I don't get it - Condi goes before the Senate Foreign Relations Committee, is challenged by Barbara Boxer about her veracity, responds with at least one untruth, and gets confirmed. Towards the end of her testimony, in response to the no-WMD-in-Iraq problem, she said:
But it wasn't just weapons of mass destruction. He was also a place -- his territory was a place where terrorists were welcomed, where he paid suicide bombers to bomb Israel, where he had used Scuds against Israel in the past, and so we knew what his intentions were in the region, where he had attacked his neighbors before and, in fact, tried to annex Kuwait, where we'd gone to war against him twice in the past.
But Saddam did not pay "suicide bombers to bomb Israel" - he compensated their families after the Israelis had demolished their homes, which is categorically different. And to say Saddam welcomed terrorists in Iraq is vastly stretching the truth. And has the US really "gone to war against him twice in the past."? I remember the Gulf War but not the other one to which she's referring. Thus, Condi has a tenuous grasp on reality and an on-off relationship with the truth - yet the Senate has approved of her nomination. I just don't get it.