Top Scoops

Book Reviews | Gordon Campbell | Scoop News | Wellington Scoop | Community Scoop | Search


Condi Question: Is Unjustified 'Certitude' Lying?

A Question For Condi: Is Unjustified ''Certitude'' Lying?

By Dennis Hans

Here is the first question the Senate Foreign Relations Committee should pose to Condoleezza Rice Tuesday at her confirmation hearings for Secretary of State: Is it ''lying'' to say that something definitely is true when it is your understanding that this something ''might'' be true?

Most church-going folk — at least those with no connection to the Bush administration — would say that the situation just described is indeed lying.

If I suspect Dr. Rice of having stolen my wallet, but also realize that an innocent explanation — my penchant for misplacing my wallet — is a real possibility, and I proceed to go on national television and state as established fact that Dr. Rice stole my wallet, a decent, church-going type would say I lied. He or she would say I lied even if it turns out that Dr. Rice did steal my wallet, because I did not know that for a fact when I said it was a fact.

The good news is that Dr. Rice did not steal my wallet. But on September 8, 2002, shortly after the Bush administration launched its campaign to scare Americans to death over the threat of Iraqi WMD, Rice told CNN that those aluminum tubes Iraq was trying to covertly import are "only really suited for nuclear weapons programs,” adding ominously that “we don't want the smoking gun to be a mushroom cloud.” ( ).

At the very time she made that statement, she knew that experts within the government differed over the purpose and suitability of those tubes.

A truly ethical church-goer, armed with the same information, would have told CNN something like this: “The aluminum tubes are either for a nuclear program or for a non-nuclear purpose. One reason we need an aggressive inspections regime in place is so we can get definitive answers about those tubes and other aspects of Iraq’s nuclear program.”

The problem for us citizens back in 2002 is that we didn’t know the extent of Rice’s knowledge. We only found that out last fall, thanks to a lengthy story in the October 3 New York Times ( ) that revealed that key aides to Rice had known for more than a year that nuclear scientists at the Department of Energy regarded those tubes as very poorly suited as components of a nuclear centrifuge (perhaps impossibly so, for a host of technical reasons) but perfectly suited for non-nuclear rockets in Iraq’s conventional arsenal.

The morning the Times story appeared, Rice returned to the Sunday shows. Because she was questioned by the pathetic, poorly prepared Wolf Blitzer on CNN and George Stephanopoulos on ABC, she was never pinned down on the key question: Is it lying to express certitude when you know that certitude is not warranted?

Instead, she was able to dance around, asserting she knew about the intra-governmental debate about the tubes, though not the particulars. The hapless TV “journalists” did not press her on what exactly she did know about the debate. Rice also argued that in the post-911 environment the wise approach was to assume the worst: "a policymaker cannot afford to be on the wrong side, underestimating the ability of a tyrant like Saddam Hussein.” ( )

Left unasked was the obvious follow-up question to her dance:

“So why didn’t you say just that in 2002? We all would have understood the need to get inspectors in so we could get a definitive answer about those tubes. Instead you went on CNN and lied to the American people, telling us that the Bush administration KNEW that those tubes were for nuclear centrifuges, that those tubes had no other use. Why, Dr. Rice? Why?”

Let’s hope the senators who question Dr. Rice will not be as hapless as Blitzer and Stephanopoulos.


Bio: Dennis Hans ( is a freelance writer who has taught courses in mass communications and American foreign policy at the University of South Florida-St. Petersburg Prior to the Iraq war, Hans penned the prescient essays “Lying Us Into War: Exposing Bush and His ‘Techniques of Deceit’ ( and “The Disinformation Age” (

© Scoop Media

Top Scoops Headlines


Globetrotter: How AUKUS May Damage NATO
The fallout over the AUKUS deal, as we are now seeing, has been a severe rift in relations between two historic allies, the U.S. and France. And the collateral damage may also include NATO. Only weeks after U.S. President Joe Biden courageously ended the war in Afghanistan—in the face of bitter opposition from the media and Congress... More>>

ANZUS without NZ: Why AUSUK might not be all it seems
We live, to borrow a phrase, in interesting times. The pandemic aside, relations between the superpowers are tense. The sudden arrival of the new AUKUS security agreement between Australia, the US and UK simply adds to the general sense of unease internationally... More>>

Bill Bennett: Farewell Clive Sinclair
My first brush with Sinclair was as an A-level student in the UK. Before he made computers, Sinclair designed an affordable programmable calculator. It fascinated me and, thanks to a well-paid part-time job, I managed to buy one. From memory it could only handle a few programmable steps, but it was enough to make complex calculations.... More>>

Binoy Kampmark: Melbourne Quake: Shaken, Not Stirred

It began just after a news interview. Time: a quarter past nine. Morning of September 22, and yet to take a sip from the brewed Turkish coffee, its light thin surface foam inviting. The Australian city of Melbourne in its sixth lockdown, its residents fatigued and ravaged by regulations. Rising COVID-19 numbers, seemingly inexorable... More>>

Keith Rankin: New Zealand Superannuation: The Rules Versus Common Sense

Radio New Zealand (Checkpoint) ran stories last week about New Zealanders aged over 65 stranded in Australia who are at risk of having their pensions ('New Zealand Superannuation') stopped, and then having to repay the funds they received while in Australia... More>>

Dunne Speaks: Proud to call Aotearoa home

Te Paati Māori continues to provide a breath of fresh air in the political space, otherwise thoroughly choked by Covid19. Its call this week this week for a referendum on changing the country’s name to Aotearoa by 2026 is timely and a welcome diversion to the necessarily short-term focus engendered by Covid19... More>>