Barbara Boxer already laying the seeds against Condi

Discussion in 'Free Speech Alley' started by tirk, Jan 18, 2005.

  1. tirk

    tirk im the lyrical jessie james

    Joined:
    Feb 4, 2004
    Messages:
    45,314
    Likes Received:
    18,957
    for Hillary-2008.


    she is pathetic. Condaleezza Rice is so much more educated and outclasses her in every way, she shouldn't even have to be near her, much less feel the need to respond.

    part of the transcripts of remarks between the two @ Rice's confirmation hearing:



    SEN. BOXER: Thank you very much, Mr. Chairman. Thank you, Dr. Rice, for agreeing to stay as long as it takes, because some of us do have a lot of questions.

    And, Senator Lugar, you are a very fair chairman, and I wanted to say to the new members also welcome -- and you'll enjoy this committee, because we have such a great chairman and such a terrific ranking member, and we really do a lot of things in a bipartisan way, unlike other committees. And I think you're going to enjoy your time here.

    Dr. Rice, before I get to my formal remarks, you no doubt will be confirmed -- that's at least what we think. And if you're going to become the voice of diplomacy -- this is just a helpful point -- when Senator Voinovich mentioned the issue of tsunami relief, you said -- your first words were, "The tsunami was a wonderful opportunity for us." Now, the tsunami was one of the worst tragedies of our lifetime -- one of the worst -- and it's going to have a 10-year impact on rebuilding that area. I was very disappointed in your statement. I think you blew the opportunity. You mention it as part of one sentence. And I would hope to work with you on this, because children are suffering, we're worried they're going to get in the sex trade. This thing is a disaster, a true natural disaster and a human disaster of great proportions, and I hope that the State Department will take a huge lead under your leadership in helping those folks in the long range.

    Well, Mr. Chairman, again I thank you. I am -- Dr. Rice, I was glad you mentioned Martin Luther King -- it was very appropriate, given everything. And he also said, Martin Luther King, quote, "Our lives begin to end the day we become silent about the things that matter." And one of the things that matters most to my people in California and the people in America is this war in Iraq.

    Now, it took you to page three of your testimony to mention the word "Iraq." You said very little really about it, and only in the questioning have we been able to get into some areas. Perhaps you agree with President Bush, who said all that's been resolved. I'm quoting today's Post: "Bush said in an interview last week with the Washington Post that the '04 election was a moment of accountability for the decisions he made in Iraq." But today's Washington Post/ABC poll found that 58 percent disapprove of his handling of the situation, to 40 percent who approve -- and only 44 percent said the war was worth fighting.

    So in your statement it takes you to page three to mention the word "Iraq." Then you mention it in the context of elections -- which is fine -- but you never even mention indirectly the 1,366 American troops that have died, or the 10,372 who have been wounded -- many mentally, as a report that I read over the weekend that maybe a third will come home and need help because of what they saw -- it's been so traumatic to them. And 25 percent of those dead are from my home state. And this from a war that was based on what everyone now says, including your own administration, were falsehoods about WMDs, weapons of mass destruction. And I've had tens of thousands of people from all over the country say that they disagree -- although they respect the president -- they disagree that this administration and the people in it shouldn't be held accountable. I don't know if you saw the movie, "The Fog of War" -- war is a nightmare, you know that. Colin Powell I think was the most eloquent I've heard on it, because he's seen it himself -- he's been there and done it. And I don't want to have you in a circumstance where you're writing something years later about the fog of war. And I'm fearful if we don't see some changes here we're going to have trouble.

    And I think the way we should start is by trying to set the record straight on some of the things you said going into this war. Now, since 9/11 we've been engaged in a just fight against terror. And I, like Senator Feingold and everyone here who was in the Senate at the time, voted to go after Osama bin Laden and to go after the Taliban, and to defeat al Qaeda. And you say they have left territory -- that's not true. Your own documents show that al Qaeda has expanded from 45 countries in '01 to more than 60 countries today.

    Well, with you in the lead role, Dr. Rice, we went into Iraq. I want to read you a paragraph that best expresses my views, and ask my staff if they would hold this up -- and I believe the views of millions of Californians and Americans. It was written by one of the world's experts on terrorism, Peter Bergen, five months ago. He wrote: "What we have done in Iraq is what bin Laden could not have hoped for in his wildest dreams: We invaded an oil-rich Muslim nation in the heart of the Middle East, the very type of imperial adventure bin Laden has long predicted was the U.S.'s long-term goal in the region. We deposed the secular socialist Saddam, whom bin Laden has long despised, ignited Sunni and Shi'a fundamentalist fervor in Iraq, and have now provoked a defensive jihad that has galvanized jihad- minded Muslims around the world. It's hard to imagine a set of policies better designed to sabotage the war on terror." This conclusion was reiterated last Thursday by the National Intelligence Council, the CIA director's think tank, which released a report saying that Iraq has replaced Afghanistan as the training ground for the next generation of professionalized terrorists.

    That's your own administration's CIA. NIC chairman Robert Hutchings said Iraq is, quote, "a magnet for international terrorist activity."

    And this was not the case in '01. And I have great proof of it, including a State Department document that lists every country -- could you hold that up? -- in which al Qaeda operated prior to 9/11. And you can see the countries; no mention of Iraq. And this booklet was signed off on by the president of the United States, George W. Bush. It was put out by George Bush's State Department, and he signed it. There was no al Qaeda activity there -- no cells.

    Now, the war was sold to the American people, as Chief of Staff to President Bush Andy Card said, like a "new product." Those were his words. Remember, he said, "You don't roll out a new product in the summer." Now, you rolled out the idea and then you had to convince the people, as you made your case with the president.

    And I personally believe -- this is my personal view -- that your loyalty to the mission you were given, to sell this war, overwhelmed your respect for the truth. And I don't say it lightly, and I'm going to go into the documents that show your statements and the facts at the time.

    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, because when your commander-in-chief asks you to sacrifice yourself for your country, it is the most noble thing you can do to answer that call.

    I am giving their families, as we all are here, all the support they want and need. But I also will not shrink from questioning a war that was not built on the truth.

    Now, perhaps the most well-known statement you've made was the one about Saddam Hussein launching a nuclear weapon on America with the image of, quote, quoting you, "a mushroom cloud." That image had to frighten every American into believing that Saddam Hussein was on the verge of annihilating them if he was not stopped. And I will be placing into the record a number of such statements you made which have not been consistent with the facts.

    As the nominee for secretary of State, you must answer to the American people, and you are doing that now through this confirmation process. And I continue to stand in awe of our founders, who understood that ultimately those of us in the highest positions of our government must be held accountable to the people we serve.

    So I want to show you some statements that you made regarding the nuclear threat and the ability of Saddam to attack us. Now, September 5th -- let me get to the right package here. On July 30th, 2003, you were asked by PBS NewsHour's Gwen Ifill if you continued to stand by the claims you made about Saddam's nuclear program in the days and months leading up to the war.

    In what appears to be an effort to downplay the nuclear-weapons scare tactics you used before the war, your answer was, and I quote, "It was a case that said he was trying to reconstitute. He's trying to acquire nuclear weapons. Nobody ever said that it was going to be the next year." So that's what you said to the American people on television -- "Nobody ever said it was going to be the next year."

    Well, that wasn't true, because nine months before you said this to the American people, what had George Bush said, President Bush, at his speech at the Cincinnati Museum Center? "If the Iraqi regime is able to produce, buy or steal an amount of highly-enriched uranium a little larger than a single softball, it could have a nuclear weapon in less than a year."

    So the president tells the people there could be a weapon. Nine months later you said no one ever said he could have a weapon in a year, when in fact the president said it.

    And here's the real kicker. On October 10th, '04, on Fox News Sunday with Chris Wallace, three months ago, you were asked about CIA Director Tenet's remark that prior to the war he had, quote, "made it clear to the White House that he thought the nuclear-weapons program was much weaker than the program to develop other WMDs. Your response was this: "The intelligence assessment was that he was reconstituting his nuclear program; that, left unchecked, he would have a nuclear weapon by the end of the year."

    So here you are, first contradicting the president and then contradicting yourself. So it's hard to even ask you a question about this, because you are on the record basically taking two sides of an issue. And this does not serve the American people.

    If it served your purpose to downplay the threat of nuclear weapons, you said, "No one said he's going to have it in a year." But then later, when you thought that perhaps you were on more solid ground with the American people because at the time the war was probably popular, or more popular, you'd say, "We thought he was going to have a weapon within a year."

    And this is -- the question is, this is a pattern here of what I see from you on this issue, on the issue of the aluminum tubes, on the issue of whether al Qaeda was actually involved in Iraq, which you've said many times. And in my rounds -- I don't have any questions on this round, because I'm just laying this out; I do have questions on further rounds about similar contradictions. It's very troubling.

    You know, if you were rolling out a new product like a can opener, who would care about what we said? But this product is a war, and people are dead and dying, and people are now saying they're not going to go back because of what they experienced there. And it's very serious.

    And as much as I want to look ahead -- and we will work together on a myriad of issues -- it's hard for me to let go of this war, because people are still dying. And you have not laid out an exit strategy. You've not set up a timetable.

    And you don't seem to be willing to, A, admit a mistake, or give any indication of what you're going to do to forcefully involve others. As a matter of fact, you've said more misstatements; that the territory of the terrorists has been shrinking when your own administration says it's now expanded to 60 countries. So I am deeply troubled.

    MS. RICE: Senator, may I respond?

    >response here<
     
  2. Sourdoughman

    Sourdoughman TigerFan of LSU and the Tigerman

    Joined:
    Oct 11, 2003
    Messages:
    12,229
    Likes Received:
    426
    This is why the Dumbocrats will continue to lose in 2008 and probably beyond.
    They don't know when they should regroup and take a different strategy.

    Let's not forget that Kerry has been overseas blasting the war.
    With the developments today you think the election would still be going on.

    The Democrats are losers and have insured that they will continue to be losers until
    the next Bill Clinton comes along or someone convinces them to change strategies
    and quit attacking the president and the war effort.
    Lets not forget that the enemy can watch channels like CNN and hear Ted Kennedy say this is Bush's Vietnam.

    I double dare any Democrat or anyone that supported Kerry to try and defend the Dems against that point.
    It use to be treason to say such things and help encourage the enemy!

    Hillary aint got a snowballs change in hell to get elected, she will get less support than
    Kerry did, she might could carry some of the blue states but no way she could get any
    support from any borderline red state including Ohio.
     
  3. islstl

    islstl Playoff committee is a group of great football men Staff Member

    Joined:
    Nov 25, 2003
    Messages:
    44,348
    Likes Received:
    7,678
    Barbara Boxer is a disgrace to the American political system.
     
  4. SabanFan

    SabanFan The voice of reason

    Joined:
    Oct 21, 2002
    Messages:
    26,080
    Likes Received:
    1,245
    Not to mention her hair.
     
  5. red55

    red55 curmudgeon Staff Member

    Joined:
    Oct 21, 2002
    Messages:
    45,195
    Likes Received:
    8,733
    Sure, amigo. The democrats will be losers until they become winners again. We all agree on that.

    Well, since it is a double-dare . . . Get a grip, Sourdough! Freedom of speech and the existence of a political opposition have never been treason. They are constitutional rights, privileges, and duties of an American citizen.

    This Sieg Heil notion that any criticism of the government constitutes anti-Americanism is getting a little disturbing. Many of us think the enemy is being encouraged by putting a lot of Americans in position to be killed for no good purpose. The guerrilla insurrection is getting bigger, better organized and more effective every month.

    trea┬Ěson, noun: the offense of attempting to overthrow the government of one's country or of assisting its enemies in war; specifically : the act of levying war against the United States or adhering to or giving aid and comfort to its enemies by one who owes it allegiance.

    A citizen discussing politics critical of the political leaders of the United States IN NO WAY constitutes "attempting to overthrow the government", "levying war against the United States", or "giving aid and comfort to its enemies". A democratic Senator asking tough questions of a candidate to be Secretary of State is absolutely doing her job as a Congressional committee member.

    What are you afraid of us hearing?
     
  6. Sourdoughman

    Sourdoughman TigerFan of LSU and the Tigerman

    Joined:
    Oct 11, 2003
    Messages:
    12,229
    Likes Received:
    426
    I have to laugh at you red, I know its not treason but you are defending a man who
    is giving comfort and aid to the enemy.
    You can't argue with the fact that the enemy in this case can watch CNN and other outlets with people like Ted Kennedy spewing off garbage about Vietnam.
    If you want to defend people like this I suppose Michael Moore is next.

    Its funny how your side want to talk about casualties yet you have Kennedy and others in the democratic party responsible for some of our casualties in this war
    by giving comfort and confidence to the enemy.
    I guess I would have no problem with Ted Kennedy spewing their garbage if we were
    smart enough to make sure it wouldn't make it to the enemy lines.

    What are U afraid of hearing red?
    I don't care what the losers say if we were smart enough to make sure the enemy
    didn't hear this, then maybe not so many soldiers would die.
    Thats my a #1 problem with this!

    So, were there terrorist camps in Iraq Red or are you too afraid to remember that?
    Terrorist camps and warnings from Russia no good purpose?
    Hmmm

    http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,84291,00.html

    http://www.chron.com/cs/CDA/ssistory.mpl/special/iraq/1854928

    http://www.cnn.com/2004/WORLD/europe/06/18/russia.warning/

    http://cshink.com/cyanide_salt_block_found.htm

    http://www.cfr.org/background/background_iraq_ties.php

    So I guess you don't think these words can be heard overseas and the enemy
    can get comfort by them? I see.
    hmm
     
  7. islstl

    islstl Playoff committee is a group of great football men Staff Member

    Joined:
    Nov 25, 2003
    Messages:
    44,348
    Likes Received:
    7,678
    In a related story, the Communist Government of China has sent feelers out with their diplomats here in the US to see if Boxer and Kerry might be interested in high government posts.
     
  8. Beaux-Bo

    Beaux-Bo Founding Member

    Joined:
    Jan 13, 2004
    Messages:
    1,219
    Likes Received:
    78
    Boxer could not hold Rice's briefs. I understand and am thankful for the the checks and balances of powers... and the new committee member from Illinois (with the funny name) put this in perfect perspective this morning (imo). But Boxer and Kerry were grandstanding.

    On a side note... Boxer wanted to ask more questions on TV this morning. The chairman told her that he and Rice stayed for 50 extra minutes last night to answer questions off camera and no member stayed. He told Boxer if she wanted to ask any further question she should have stayed last night. He did not allow Boxer's question this morning. Good for him.
     
  9. red55

    red55 curmudgeon Staff Member

    Joined:
    Oct 21, 2002
    Messages:
    45,195
    Likes Received:
    8,733
    Sorry Sourdough, You can't blame Kennedy or Kerry or any other bogeyman for Iraq War casualties. This War is entirely the responsibility of George W. Bush and you know it.

    Are you trying to say that anytime there is a war going on that democracy is somehow suspended? Are you actually trying to say that people whose politics you don't happen to agree with are aiding the enemy? What a simple world you live in.
     
  10. Sourdoughman

    Sourdoughman TigerFan of LSU and the Tigerman

    Joined:
    Oct 11, 2003
    Messages:
    12,229
    Likes Received:
    426
    So U don't think the enemy is watching our news media and Ted Kennedy encourage the enemy, think again, that sure did happen in Vietnam.
    If this turns out to be G W Bush's Vietnam it will be because of people like Ted Kennedy and Michael Moore, the democratic party is so far to the left their about to
    fall of the edge.
    You think they would come up with something constructive instead of destructive.

    Quote:
    Even Giap admitted in his memoirs that news media reporting of the war and the antiwar demonstrations that ensued in America surprised him. Instead of negotiating what he called a conditional surrender, Giap said they would now go the limit because America's resolve was weakening and the possibility of complete victory was within

    Maybe simple but I live in reality and the real world.
    At least I admit there were terrorist camps in Iraq which your side has conveniently forgotten
     

Share This Page