Anybody hear Sen.Boxer and Condie Rice?

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

  1. Jason Baker

    Jason Baker Member

    Joined:
    Oct 6, 2004
    Messages:
    775
    Likes Received:
    0
    Location:
    Ft. Mill, SC
    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?
     
  2. o mykiss

    o mykiss Active Member

    Joined:
    Sep 12, 2001
    Messages:
    1,389
    Likes Received:
    276
    Location:
    .
    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.
     
  3. Calvin1

    Calvin1 Member

    Joined:
    Feb 26, 2003
    Messages:
    629
    Likes Received:
    21
    Location:
    Seattle, WA
    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.

    Calvin
     
  4. chadk

    chadk Be the guide...

    Joined:
    May 10, 2004
    Messages:
    5,057
    Likes Received:
    42
    Location:
    Snohomish, WA.
    "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?

    :cool:
     
  5. Bright Rivers

    Bright Rivers Member

    Joined:
    Mar 5, 2004
    Messages:
    513
    Likes Received:
    1
    Location:
    Bellevue, WA, USA.
    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.
     
  6. Roper

    Roper Idiot Savant

    Joined:
    Apr 12, 2004
    Messages:
    4,657
    Likes Received:
    1,380
    Location:
    Glenraven Ranch
    Here I go... :ray1:

    Who gives a rats ass about the interview? Not me. Can Rice do the job? What is the job? So far no one, including Rice, has a plan to get out of Iraq.
    People are dying every day because of this stupid war, no one asked us to stick our nose in there. Iraqis had no coup planned to overthrow Saddam. The previous Bush administration knew what was waiting if they continued to invade Iraq. Seems Georgie Boy didn't listen.

    "Freedom" is not better off since this started, world unity has not backed this war, and global factions are probably split farther apart than ever.

    We need our representatives to find solutions not wage partisan pissing matches.
     
  7. Jason Baker

    Jason Baker Member

    Joined:
    Oct 6, 2004
    Messages:
    775
    Likes Received:
    0
    Location:
    Ft. Mill, SC
    The point is that when we invaded Iraq, 85% of Americans, and 95% of our elected officials WERE IN FAVOR of invading. You will now say that you were in dissent, obviously.

    The entire administration is responsible. We have a "check and balance" system in this country. It was followed and apparently, the easily duped Congress and Senate approved the invasion and appropriated the funds to fight.

    About the stats: I know the stats, deaths, money, and no results. Of course, I am disappointed in how this was handled. I, now, am more concerned with how we exit responsibily than I am in slinging mud. We are there by the power of the officials we elected. No scandal here. Move on!!!!

    The press: You bet they will be there. They were there when Seal Team III landed on the beaches of Somolia. Oh, I mean before they landed. The lights, cameras, and interview questions all seemed to affect the success of the soldiers mission. It was great news though!

    Questions: Better timing for questioning would have been before you voted to approve the invasion. Senator Boxer voted in favor of the Resolution authorizing the war in Iraq. Wait, I didn't do my homework, I cahnged my mind. I was, was ,was duped by the CIA and NSA. Those bastards are work for Bush.

    WMDs?:

    The picture belowwas taken in the aftermath of Saddam's attack using chemical weapons and cluster bombs on the Kurdish city of Halabja (population estimated at 70,000) on March 17, 1988. Halabja is located about 150 miles northeast of Baghdad and 8-10 miles from the Iranian border. The attack, said to have involved mustard gas, nerve agent and possibly cyanide, killed an estimated 5,000 of the town's inhabitants. The attack on Halabja took place amidst the infamous al-Anfal campaign, in which Saddam brutally repressed yet another of the Kurdish revolts during the Iran-Iraq war. Saddam is also said to have used chemical weapons in attacking up to 24 villages in Kurdish areas in April 1987.Of all the atrocities committed against the Kurds during the Anfal, Halabja has come to symbolize the worst of the repression of the Iraqi Kurds. Halabja was a town of 70,000 people located about 8-10 miles from the Iranian border. It became the target of conventional and chemical bomb attacks over three days in March of 1988.

    During those three days, the town and the surrounding district were unmercifully attacked with bombs, artillery fire, and chemicals. The chemical weapons were the most destructive of life. The chemicals used included mustard gas and the nerve agents sarin, tabun, and VX. At least 5,000 people died immediately as a result of the chemical attack and it is estimated that up to 12,000 people in all died during the course of those three days.

    I CALL THIS PRETTY GOOD EVIDENCE. WHAT DO YOU THINK FELLOWS?
     

    Attached Files:

  8. o mykiss

    o mykiss Active Member

    Joined:
    Sep 12, 2001
    Messages:
    1,389
    Likes Received:
    276
    Location:
    .
    I call it pretty pathetic evidence - an event 14 years ago? Hey, if you're comfortable going to war on that, I can just say I'm glad you're not president.
     
  9. Roper

    Roper Idiot Savant

    Joined:
    Apr 12, 2004
    Messages:
    4,657
    Likes Received:
    1,380
    Location:
    Glenraven Ranch
    First, I never believed America should make a pre-emptive strike, period.

    Second, not to diminish what occurred there, but why is it any different than any other recent occurrence of genocide? Why not attack Rwanda? We'd be in roughly 6 different wars if genocide were a reason for attack.
     
  10. Mark Ellerbrook

    Mark Ellerbrook Metolius

    Joined:
    Jul 1, 2003
    Messages:
    29
    Likes Received:
    0
    Location:
    Seattle.
    "I CALL THIS PRETTY GOOD EVIDENCE. WHAT DO YOU THINK FELLOWS?"

    I certainly agree that Hussein was a barbaric dictator - and I don't think anyone argues that he had WMD in the past. The issue, the the stated reason for war, was that sanctions were not working and that Iraq currently had WMDs - something that has now been discredited.
     
  11. Jason Baker

    Jason Baker Member

    Joined:
    Oct 6, 2004
    Messages:
    775
    Likes Received:
    0
    Location:
    Ft. Mill, SC
    Are you kidding? 12,000 people die and it's pathetic evidence? What's pathetic is that we didn't stay the cousre in '91 when this issue was current.
    Will you call the evidence of the World Trade Center Destruction in 2015 pathetic? All is forgiven, prove to me that they are bad today! No bombings this year, ah ha, I told you so. YOUR REPLY IS PATHETIC, WEAK, AND FRANKLY HARD TO STOMACH.

    You know what, I am you're not the President as well. You don't have the backbone for it!

    You remember those kids who got their asses kicked on the playground, right? (You may have been one of them?)
    Hint: Sooner or later, you have to stand up to those who do you harm.

    Hussein was a cruel, sinister dictator. The world is better without him. WMDs or not! So now, let's finish this thing so our kids or their kids don't have to.

    War is an ugly thing, but not the ugliest of things. The decayed and degraded state of moral and patriotic feeling which thinks that nothing is worth war is much worse. The person who has nothing for which he is willing to fight, nothing which is more important than his own personal safety, is a miserable creature and has no chance of being free unless made and kept so by the exertions of better men than himself.

    John Stuart Mill
     
  12. Steve Buckner

    Steve Buckner Mother Nature's Son

    Joined:
    Nov 19, 2003
    Messages:
    1,348
    Likes Received:
    14
    Location:
    Toledo, Wa. on the banks of the Cowlitz
    Home Page:
    I found a printed transcript of Boxer vs. Rice in yesterday's hearings. It is available through the LA Times :http://www.latimes.com/news/nationw...ext_wr,0,7859017.story?coll=la-home-headlines

    Continuing on with this discussion, my first question is "Were we justified in invading another country?"

    2. If we were justified, what were the reasons?

    3. If we were not justified, who should be held accountable?

    4. If a communist country had invaded Iraq and imposed Communism just as we have imposed "democracy" (and I use the term very loosely), would the US have an issue with that?

    Jason, where did you get the numbers that 85% of americans approved the invasion?

    When Iraq used chemical weapons, the US did not express any concern over their use, in fact, the US was one of Iraq's best allies at the time.

    So who is accountable? Well, I'd say it was congress to some extent, they turned over their power the the GWB. However, ultimately, at the point where GWB now had the power, it was ultimately his administration that is accountable.

    Nixon was impeached due to his roll in Watergate. Clinton was impeached because of a BJ from Monica. When GWB invades another country, kills tens of thousands of innocent people, he'll go through it without so much as a slap on the wrist, pathetic. So how is it that the US can be in such an uproar about Saddam's using WMD's on his people, when we have done much more damage in the last two years?

    This topic is an emotional one, we each have our points of view and varying amounts of information, which in itself, may be somewhat questionable. However our opinions divide us, we still need to be civil in these discussions.
     
  13. Jason Baker

    Jason Baker Member

    Joined:
    Oct 6, 2004
    Messages:
    775
    Likes Received:
    0
    Location:
    Ft. Mill, SC
    Bosnia = we were there and still are
    Somilia = did that
    Rwanda = deployed troops
    Haiti = got the t-shirt
    WW II = heard something about that

    We may not always step up, but our track record looks pretty good.

    Never a preemptive strike? Interesting? You sound like a good guy to box with?
     
  14. o mykiss

    o mykiss Active Member

    Joined:
    Sep 12, 2001
    Messages:
    1,389
    Likes Received:
    276
    Location:
    .
    Yes, pathetic evidence that Iraq was an imminent threat. If that was all it took to send us to war, the CIA wouldn't have had to do any intelligence gathering on what had happened to Iraq's WMD capabilities since the Gulf War. For crying out loud, not even Bush would have tried to sell the American people that Iraq was an imminent threat to our security solely because Saddam gassed his own people more than a decade earlier. After the Halabja incident, we'd blasted the hell out of the country's suspected weapons production facilities and had U.N. (including U.S.) weapons inspectors traipsing all over the country looking at things. The point is, even the administration has concluded there were no WMD at the time we invaded, despite what may have happened in '88. (That playground pansy dig was a real stinger. Oh, that hurt.)
     
  15. Jason Baker

    Jason Baker Member

    Joined:
    Oct 6, 2004
    Messages:
    775
    Likes Received:
    0
    Location:
    Ft. Mill, SC
    To compare our intentions with Saddam's intentions in gasing ethnic Kurds is down right ridiculous. Take breath my friend and reflect. This direction of your debate is just, for lack of a better term, STUPID! We killed a lot of Germans, Steve, does that make us terrible? Sometimes the end justify the means. In this case only time will judge of involvement. George Bush = Saddam Hussein. Shame on you!