Anybody hear Sen.Boxer and Condie Rice?

Discussion in 'Fly Fishing Forum' started by Steve Buckner, Jan 18, 2005.

  1. Did anybody listen to Senator Boxer crucify Condleeza Rice this morning as part of the senate hearings? Sen. Boxer showed her no mercy on the double speak that Rice has used. The saga continues of an administration that's lost it's way. You can hear the exchange in the link provided on NPR if you missed it.
  2. I heard some of it. I just felt embarrassed for California...
  3. Why? Because they have a Senator who will call her on the carpet for the mess we are in?

    The emperor has no clothes my friend.
  4. Hmmm...

    After contradictory statements by Ms. Rice, Sen. Boxer confronted her with quotes from her earlier unsworn testimony before a Senate committee in which Ms. Rice categorically affirmed the Administration's certainty that Saddam had and was preparing to use WMDs.

    Sen. Boxer isn't the only one who thinks Ms. Rice and her boss have both played fast and loose with the truth.

    I'm more embarassed for America.

  5. Why didn't she also quote JFKerry and other Dems (as well as other foreign leaders) who made the same statements??

    All we saw was political posturing...
  6. Chadk, you know, I honestly thought that pretty much everyone who claimed Iraq had WMD did so because did so because Condi and GWB said they had "secret info" that indicated this was the case.
    I could be totaly wrong about this however.
    I for one belived the president when he said that he knew they had WMD and for security reasons he could offer no proof. That was good enough for me.
    To say that I was disapointed when it turned out to be a mistake is a masive understatement.
    I don't really care who's fault it was, but do think its important that we find out. The assumption that the WMD'S excisted played a major roll in putting our friends and family in the military in harms way.
  7. iagree

    What was also pathetic was Rice's insisting that Boxer not impugn her integrity. All Boxer did was feed Rice back her own words. So who was impugning who? Basically, Boxer was warning Rice and Company against future double-speak and mid-stream horse changing. Sadly, I doubt the message sunk in. Nonetheless, Boxer deserves kudos for stepping up to the plate.
  8. Why weren't Kerry and other Dems quoted? Because they are not seeking the position of secretary of state and because they were not part of the current administration who sold a false bill of goods to the american public.

    The false bill of goods was the threat of Saddam Hussein possessing, aquiring, and potentially using WMD's. This was the justification that was used to scare a majority of the american public into siding with the Bush Admins Iraqi invasion. The Bush administration just last week acknowledged that they are no longer expecting to find WMD's...finally!

    The CIA has presented a recent report that Iraq is now the breeding grounds for Al-Queda, something that did not exist prior to the invasion by the US. A report that also came out last week has pointed out that on average, the people of Iraq have suffered the equivalent to our 911, losing approximately 2000+ people each week since our occupation. If we think we have rage over losing 2000+ people from 911, imagine the rage that they must harbor from our invasion.

    The Bush administration, and more specifically in this case, Condie Rice, refuses to acknowledge her mistakes in this process. It seems that she has become more interested in furthering her career than in her own integrity, a fault with most elected officials, both democrat and republican. Senator Boxer was trying to make sense of the contradictory statements made by Rice. Rice was cornered and she new it.

    The Bush administration has really bungled the situation in Iraq. Iraq is not prepared to deal with the election process. The Iraqi millitary is not strong enough to defend the "democratic" ideals that the US has imposed. We will not be leaving Iraq anytime soon, this point confirmed by Rice's refusal to discuss an exit strategy even today. We've continued to lose ground with Iran and with N. Korea. Our millitary is stretched beyond capacity in Iraq and there is no end in sight to the hostilities that grow against the US. There are more threats now than before.
  9. “And I will be placing into the record a number of such statements you made which have not been consistent with the facts.” Senator Barbara Boxer

    For the life of me, I cannot figure out what Skinny, Rob, and Kent are so impressed by. You can go down to the King County courthouse tomorrow and watch any two-bit public defense attorney use this type of technique to assail the credibility of their opponent, most of them much more effectively than Barbara Boxer did today.

    And what was her purpose? Other democrats (Kerry and Feingold, for example) asked Dr. Rice some very salient questions about current and future policies. But Boxer was fixated on the past, juxtaposing one Rice statement with another subsequent, and apparently inconsistent, Rice quote in an attempt to discredit her. Okay, but so what? The target of this technique never looks good, it’s easy to do, and the results could have been the same using past and present statements about Iraq war intelligence made by John Kerry, Joe Lieberman, Tony Blair, etc.

    Let me ask you one question: Did you learn anything from Boxer’s “grilling” or did you just enjoy the entertainment of her attempts to damage Dr. Rice’s credibility? Seriously, if you’re impressed by this sort of thing, you should tune into the Daily Show with John Stewart on Comedy Central every night at 11 pm. He does a much more effective job than Senator Boxer ever could, and at least he’s funny.

    For those who didn’t hear the testimony, let me encapsulate it for you with my own version:

    BOXER: Dr. Rice, before the war started, you said that Saddam Hussein had WMDs, and it turned out he didn’t. Furthermore, you said, and I quote “No one has ever said that Saddam could produce a nuclear weapon in a year,” but in fact, President Bush did say just that, and I can prove it.

    RICE: We had a very difficult intelligence challenge. We had a lot of information from a lot of different sources to work with and it turned out that some of our intelligence was good and some of it was bad.

    BOXER: Yeah, but you said . . .

    RICE: Are you calling me a liar?

    BOXER: No, I’m just sayin’.

    RICE: Saying what?

    BOXER: That you said some stuff that turned out to be wrong.

    RICE: So what?

    BOXER: Well, like, that’s not good.

    RICE: Are we almost done here?

    LUGAR: Okay, that’s enough ladies.

    Scintillating stuff!

    Besides, Boxer has her own inconsistencies to worry about. First, she said this:

    “Now, I don't want the families of those 1,366 troops that were killed or the 10,372 that were wounded to believe for a minute that their lives and their bodies were given in vain . . . but I also will not shrink from questioning a war that was not built on the truth.”

    And then she went on to lay out her case for how the war has all been in vain, quoting terrorism “experts” who say that the war has actually made America less safe. Now who’s talking out of both sides of her mouth?
  10. Sadly, we seem to be missing the point: has the war been successfull and if not , why not?

    In Vietnam what we had was a charade that finally collapsed when we were defeated and ran for our lives. What caused this? We gave thousands of lives and spent billions of dollars all for naught. We should try to understand this terrible page in our history (a page that raged for ten years) and not let it be repeated in Iraq.

    Each time we shot a Vietnamese we ignored the fact that he would leave behind many brothers and sisters, aunts and uncles who now would try to avenge his death. Where we killed one, we now had ten more to deal with. Do the math.

    The same in Iraq. Not only are we losing lives and spending billions, but we have the Vietnam syndrome in full force. We are killing thousands of Iraquis and creating ten fold oppositiion for each one we kill. Eventually the whole place will be massive killings with lots of shock and awe and we will be forced out.

    Iraq will return to a dictatorship as it has always has and eventually we will begin to trade again just as we do with Communist Vietnam.

    But why does all this have to go on? Is the military-industrial complex that Eisenhower warned us about in such full swing that even lies are over-looked? Can they get away with anything?

    Bob, the Glad I'm not young at this time on our planet. :ray1:
  11. I'll agree, John Stewart and the Daily Show is funny stuff!!!

    So why would Boxer want Rice to acknowledge her mistakes? Because hopefully, one would learn from their mistakes and not take the same path when given an opportunity. It would take true courage for Rice to acknowledge and admit her mistakes. Because Rice refused to say which of her contradictory statements were true, Boxer had no choice but to see her as a liar, and indeed, that's what she is.

    “Now, I don't want the families of those 1,366 troops that were killed or the 10,372 that were wounded to believe for a minute that their lives and their bodies were given in vain . . . but I also will not shrink from questioning a war that was not built on the truth.”

    It wasn't Boxer who convinced the American public of the need for invasion. In today's hearing, Boxer was trying to be diplomatic and not further insult those who have paid dearly for the mistakes of the Bush administration. It's not Boxer's position to defend the invasion and Boxer is not to blame for the deaths of either Americans or Iraqis.

    We do know that the war was not built on truth however. So is it wrong to expect truth from our elected officials? I certainly hope not but the secretness and subversion used by this administration are quite possibly unequaled. It shouldn't matter who is in office, dem or republican, we should demand that those who lead the country do better.
  12. Yes, yes, I understand. Bush lied. Conde lied. Rumsfeld lied. They're after the oil. It's Vietnam all over again.


    I still don't get it. What's new here? Have you picked up a newspaper any time in the last year and read the editorial page? If so, explain to me what it was about Boxers speech (and that's what it was -- she didn't ask any questions) that made you run to the computer saying I've got to start a thread about this? Boxer "crucified" her? Showed Rice "no mercy."

    I guess we all see what we want to see. I suppose I'm as guilty as the next guy. Still . . . :beathead:
  13. You are on point Bright Rivers. The "drones" tune into the evening news each night to see: fires, explosions, death, robberies, car accidents, protests, war statistics, dirt on celebs, politicians, and today Condi Rice. So few people make themselves aware of facts and news programs sensationalizes so much; it's easy to see why "the masses are a bunch of media manipulated asses." Remember, news programs exist to sell advertising on their stations. Big and exciting stories draw viewers; drawing viewers sell ads. Here's some boring stories: US Troops successful today; Improvements seen in Iraq, or any story with those boring, positive reports. After all, who wants a liitle thing like facts get in the way of a sensational story like: Vietnam II: The Iraq War? Now that will get them watching. Let's get those lefties rejoicing and those righties squirming! Genius, plain genius Bob! Keep it up and you'll be the head of programming.

    I want violence, something to bitch about, "what was that death toll again?", "pass me my budweiser!" the audience proclaims!

    It's all so predictable. Another vietnam I say! Our grandparents had Watergate, Mom and Dad Clintongate, gosh damnit, I want Iraqgate! It's about oil. We should pull-out! No blood for oil the college "causekid" screams.

    We live in a society where WWF Raw, monster truck shows, and Jerry Springer are hit shows. We all tune into NPR or talk radio to get "our viewpoints" told to us. What should we expect? Reflective opinions?

    Bright Rivers synopsis of today's event were right on the money. Political grandstanding! The Senate and Congress both approved and appropriated funds to invade Iraq. They were not "dupped" into it! The had the same facts as GW, Condi, and General (R) Powell. In the end, Dr. Rice will get her confirmation and yes, Jon Stewart will have a ball with it!

    War is ugly and tough. I know, we should have those crazy Iraqis settled done and having afternoon tea by now. We are in this thing for the long haul. We owe it to Iraq. We turned our backs on them in '91, shame on us if we do it again. Shame on any of you who would take out troops out now. If we did, hundreds of thousands would suffer!

    The economy, taxes, and soldiers deaths are the burdens we are forced to pay. If we leave, Iraqis will pay with their lives.
  14. Of course politics is being played. Of course some of it is of a partisan nature. But this a freaking job interview isn't it? Aren't the senators obligated to ask the tough questions to insure that the nominee is up to the task? Condi Rice might potentially be negotiating cease fires, peace accords, and nucular disarmament. And she might be sitting across the table from some Arab male who's wondering where her burka is. If Babs Boxer is able to ruffle her feathers even when Condi knows its coming, how is she going to deal with more seasoned diplomats?

    And as for the war, why did we fight it again? The questions and critiques are worth stating just to watch the Bush administration squirm. 'WMD's pose thing is we errrr know freedom is something to be enjoyed by peoples...liberation, etc.

    Look, this war was sold on national security reasons and based on some apparently faulty intelligence, period. There never would have been enough support for a war of liberation for the Iraqi people. There were probably several other reasons that war seemed a good idea to the Bush administration. 1) Iraq could be a bulwark or base of operations for the war on terror and a linch-pin (militarily, economically and philosophically) for combating muslim fundamentalism. And yes, it seems so far to be successful in fighting the war on terror on their soil and not ours. 2) Future oil contracts would benefit American companies and provide the country with the dope (oil) needed to maintain our lifestlye. 3) It would be easy. 4) We could end the tyranny of Saddam's reign, and bring peace to the Iraqi people.

    In essence, many factors went into the decision, and it's disengenuine to state that oil had nothing to do with it. But at this juncture it's fairly difficult to defend the success of this mission, especially the pre-war justifications (do any Bush supporters really want to go back and argue only WMD's and links to Al Quaeda again?) Hypothetical strategic reasons, profiteering, and America's addiction are a tough sell, liberating the Iraqi people is only a good sell after the fact. So you have a lot of stammering and squirming by the administration. But it sure is fun to watch.

    And Bright Rivers, you reccommending the Daily Show is just one more reason why you're our favorite conservative ;)
  15. Br/Jason,
    I guess the better question is, why are you so compelled to defend Bush and Condie Rice? What is it that they've done that is exemplary? Why would it not be propper for Boxer to ask Condie Rice what her real position is when she has made so many remarks that contradict each other? Why should the Bush administration not be put on trial? Is it because they are above the law like they would have us believe?

    And BR, you are correct, I took a great deal of satisfaction listening to Boxer interrogate Rice. The questions Boxer asked are exactly the types of questions that should be asked to someone who is about to take office as Secretary of State and who has done such a piss poor job in her previous role. I would like to see Bush and his entire administration accountable for what they have done, for the lives they've wrecked both home and abroad. Invading another country on false precepts and "faulty" intelligence should be grounds for a trial, but somehow, the Bush Admin has risen above the law.

    "Bright Rivers synopsis of today's event were right on the money. Political grandstanding! The Senate and Congress both approved and appropriated funds to invade Iraq. They were not "dupped" into it! The had the same facts as GW, Condi, and General (R) Powell. In the end, Dr. Rice will get her confirmation and yes, Jon Stewart will have a ball with it!"

    Was this political granstanding? Most certainly. It's what politicians do unfortunately. But the facts show that both that congress/senate and the american people were duped. If you'll recall, it was the Bush Administration who presented "overwhelming evidence of WMD'S" to congress and requested they turn over the power to declare war to the president, a power that was last granted to the president during the vietnam war, and like history before, it has turned out to be another fiasco. If we weren't duped, we would have found the WMD's...

    So we're in a real catch 22 with Iraq at this point. They anxiously want to get us out of the country. We have "granted" them the "right" to hold free elections. However, what if they elect to go back to the system they had? Or what if they elect one of the Sunis as their president? Iraq clearly does not have the ability to defend themselves from themselves and some experts are already predicting a civil war after the "elections".

    Are we in it for the long haul? Good question. The Bush administration would have us, the Iraqis, and the rest of the world believe that we're not "occupying" their country. Some believe that the sooner we can get out of there, the better the chances are for peace. However, the CIA has reported that Iraq is the new Afghanistan, a haven for extreme militant Islamists, this while we still have forces there.

    So what do we do? I'm not sure but it doesn't hurt to ask questions to those who'll be put in a position of power to see if they have really thought through the process unlike they did prior to the war. I will always be critical and skeptical of government no matter who's in power AND big business, they don't have much of a track record.
  16. Steve:

    It wasn't the need to ask the questions that I am concerned with, but the asking of them, the intense grilling, and then......drumroll......confirmation! If the Dems truly want to "hold the administration accountable", DO NOT CONFIRM! In the end, it is of course, a great opportunity to discredit a party and an administration (one, by the way, I didn't vote for); you can't pass a great opportunity for sleezy politics.

    As to congress being duped; we are talking about election government officials with years, if not decades, of experience. If they don't check their facts, ask for evidence, and question before approving; and yet beat the table after the fact, shame on them! If the war would have gone smoothly, they'd all be grandstanding about the great effort to implement democracy. They, and most of us for that matter, got caught up in our anger. Terrorist attacked innocent people and gosh dammnit, someone needs to pay. It was that anger that blinded Republican and Democrats alike.

    Now the armchair pundits get to sit around and play: "IF I Where President", it's such a fun game. Time to buck up boys, We wre there and in my estimate, for a long time. We need to stop discussing how we got there, and start discussing how we are ever going to be able to leave.

    This situation is like life or the jobs we all work: Never a shortage of those to point out problems, but solutions to problems on the other hand, CLEAR THE DECKS! Which group do you usually fit into?
  17. Jason and BR, please tell me if you disagree with these (what I consider to be) facts:

    1. The intelligence the administration relied on to decide to go to war was grossly wrong.

    2. We have spent hundreds of billions of dollars on the war.

    3. Over 1,300 Americans have died, and over 10,000 have been injured.

    4. Many thousands of Iraqis have been killed.

    These are not opinions; they're facts. Aren't they the very kinds of facts that we as Americans and our elected representatives ought to be asking questions about? If you don't, you frighten me, as there apparently is nothing this administration could do that you would care enough to ask questions about. That is blind loyalty.

    Dr. Rice has been proposed as Secretary of State. The Senate has a constitutional responsibility to advise the president on that appointment and ultimately either confirm it or not. I believe someone's veracity and judgment are two key areas the Senate should focus on when performing its constitutional duty. Boxer raised legitimate questions about both. You seem to be suggesting that simply because the Republicans control the vote on her confirmation, Democrats should just put their tails between their legs and crawl under the porch. Yeah, just like the Republicans did when Clinton was in office.

    Jason, you also seem to be suggesting that the press should not report on anything uncomfortable relating to the war, and focus instead on good things that are happening. If this administration could actually find and point the press to more concrete examples of progress, I guarantee the press would be there. The problem is, not many unvarnished examples of progress exist, or, maybe more accurately, where progress does exist it is a very complicate picture, with both good and bad. Hell, it wasn't too long ago that Richard Lugar and Chuck Hagel were calling the progress of our reconstruction efforts "an embarassment." Is the press not supposed to report that? Yeah, let's just all stick our heads in the sand until this is over.
  18. In my humble opinion, it's nice to see these individuals get some tough questions and be called to account. None of these individuals (Rumsfield, Cheney, Rice) have faced any difficult questioning regarding their roll in the ever deepening tragedy which is Iraq specifically and American foreign policy in general. It likely is just political grandstanding as confirmation is all but a foregone conclusion. The President is given leniency to choose his personal advisors, but if this were a nomination for the Federal Bench, I do think the Democrats would block the nomination.

    The Democrats dropped the ball by providing a rubber stamp for the Patriot Act and giving the President authority to wage his war of choice. Personally, I'm encouraged to see them developing more backbone.

    My 2 cents.

  19. "You seem to be suggesting that simply because the Republicans control the vote on her confirmation, Democrats should just put their tails between their legs and crawl under the porch."

    So let's see what actually did happen:

    "On a 16-2 vote, members of the Senate Foreign Relations Committee today voted to confirm Condoleezza Rice as secretary of state, sending her nomination to the full Senate for review. The two dissenting votes came from Democratic senators John Kerry and Barbara Boxer."

    Anyone surprised at that vote results? Why\why not?

  20. Okay, I think I see what’s going on here. The press reported that Barbara Boxer was tough on Condoleezza Rice, and so you’re assuming the Senator must have asked some potent hard hitting questions. But you didn’t actually hear the exchange, or read a transcript did you? You couldn’t have. Because if you had, you would know that Boxer didn’t ask one single question! Not even ONE! It was a speech, and kind of an average one at that.

    Please listen. No one (at least not me) is saying that Rice shouldn’t be asked tough questions during this very important confirmation process. Hold her feet to the fire. Try to pin her down. Make her squirm. See if you can ruffle her feathers. I’m all for it! I am just puzzled by your perception that Barbara Boxer did any of those things yesterday. It was an editorial of average quality concluding that the Bush administration is dishonest. It’s the umpteenth time I’ve heard it, except the first umpteen times the delivery was better.

    This is a worthwhile conversation. It’s just the lead in that has me confused.

Share This Page