Condi Rice had been invited to speak at commencement at Rutgers.
There was such a flap, she decided not to go. There are still many activist opportunities outside of the Controlled Demolition orthodoxy. I would urge you to keep on.
Here's what I sent to one of the leaders of the Rutgers faculty opposition to Condi:
In my many discussions with admirers of Dr. Rice I've found that they employ devious and ingenious arguments to inspire doubts among her critics.
They'll claim that only 60,000 civilians died in Iraq, they'll claim that she was right to err on the side of believing in the WMD threat even if the reports turned out to be erroneous, they'll claim the USA has sovereign exemption from the UN Charter and the UN Convention Against Torture and the Nuremberg Principles--despite Article 6 of the US Constitution. They'll claim that no one was tortured, and anyone who was, deserved it, and in any case interrogation protocols were a "tough decision" that Condi was tough enough to make it, keeping us safe. They'll claim that our criticisms are motivated by racism, by misogyny, by 20-20 hindsight, and by envy of her accomplishments. The discussion is unproductive because it's all opinion.ÂÂ
I try to stick to the facts: Condi lied under oath to the 9/11 Commission on April 8, 2004. The Jersey Widows of 9/11 were in the room at the time. They call her "KindaLiesaLot Rice". You can read the transcript (1) and you can read the document about which she lied(2). It was a CIA Presidential Daily Brief dated August 6, 2001 entitled "Bin Laden Determined to Strike in US".
It's an open and shut case.
Dr. Rice claimed that the memo "did not warn of attacks inside the United States. It was historical information based on old reporting. There was no new threat information, and it did not, in fact, warn of any coming attacks inside the United States. . . .  There was nothing in this memo as to time, place, how or where. This was not a threat report to the President or a threat report to me."
Here's what the memo said. "An Egyptian Islamic Jihad (EIJ) operative [said] . . . that bin Laden was planning to exploit the operative's access to the U.S. to mount  a terrorist strike. . . . [The FBI finds] patterns of suspicious activity in this country consistent with preparations for hijackings or other types of attacks . . . . CIA and the FBI are investigating a call to our embassy in the UAE in May saying that a group of bin Laden supporters was in the U.S. planning attacks."
9/11 widow Lorie Van Auken gives her analysis of the memo at 2:48 in this five-minute youtube (3): "That's present tense and domestic".
(1) http://govinfo.library.unt.edu/911/archive/hearing...
(2) http://www2.gwu.edu/~nsarchiv/NSAEBB/NSAEBB116/pdb...
(3) http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=CcrgeuLb3dQ
(The video goes on to present evidence that the memo was not just the 1-1/2 pages we've been given, that it was 11-1/2 pages as reported in the mainstream German press on October 2, 2002.)