Skip

Go Barbara Boxer
January 18, 2005 12:33 PM   Subscribe

Boxer Go Barbara Boxer
posted by milkman (79 comments total)

 
sorry about the redundant link and the weird sytax. i meant:

Go Barbara Boxer!
posted by milkman at 12:39 PM on January 18, 2005


Are we seeing spine developing?

Is it possible there's at least one fighter in the Dem party?

More like this please. Go home Lieberman.
posted by nofundy at 12:40 PM on January 18, 2005


But she was *crying* during the certification of the electoral vote. If that doesn't scream phony, I don't know what does.
posted by xmutex at 12:41 PM on January 18, 2005


MS. RICE: We are all, as a collective polity of the United States, trying to deal with ways to get better intelligence.

Does she mean, through her use of the word "deal", that the United States is attempting to put an end to any attempts to increase the collective level of intelligence within its borders?
posted by Stonewall Jackson at 12:45 PM on January 18, 2005


Yeah, it's good to see a fighter.

I like this remark in particular:

MS. RICE: Senator, we can have this discussion in any way that you would like. But I really hope that you will refrain from impugning my integrity. Thank you very much.

SEN. BOXER: I'm not. I'm just quoting what you said. You contradicted the president and you contradicted yourself.


Wait, why is crying phoney?
posted by Specklet at 12:47 PM on January 18, 2005


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.
posted by milkman at 12:53 PM on January 18, 2005


I'm glad a democrat finally has some sand in their vag.... I mean, decides to take a stand and fight back.
posted by Arch Stanton at 12:55 PM on January 18, 2005


It appears that Ms. Boxer is under attack by a gang of feral microphones.
posted by punishinglemur at 12:58 PM on January 18, 2005


What we need is a boxer.
posted by Outlawyr at 12:59 PM on January 18, 2005


I, for one, am looking forward to seeing how this is covered on the Daily Show tonight. :)
posted by teletype1 at 1:00 PM on January 18, 2005


What I found most telling about this exchange is that Sen. Boxer points out contradictions, and Ms. Rice takes this as a personal affront to her integrity. Sen. Boxer then offers Ms. Rice an out -- Well, if you can't admit to this mistake, I hope that you'll ... -- and Ms. Rice again takes it as a personal attack.

So, if it wasn't an honest mistake, and it wasn't a lie, then what was it?

Bush Administration Political Strategy #7: Misdirection (see also Bush Administration Political Strategy #3: Attacking the Messenger)
posted by timing at 1:05 PM on January 18, 2005


I bet Boxer can kick Hilary Swank's scrawny million-dollar ass
posted by matteo at 1:05 PM on January 18, 2005


Rice is another whore for the Republicans. And I too love that lame tone of indignation--misdirection indeed.
posted by bardic at 1:08 PM on January 18, 2005


Bush Administration Political Strategy #7: Misdirection

And that's unique to Bush how? Remember the old joke? "How can you tell if a politician is lying? Their mouth is moving." Holds across every single politician in the world. Go back to the times when Kerry would get questioned about gay marriage and all of a sudden he'd be talking about something completely different.
posted by thedevildancedlightly at 1:10 PM on January 18, 2005


"The tsunami was a wonderful opportunity for us."

...man, if that doesn't sum up this administration...
posted by j.p. Hung at 1:11 PM on January 18, 2005


Boxer has always had a brass pair (excuse the pun). She's been overshadowed by Feinstein in the past, but maybe she's coming into her own now. I'm so proud of her for the voting thing--was she really the only Senator to stand with the Reps? (i missed it)
posted by amberglow at 1:17 PM on January 18, 2005


Barbara Boxer... The only Democrat with balls, oddly enough...
posted by jpburns at 1:17 PM on January 18, 2005


(damn you, amberglow...)
posted by jpburns at 1:18 PM on January 18, 2005


All I know is that if I ran into Condi Rice in a dark alley, I'd hand over my wallet without question. Especially after seeing xmutex's graphic up there (though the caption with it makes little sense to me). That woman is positively scary to look at.

The fact that she's woefully unqualified to be the Secretary of State matters not in the least, she'll lie in public (and know that people know she's lying) to cover her boss's ass and that's all that Bush really cares about.

And nice transcript addition Specklet, I'd seen Rice's snarl but not Boxer's reply to the snarl. Very nice!
posted by fenriq at 1:18 PM on January 18, 2005


There should be more politicians in the states doing these things -- and they should have started a few years ago.
posted by The God Complex at 1:23 PM on January 18, 2005


The Bush Administration prizes loyalty over all else, including integrity, honesty, and competence. Rice is the epitome of this ideology.

No text of these exchanges can do justice to actually hearing it though.
posted by Arch Stanton at 1:25 PM on January 18, 2005


A CODE NOZZLE

that is all.
posted by petebest at 1:37 PM on January 18, 2005


In the clearing stands a Boxer and a fighter by her trade . . .
posted by kyrademon at 1:42 PM on January 18, 2005


When Rice is talking, she always seems about two seconds away from crying. It's the way her voice stutters slightly, and seems to rise whenever someone asks her questions.

Absolutely horrible public speaker. Just, awful.

In fact, her poor public speaking ability is rivaled only by her ineptitude as National Security Advisor.
posted by SweetJesus at 1:44 PM on January 18, 2005


I, for one, am looking forward to seeing how this is covered on the Daily Show tonight. :)

My thoughts exactly.
posted by mudpuppie at 1:46 PM on January 18, 2005


Cspan.com has the video of the whole hearings for those interested. I don't know the time of Boxer's questioning, but it's probably best to listen to the whole thing for completeness.
posted by jonah at 1:46 PM on January 18, 2005


Everyday this place gets closer to DU and DailyKos.



BEST OF THE WEB INDEED
posted by Steve_at_Linnwood at 1:47 PM on January 18, 2005


Condoleeza Rice gives me the heebie-jeebies like no one else. There is something oddly wrong about her.
posted by five fresh fish at 1:48 PM on January 18, 2005


Feh. I wrote Boxer once, as my rep, in regards to regulating internet radio. She sent me a bulk reply detailing her severely malformed views on copyright law and then added me to her bulk email list. Later, a bunch of "Re-Elect me, you tool!" spam appears in my inbox.

She voted for the regulation and fee schedules, AFAIR. She lost me ages ago.

On preview: Shut your piehole, S@L.

five fresh fish: That's because she's an alien lizard -thing wearing human skin. She's here to eat babies.
posted by loquacious at 1:52 PM on January 18, 2005


On preview: Shut your piehole, S@L.

Yes, HOW DARE I DISRUPT THE LEFTTY PEP-RALLY!
posted by Steve_at_Linnwood at 1:55 PM on January 18, 2005


And that's unique to Bush how?

It's not. However, he's the current President, and Ms. Rice (whom Bush has nominated to be his top diplomat) is testifying before Congress.

Go back to the times when Kerry would get questioned about gay marriage and all of a sudden he'd be talking about something completely different.

I won't dispute that Kerry hemmed and hawed with the best of them on that particular issue, but I must strongly disagree if you are implying that misdirecting to the press about a sensitive social issue is equivalent to misdirecting when asked under oath before Congress about reasons for going to war.
posted by timing at 1:59 PM on January 18, 2005


Steve proves again that he's just a petulant child.

Don't you have a Freeper convention to attend?
posted by bshort at 2:02 PM on January 18, 2005


Yes, HOW DARE I DISRUPT THE LEFTTY PEP-RALLY!

What a fucking baby you are... You've got your man in the office, and you can't take a bunch of people on the internet who have contrary opinions, *gasp*, discussing their opinions.

If you want an echo-chamber, go to Free Republic.
posted by SweetJesus at 2:05 PM on January 18, 2005


Hey: tomorrow is the inauguration! It's only a day away.
posted by ParisParamus at 2:05 PM on January 18, 2005


You've got your man in the office, and you can't take a bunch of people on the internet who have contrary opinions, *gasp*, discussing their opinions.

Hey, I can take it. MetaFilter is not the place for it.

If you want an echo-chamber, go to Free Republic.

My point exactly!

If you want an echo-chamber, go to Democratic Underground.
posted by Steve_at_Linnwood at 2:07 PM on January 18, 2005


tomorrow is the inauguration

Huh? Last time I checked, Inauguration Day is January 20. Just can't wait for Christmas, huh?
posted by timing at 2:09 PM on January 18, 2005


I think Barbra Boxer is way more attractive than Condi Rice and her suit has a sharp, independent, and sexy and fun-yet-professional feel to it.

Maybe I should go to E!.
posted by Arch Stanton at 2:10 PM on January 18, 2005


OK, make that January 20.
posted by timing at 2:11 PM on January 18, 2005


"LEFTTY PEP-RALLY"? Thank you, drive through. Would you like fries with that?

Did you just miss the fact I was expressing my loathing of Boxer and the riotous way she carries on with the record and copyright control industry? Or does that malformed gloating that's growing out of your neck block your vision?
posted by loquacious at 2:13 PM on January 18, 2005


I don't know if you can, Steve. The opposite of love isn't hate, it's ambivalence. Do you not have anything better to do with your time than come to Metafilter and try and shit in every thread that leans to the left?

Cause, uh, in my free time I don't go and shit in the Randite/Wingnut threads that are post here from time to time.

Or maybe you don't, and that's just sad.
posted by SweetJesus at 2:14 PM on January 18, 2005


Ms. Boxer uses the word "falsehood" skillfully. Isn't that a great word? It can mean "a mistaken untruth" but sounds just like "lie." That's probably was riled Ms. Rice.

Snarks aside, isn't it really true that everybody, from France to Germany to England to Italy on down, thought that Iraq had WMD's? The only difference of opinion was in how to deal with it-- the intelligence all pointed to the weapons. Maybe France, for example, was right to say we shouldn't go to war-- they have more experience with things like Imperialism and the temptation to colonialize, and look at the matter with many centuries more perspective than we young Americans possibly can-- but their intelligence was the same as ours: it pointed to the existence of weapons.

That said, isn't it a little naive to expect a war to have one and only one reason? Or that the only reason must be the official one? Lincoln started fighting the civil war ostensibly because some outlaws had attacked American outposts, but does anyone anymore pretend that that was anything more than an official pretext? Bush has been saying for years that Iraq was part of a larger problem in the world right now-- was anybody naive enough to think there weren't other reasons for invading Iraq?

To be somewhat provocative: I don't really care if George W. Bush is wholly truthful. I think a politician can be right without always being honest. And, given the track record for honesty in politicians and the general flack you get for being honest with Americans these days anyhow, I'll choose "right" over "honest" any day.

To wit: it's fine and dandy for politicians to blather all day about "accountability" and "honesty" and "whether the weapons were there" and "a guy I know died" et cetera. That's what they do: they're politicians, and they're supposed to try to appeal to the emotions. We, however, should be asking: was Iraq the right solution to the problem we all agree exists? If not, what is the solution? And, especially: now that we're in Iraq, what should we do?
posted by koeselitz at 2:14 PM on January 18, 2005


koeselitz: *I* didn't think Iraq had WMD's. I know quite a few people who had their doubts. With the US going around saying "We know exactly where these WMDs and weapons plants and trucks are, but we won't tell you", I decided it was all BS.
posted by crawl at 2:22 PM on January 18, 2005


Snarks aside, isn't it really true that everybody, from France to Germany to England to Italy on down, thought that Iraq had WMD's? The only difference of opinion was in how to deal with it-- the intelligence all pointed to the weapons.

I had a really sharp Russian ex-pat political science professor who explained the whole weapons intelligence snafu like this: France, England and Germany have little to no intelligence gathering capability in the Middle East compared to the United States. With the exception of Israel, which knows almost everything that happens in its own neighborhood, the United States is the only country with the budget and the capabilities for modern reconnaissance in that neck of the woods. Germany, France and England thought there were weapons of mass destruction in Iraq, because we told them there were weapons of mass destruction in Iraq.

MI6 wasn't in Iraq looking around, they just made the mistake of believing us.
posted by SweetJesus at 2:30 PM on January 18, 2005


koeselitz: I thought Iraq had WMD's at first, based largely on my perceptions of Saddam. Seemed like the kind of thing he'd do. As preparations for war proceeded, it became quite clear that there was nothing there. A lot of people at the time were saying they didn't believe there was any real threat. The war went ahead anyway.
posted by sonofsamiam at 2:32 PM on January 18, 2005


disclaimer: my N00B comment was only a reference to something someone with that face would likely be saying to whomever.
posted by xmutex at 2:39 PM on January 18, 2005


That also ignores the fact that inspections were working, and that whole no-fly zone thing too. And that we had irreparably weakened them in the last war.

And Rice is going to fail at this, like she failed at NSA--her husband will protect her. It's a pity that she's the groundbreaker, gender/racewise.

and for my E! comment--she must lose the Lucy of Peanuts hairstyle! It's ridiculous.
posted by amberglow at 2:47 PM on January 18, 2005


If we all knew, then, that Iraq didn't have WMD's, then why did everyone but no one insist that there be more inspections? Because, as sonofsamiam says, it seemed like something he'd do, and we didn't exactly trust him, since he wouldn't really "open up" to the world community.

Apparently, George Bush and his people believed that it wasn't just that Saddam had weapons or that Saddam was mean. It was that it's dangerous for someone with tendancies like his to be in power in such a sensitive place in the world right now. There are so many ways for it to go wrong; Saddam had shown he was ready either to work with terrorists (a la paying off sucide bombers in Israel) or to attack randomly and unilaterally anybody in his general vicinity. As a reminder, this includes Israel, Iran, Saudi Arabia, and some of Europe. What's more, since this is the middle east, his actions could have had an effect on the Arab conception of the United States for years to come.

I believe (and they all but say this-- these people are not good at saying what they think) that George Bush and Dick Cheney thought that if they could do one very good thing for the Arab world-- ridding it of its greatest dictator and largest threat, maybe even giving Arabs a chance to create their own government in Saddam's place-- they would gain some very valuable friends, friends that the United States needs right now. They may be wrong about that, but we have to confront the possibility that they were right.

On preview: amberglow, you say that inspections were working. Regardless of the situation in Iraq, a lot of us are worried that, in the current climate, the non-proliferation treaty is in a pretty bad place, at least as far as the "gentlemen's agreement"-style enforcement is concerned. A lot of conservatives gripe about how "there were already ten years of inspections!" Do you disagree? Is NP fine as it is?
posted by koeselitz at 2:54 PM on January 18, 2005


it has always seemed a bit disingenuous that prior to the war in Iraq, the current administration cherry-picked intelligence data to support the case for WMDs in Iraq.

After this conclusion was proven false, the administration then turned and blamed the intelligence agencies for the error.

To hold the member of the administration to their misleading statements seems appropriate.

It's *very* telling that the response to these questions runs the gamut from "it's the fault of the intelligence ocmmunity" to "we weren't alone in our conclusion" (yes, but that's because we provided the conclusion a priori) to finally "liberals supported it too!".

Not once have I seen anyone in the administration truly defend the statements leading up to the war in a cogent manner.
posted by auslander at 3:04 PM on January 18, 2005


CNN's headline: Boxer spars with Rice

Ha!
posted by smackfu at 3:06 PM on January 18, 2005


Apparently, George Bush and his people believed that it wasn't just that Saddam had weapons or that Saddam was mean.

Now wait a second. They had plenty of evidence to the contrary, they chose to ignore it and focus on the evidence that supported their preconceived notions, at least that's how it looks to me.

Giving the administration the benefit of the doubt, I don't think it's ok to make "mistakes" like this. It is not ok to "make a mistake" that kills tens of thousands of innocent people. Anyone who makes a "mistake" like that should be in prison for criminal negligence and dereliction of duty.

As far as NP goes, it's utter bollocks, because there was never much concern among those who know their physics that Saddam was manufacturing nukes. He simply did not have the requisite materials, or at least that's what I understand.
And now the administration is practically forcing Iran to get the bomb. Where's the N in the NP?
posted by sonofsamiam at 3:07 PM on January 18, 2005


Iraq had nothing to do with NP...no one except for those lying to us on tv (the entire administration and their friends) were talking of nukes. sonofsam is absolutely right.

And isn't it funny that we have "friends" in the region already (Bush's pals the Saudis) yet never push them to be a beacon of liberty and democracy? Unless by "friends" you mean puppets?
posted by amberglow at 3:11 PM on January 18, 2005


Silly rabbit, it's tomorrow based on Iraq local time.
posted by ParisParamus at 3:19 PM on January 18, 2005


Snarks aside, isn't it really true that everybody, from France to Germany to England to Italy on down, thought that Iraq had WMD's?

Scott Ritter was the chief weapons inspector for the UN Special Commission in Iraq. He said there weren't any weapons, or at least there weren't enough weapons to signify a threat to the USA. Lots of people agreed with him.
posted by mrgrimm at 3:23 PM on January 18, 2005


Bush Administration Political Strategy #7: Misdirection
And that's unique to Bush how?


Because OTHERS do it, that somehow makes it a correct action?

How does such an action square with "honesty" or "restoring the integrity to The Office of the President"?

Well?
posted by rough ashlar at 3:23 PM on January 18, 2005


Hey: tomorrow is the inauguration! It's only a day away.
posted by ParisParamus at 2:05 PM PST on January 18

Not connected to reality much?

posted by rough ashlar at 3:25 PM on January 18, 2005


There are so many ways for it to go wrong; Saddam had shown he was ready either to work with terrorists (a la paying off suicide bombers in Israel) or to attack randomly and unilaterally anybody in his general vicinity. As a reminder, this includes Israel, Iran, Saudi Arabia, and some of Europe. What's more, since this is the middle east, his actions could have had an effect on the Arab conception of the United States for years to come.

First off, don't confuse giving the family of ONE suicide bomber 25,000 dollars with large-scale, state sponsored terrorism. Arabs and Israelis have a long, and bitter history, and its hardly worth invading a country over.

And exactly when was he going to attack, unilaterally I might add, Israel, Saudi Arabia, Iran or any part of Europe? With what Army? With what Navy? With what Air Force? How exactly is he going to attack Europe? With SCUD missiles, that have a maximum range of 300km? With F22's patrolling no-fly zones, and with Patriot missile batteries in Kuwait, what the fuck is he going to do? You're nuts if you think that.

He attacked, with the help of the United States, Iran in the 80's, but the idea that he had the potential to attack Israel or any other country is laughable. He didn't have the military ability to defend his country, never mind attack other ones. He was a brutal dictator, but he wasn't stupid or crazy.

And I just don't understand your last sentence. Arab's don't have a high opinion of the United States for a lot of reasons, and unarguably the invasion and occupation of Iraq hasn't helped us win too many friends.
posted by SweetJesus at 3:40 PM on January 18, 2005


and we have Pakistan with nukes, and a dictator who took power in a coup, and we have N.Korea and China, and now Iran--Iraq had never appeared on anyone's list of real dangers to us, except for the PNAC. Even daddy Bush knew that what he did was enough.
posted by amberglow at 3:46 PM on January 18, 2005


they would gain some very valuable friends, friends that the United States needs right now. They may be wrong about that, but we have to confront the possibility that they were right.

Unfortunately, "being invaded by a Western power" wasn't on the Arab wish list, despite our gift. The Bush people failed to come to terms with the enormous motivating power in the Arab world of standing up to the West, and overcoming that feeling of humiliation that comes from, say, Britain running your country in the early 20th century.

It's that resentment that has underpinned the support for extremist movements like the Iranian revolution.

This is sort of 8th grade level stuff. If people like Wolfowitz really meant well, and they may have, then they were seriously the latest chapter in Barbara Tuchman's "March of Folly." She tried to find out why governments pursue really stupid policies that are obviously in their worst interest.
posted by inksyndicate at 4:05 PM on January 18, 2005


Maybe it's obvious that Iraq posed absolutely no threat, and that a just regime friendly to the western world in Iraq would be of little or no benefit to the world at large. If so, what was George W. Bush's rationale for threatening the world's oil supply and the world economy with it by attacking a country in the heart of the middle east?

Also, since we're already in Iraq, and bellyaching about somebody's low intelligence helps nothing: what should we do about it?

And, by the way: does anybody know of a good site or something giving a comparison between the civilian deaths before and after the invasion? I haven't put them together, and it seems like that would be useful; I wonder if more or fewer people have died since the invasion.
posted by koeselitz at 4:38 PM on January 18, 2005


koeselitz, i can only point you to the mass graves that weren't, at all.
posted by amberglow at 4:45 PM on January 18, 2005


amberglow: thanks. Doesn't seem very conclusive, though; all I get there is a Guardian "estimate" of 5,000 dead and another final assertion from Blair's office of "hundreds of thousands." That's a huge, really huge, difference. I don't know that I trust either source.
posted by koeselitz at 5:10 PM on January 18, 2005


Well, before visiting MeFi and noticing this thread just now, I sent Boxer a letter of thanks, reassuring her that she speaks for millions of American patriots in not letting the scandalous facts about Rice & the case for war die a quiet death. Of course, I was dissing Condoleeza on MeFi before it was cool.

What I can't believe is that before Boxer's turn came no one in our U.S. Senate mentioned the aluminum tubes and the other outright lies. And also, of course, that it won't really work out to be a hitch in Rice's progress to head State.
posted by Zurishaddai at 5:22 PM on January 18, 2005


that's what's messed up--Biden and others like to look tough on tv, but are still going to vote to confirm her.
posted by amberglow at 5:24 PM on January 18, 2005


It was the total picture, Senator, not just weapons of mass destruction, that caused us to decide that, post-September 11th, it was finally time to deal with Saddam Hussein.

This is an extraordinarily telling statement, and seemingly the closest thing to what I believe to be the whole impetus behind the mess we've found ourselves in. I really don't think this whole thing was spawned from a desire for land, oil, and contracts -- even though it set the stage for blatant opportunism that inevitably would be exploited. After the first gulf war, Saddam was embedded in the American psyche as literally the root of all evil. He was the token evil dictator, and the whole business over there wouldn't be over until -- well, as President Bush said, until we got 'im. I hate to say it, but look at the South Park movie. That's what he was in the eyes of Americans -- literally in bed with Satan.

America wanted this man's head on a platter for the satisfaction of completion -- good guy in white overcomes the bad guy in black. She says that post-September 11th it was time to deal with Saddam, even though she knows there were no real plausible links to the people who attacked us in the first place. In this, she appears to be stating outright that the administration just wanted the emotional satisfaction of getting him. Consequences be damned.

Frightening.
posted by icosahedral at 5:34 PM on January 18, 2005


It's a pity that she's the groundbreaker, gender/racewise.

I remember as a young feminist twenty-five years ago thinking if someone of this race and gender was ever in the "inner circle" of government - then we'd have made a difference. And now - here she is - and how sad it is...Who points to Condi and says to their daughters "You could do this too if you wanted..."?
posted by trii at 5:37 PM on January 18, 2005


Maybe it's obvious that Iraq posed absolutely no threat, and that a just regime friendly to the western world in Iraq would be of little or no benefit to the world at large. If so, what was George W. Bush's rationale for threatening the world's oil supply and the world economy with it by attacking a country in the heart of the middle east?

I don't know. Bush could have had any number of intentions other than the two that you mentioned. I'm sure you've heard at least one of these, perhaps uttered by the man himself; I'm not going to speculate on what his thought process was or what was discussed in the relevant meetings.

Perhaps Rice, who was present at many of these meetings, would be able to shed some insight into the matter. I think that her SoS confirmation hearings would be a good setting for this. It's too bad that she is so sensitive about the contradicting rationales that she, and the administration at large, have been publicly stating were the rationales for the war.

Also, since we're already in Iraq, and bellyaching about somebody's low intelligence helps nothing: what should we do about it?

Well, as a start, I'd say let's get some people with better judgement on the team. Bush and Cheney aren't going anywhere, of course -- and, while, on a certain level, I can understand how Bush operates, for the life of me I can't fathom how people can fuck up as badly as Rice and Rumsfeld have and not be fired, let alone be promoted (as Rice is). If Bush were truly running the country as a CEO, as he said he would in the 2000 campaign, I imagine that those two (and a few others) would have been dismissed long ago.
posted by timing at 5:39 PM on January 18, 2005


If you want an echo-chamber, go to Free Republic.

Don't you have a Freeper convention to attend?


Irony working overtime.

Seriously, awful link. Now we have people returning to childhood with 'shutups' and other rhetorical...
Rice is another whore for the Republicans... drivel.

If you enjoy the topic, watch in on the tube.
posted by justgary at 6:48 PM on January 18, 2005


You republicans are so thin-skinned.
posted by SweetJesus at 8:11 PM on January 18, 2005


Ok, whatever the case, that was a great discourse. And, by the way, how exactly does one go about getting an OIL TANKER named for them. I want to know!
posted by snsranch at 8:13 PM on January 18, 2005


Well, if you missed it Jon Stewart skewered Condi, but even more so skewered all the Dems not named Boxer for lobbing softballs to Condi.
posted by caddis at 8:24 PM on January 18, 2005


Just wanted to note that I've been reading MeFi since 2000 and this is the first, yes the FIRST time I've ever agreed with Steve_At_Linwood. It's getting pretty echoey in here.
posted by bingbangbong at 8:27 PM on January 18, 2005


When Rice is talking, she always seems about two seconds away from crying. It's the way her voice stutters slightly, and seems to rise whenever someone asks her questions.

That tremor is the sound of lying. Voice stress. It appears when she is prevaricating, increases when she lies outright. She is an astonishingly unskilled liar, for a politician.

It's getting pretty echoey in here.

Agreement does not necessarily indicate complicity.
posted by stavrosthewonderchicken at 12:55 AM on January 19, 2005


I'm glad I voted for Boxer. The next round of Senate hearings should be a hoot.
posted by Colloquial Collision at 3:38 AM on January 19, 2005


I signed her petition (see the first link) and am now on her email list. I just got this: This morning I entered the Senate hearing room with a wonderful feeling, knowing that over 40,000 of you stood behind me as I sought to hold Condoleezza Rice accountable for her many actions leading up to the war in Iraq and beyond. I talked about your support during my opening statement. And knowing you were with me gave me the energy I needed to keep fighting for the truth.
I hope you had a chance to watch some of Condoleezza Rice's confirmation hearings today. Because if you did, I'm sure you'll share my feelings.
I'm disappointed and I'm frustrated, because I don't think Dr. Rice has been forthcoming in our quest for the truth. Time after time, Dr. Rice had the opportunity to set the record straight on many issues. And, on issue after issue, she failed to do so.
She failed to set the record straight on the hyped-up nuclear threat leading up to the war on Iraq; she failed to do it on the total number of trained Iraqi security forces, which is key to the Administration's exit strategy there; she failed to do it on her misstatements about Al Qaida operating in Iraq; and she failed to do it on the U.S. policy regarding torture. This last issue is the most troubling one, as it was clearly demonstrated that while Dr. Rice speaks out against torture, she actually personally intervened to kill an anti-torture provision in a recent intelligence bill.
So, I'm not going to back down -- I'm going to keep asking the tough questions, illuminating the many inconsistencies, falsehoods, and disturbing revelations in Dr. Rice's previous statements about Iraq, the war on terrorism, and the use of torture -- holding her accountable for the failures of our foreign policy.
Now, in these final hours before our committee votes on Condoleezza Rice's confirmation, you have one last opportunity to make your voice heard in this process. Demonstrate to Dr. Rice and the United States Senate your dissatisfaction with her lack of candor. Help me demand the truth and hold Condoleezza Rice accountable.
Tell your friends, family, and colleagues to sign my petition today -– in these final hours before the confirmation hearings conclude.
Thank you so much for standing with me in this fight for the truth. I can't tell you how much I value your friendship and support.

posted by amberglow at 5:36 AM on January 19, 2005


The right responds.
posted by trharlan at 7:02 AM on January 19, 2005


Thank you, patriot Boxer!
posted by danOstuporStar at 9:27 AM on January 19, 2005


a 16-2 vote in favor of confirming--only Kerry and Boxer voted against.

Biden really just has to shut his mouth (or put his vote where his mouth is)--i saw him all over tv last night trashing her, and saying he would vote to confirm anyway--what's the point?
posted by amberglow at 10:10 AM on January 19, 2005


The right responds.

crushkerry.com? Did a child come up with that name?

right-wingers always remind me of the small dog who attaches himself to a big dog in order to feel big himself.

*yawn*
posted by Space Coyote at 5:20 PM on January 19, 2005


from the Salon.com interview:

Rice told you not to "impugn" her "integrity" or her "credibility," but that was exactly what you meant to do, wasn't it? You had questions about whether she had spoken truthfully about Iraq before and after the war began.

I was very honest about it. I told her, "I'm worried about your lack of candor" -- I wasn't denying that -- "and I'm giving you a chance to set the record straight." But she actually made the record murkier, especially on torture. She opened up a whole new front on the lack of credibility.
posted by muckster at 7:20 AM on January 20, 2005


« Older A good thing   |   Interview with Salam Pax Newer »


This thread has been archived and is closed to new comments



Post