Rice and the National Security Council for failing to
recognize the threat from al Qaeda and Osama bin Laden in the months
leading up to the September 11, 2001, terrorist attacks. In particular,
Mr. Clarke states that he submitted a request on January 25, 2001, for
an urgent meeting of the National Security Council on the threat of al
Qaeda. However, due to decisions made by Dr. Rice and her staff, that
urgent meeting did not occur until too late. The meeting was not
actually called until September 4, 2001. Mr. Clarke, who is widely
acknowledged as one of the leading authorities on terrorism in
government at that time, told the 9/11 Commission that he was so
frustrated with those decisions that he had asked to be reassigned to
different issues, and the Bush White House approved that request.

Dr. Rice appeared before the 9/11 Commission on April 8, 2004, but if
anything, her testimony raised only more questions about what the
president and others knew about the threats to New York City and
Washington, D.C., in the weeks before the attacks and whether more could
have been done to prevent them. Why wasn't any action taken when she and
the president received an intelligence report on August 6, 2001,
entitled, quote, “Bin Laden determined to attack inside the United
States”? Why did Dr. Rice and President Bush reassign Richard Clarke,
the leading terrorism expert in the White House, soon after taking
office in 2001? Why did it take nine months for Dr. Rice to call the
first high level National Security Council meeting on the threat of
Osama bin Laden?

As the Senate debates her nomination today, we still have not heard full
answers from Dr. Rice to these questions. In addition to Mr. Clarke's
criticism, Dr. David Kay, the former C.I.A. weapons inspector in Iraq
also has strong words for the National Security Council and its role in
the run-up to the war in Iraq. When Dr. Kay appeared before the Senate
Intelligence Committee on August 18, 2004, to analyze why the
administration's prewar intelligence was so wrong, so wrong about
weapons of mass destruction, he described the National Security Council
as the dog that didn't bark to warn the president about the weaknesses
of those intelligence reports. Dr. Kay continued, and I quote, "Every
president who has been successful, at least that I know of, in the
history of this republic, had developed both informal and formal means
of getting checks on whether people who tell him things are in fact
telling him the whole truth. The recent history has been a reliance on
the N.S.C. system to do it. I quite frankly think that that has not
served this president very well." Mr. President, that is the close of
the quotation.

What Dr. Kay appears to state was his view that the National Security
Council, under the leadership of Dr. Rice, did not do a sufficient job
of raising doubts about the quality of the intelligence about Iraq. On
the contrary, based upon Dr. Rice's statements that I quoted earlier,
her rhetoric even went beyond the questionable intelligence that the
C.I.A. had available on Iraq in order to hype the threats of aluminum
tubes, mushroom clouds, and connections between Iraq and September 11.
In light of the massive reorganization of our intelligence agencies
enacted by Congress last year, shouldn't this nomination spur the Senate
to stop, look, and listen about what has been going on in the National
Security Council for the last four years? Don't these serious questions
about the failings of the National Security Council under Dr. Rice
deserve a more thorough examination before the Senate votes to confirm
her as the next Secretary of State?

Mr. President, accountability has become an old-fashioned notion in some
circles these days. But accountability is not a negotiable commodity
when it comes to the highest circles of our nation's government. The
accountability of government officials is an obligation, not a luxury.
And yet accountability is an obligation that this president and this
president's administration appear loathe to fulfill. Instead of being
held to account for their actions, the architects of the policies that
led our nation down the road into war with Iraq, policies based on
faulty intelligence and phantom weapons of mass destruction, have been
rewarded by the president with accolades and promotions. Instead of
admitting to mistakes in the war on Iraq, instead of admitting to its
disastrous aftermath, the president and his inner circle of advisers
continue to cling to myth -- myths and misconceptions. The only notion
of accountability that this president is willing to acknowledge is the
November elections, which he has described as a moment of accountability
and an endorsement of his policies. Unfortunately, after the fact of
validation of victory is hardly the standard of accountability that the
American people have the right to expect from their elected officials.
It is one thing to accept responsibility for success. It's quite another
to accept accountability for failure. Sadly, failure has tainted far too
many aspects of our nation's international policies over the past four
years, culminating in the deadly insurgency that has resulted from the
invasion of Iraq.

With respect to this particular nomination, I believe that there needs
to be accountability for the mistakes and the missteps that have led the
United States into the dilemma in which it finds itself today, besieged
by increasing violence in Iraq, battling an unprecedented decline in
world opinion, and increasingly isolated from our allies due to our
provocative, belligerent, bellicose and unilateralist foreign policy.
Whether the administration will continue to pursue these policies cannot
be known to senators today as we prepare to cast our votes. At her
confirmation hearing on January 18, Dr. Rice proclaimed that our
interaction with the rest of the world must be a conversation, not a
monologue. But two days later, President Bush gave an inaugural address
that seemed to rattle sabers at any nation that he does not consider to
be free. Before senators cast their votes we must wonder whether we are
casting our lot for more diplomacy or more belligerence, reconciliation
or more confrontation. Which face of this Dr. Jekyll and Mr. Hyde
foreign policy will be revealed in the next four years?

Although I do not question her credentials, I do oppose many of the
critical decisions that Dr. Rice has made during her four years as
National Security Adviser. She has a record, and the record is there for
us to judge. There remain too many unanswered questions about Dr. Rice's
failure to protect our country before the tragic attacks of September
11, her public efforts to politicize intelligence and her often-stated
allegiance to the doctrine of preemption. To confirm Dr. Rice to be the
next Secretary of State is to say to the American people and to the
world that the answers to those questions are no longer important. Her
confirmation will almost certainly be viewed as another endorsement of
the administration's unconstitutional doctrine of preemptive strikes,
its bullying policies of unilateralism and its callus rejection of our
longstanding allies.

Mr. President, Dr. Rice's record in many ways is one to be greatly
admired. She is a very intelligent lady, very knowledgeable about the
subject matter, very warm and congenial, but the stakes for the United
States are too high. I cannot endorse higher responsibilities for those
who helped to set our great country down the path of increasing
isolation, enmity in the world and a war that has no end. Oh, when will
our boys come home? When will our men and women be able to sit down at
the table with their families and their friends in their own communities
again? For these reasons, I shall cast my vote in opposition to the
confirmation of Condoleezza Rice to be the next Secretary of State.

Senator R. Byrd, during a one hour speech, lays bare the outright

and hyping of the threats of Iraq's WMD program and ties with Al

It is amazing that instead of putting this animal in jail