Condi survives public lynching by Boxer, Kerry

[AURaptor 1,126]

Despite vicious, partisan attacks by Senators Boxer and Kerry, Dr Rice passes test to become nations 1st Black woman to head State Dept.

[CCTAU 3,345]

Boortz sums it up well:

BASHING BUSH THROUGH CONDI RICE

You poor, pathetic saps in California.  Aren't you embarrassed?  Georgia may have Cynthia McKinney, and lord knows that's not good ... but you have Barbara Boxer.  Sucks to be you.

In case the left in this country didn't notice, George Bush won re-election on November 2, 2004. His electoral victory was decisive; he received more votes than any candidate for president in our nation's history. His opponent, The French Poodle from Massachusetts, conceded the next day. Game over.

Unless, of course, you're Barbara Boxer. The Senator from California, who is somewhere left of Fidel Castro on the political spectrum, won't accept the result. She even went so far as to become the only Senator to challenge the certification of the electoral votes confirming the president's re-election. That's something even Al Gore wouldn't go for. So what is she up to now?

Well, after her much more civilized Democratic colleague from California introduced Dr. Rice with glowing remarks, Barbara Boxer went to work making an idiot out of herself. She accused Condoleezza Rice of being a liar, saying she didn't have respect for the truth. She also whined about how people were still dying in Iraq, and that the administration had not admitted any mistakes. Basically the standard leftist talking points.

But make no mistake: this has nothing to do with Dr. Rice's nomination to become secretary of state. This is all about the extreme left's hatred for George Bush, and their strategy to do anything they can to get the president.

The only problem is it isn't working...they're just making fools of themselves, and Barbara Boxer is leading the charge.

Let them continue to make fools of themselves. They are all just setting up another GOP landslide.

[Auburn85 432]

Zell Miller said that Boxer is so light on terrorists that she probably wouldn't even use spitballs to fight.

Boxer needs to go home, have a good cry, and know that tommorrow will come. She could do some positive things, rather than embarass herself. Especially questioning the compassion and sympothy she has for the troops.

Yes, she should get grilled, but not in this way.

[TexasTiger 13,017]

Despite  vicious, partisan attacks by Senators Boxer and Kerry, Dr Rice passes test to become nations 1st  Black woman to head State Dept.

140164[/snapback]

Public lynching? Boy, are you confused. You saw someone being asked to explain previous statements and actions. This is what a public lynching looks like:

[AURaptor 1,126]

Yep, that's pretty much what Kerry and Boxer tried to tod to Dr Rice's reputation.

BTW, where'd you dig up that gem of a photo? Got any info as to where/when and the specifics as to what we're lookin at ?

[Auburn85 432]

I don't think that this is appropriate to show, but heck just my opinion

[Oysterman 0]

Just a correction... she was voted out of the Foreign Relations Committee. She has not been approved yet by the whole Senate. There is expected to be a Roll Call Vote on her nomination next week.

[Jenny AU-92 0]

Just a correction... she was voted out of the Foreign Relations Committee.  She has not been approved yet by the whole Senate.  There is expected to be a Roll Call Vote on her nomination next week.

140368[/snapback]

Yeah, "next week", because the Dems in the Senate wanted more time for "debate", aka more Bush/Condi/Republican bashing on the record. Just more stalling and delay tactics that serve no purpose other than to hold up the political process in this country.

[TexasTiger 13,017]

I don't think that this is appropriate to show, but heck just my opinion

140337[/snapback]

It is certainly a jarring image from an ugly period of our history, but if one is going to throw around the phrase "public lynching" as a metaphor, they need reminding of what one actually is, since they obviously fail to appreciate the gravity of that period.

[DKW 86 7,440]

I guess he should use a better term: "High Tech" or "Modern Day" Lynching like was used for the Clarence Thomas hearings.

BTW, Kennedy doing the "Water Torture" bit was too funny. People in the room where I was were laughing out loud at Kennedy and "Water Torture." I wonder if he considers Mary Jo Kopechne to have died from "Water Torture."

[mcgufcm 4,107]

yeah i know the term "pc" isn't entirely popular especially in the South, but i don't think it's appropriate to compare two days of questioning to one of the most awful, unlawful forms of torture and death that the world has ever seen. just like i wouldn't want the hear about how "condoleeza rice was crucified yesterday by barb boxer." both would be entirely inappropriate. thanks tex for the reminder of why.

as for the issue, i think harsh questioning should have been anticipated and is completely necessary. this is a woman who has been close to the President for the last four years, but she is now the face of the state department. she's just after the president in terms of a face for the nation on foreign policy (probably more important to that issue than cheney).

she was called out for things she had actually said. i watched for about 2 hours, and none of the questioning was unfounded bashing. it was simply, "you said this then; you say this now... why?" condi had no answer most of the time. the questioning did force her (for the first time, that i've ever seen) to say that some of the decisions made in iraq were bad decisions. that admission alone made it all worthwhile in my eyes, and that statement alone made her a better candidate b/c she DOES see that some changes in policy need to be made.

[TitanTiger 20,510]

I don't think that this is appropriate to show, but heck just my opinion

140337[/snapback]

It is certainly a jarring image from an ugly period of our history, but if one is going to throw around the phrase "public lynching" as a metaphor, they need reminding of what one actually is, since they obviously fail to appreciate the gravity of that period.

140422[/snapback]

Word.

[AURaptor 1,126]

yeah i know the term "pc" isn't entirely popular especially in the South, but i don't think it's appropriate to compare two days of questioning to one of the most awful, unlawful forms of torture and death that the world has ever seen. just like i wouldn't want the hear about how "condoleeza rice was crucified yesterday by barb boxer." both would be entirely inappropriate. thanks tex for the reminder of why.

as for the issue, i think harsh questioning should have been anticipated and is completely necessary. this is a woman who has been close to the President for the last four years, but she is now the face of the state department. she's just after the president in terms of a face for the nation on foreign policy (probably more important to that issue than cheney).

she was called out for things she had actually said. i watched for about 2 hours, and none of the questioning was unfounded bashing. it was simply, "you said this then; you say this now... why?" condi had no answer most of the time. the questioning did force her (for the first time, that i've ever seen) to say that some of the decisions made in iraq were bad decisions. that admission alone made it all worthwhile in my eyes, and that statement alone made her a better candidate b/c she DOES see that some changes in policy need to be made.

140472[/snapback]

They did more than merely ask about things she said. They pretended she was telling them things about which they had no clue, when in fact they knew a great deal about Saddam. Way back in 1998, the Congress had passed a resolution that in effect made it policy to get rid of Saddam. Those in the Congress and Senate were well aware of what Saddam was doing, and even voted on the use of force to get him out. This was nothing but a " electronic " lynching of Dr Rice, all in the name of partisan politics meant to discredit President Bush.

[TexasTiger 13,017]

This was nothing but a " electronic " lynching of Dr Rice, all in the name of partisan politics meant to discredit President Bush.

At the risk of you accusing me of subjecting you to a "cyber-lynching", maybe its time to expand the vocabulary.

[DKW 86 7,440]

No, it was indeed a "high tech, modernday, electronic" lynching. Have someone cough up totally false allegations (Clarence Thomas) against a black man or woman. Hold a farcical trial. Lynch the innocent.

Funny, but the ones doing the Lynching always call themselves Democrats... Just a thought.

[AURaptor 1,126]

  At the risk of you accusing me of subjecting you to a "cyber-lynching", maybe its time to expand the vocabulary.

Tell that to Boxer or Kennedy who try to accuse Bush and Rice of LYING about the reasons we went to war, when the fact of the matter is that the Dems all but declared war on Saddam themselves. The Left's selective, short term memory on this issue is beyond repugnant. It was under the Clinton regime that Congress made it official US Policy to take Saddam out of power.

  Today I am signing into law H.R. 4655, the "Iraq Liberation Act of 1998." This Act makes clear that it is the sense of the Congress that the United States should support those elements of the Iraqi opposition that advocate a very different future for Iraq than the bitter reality of internal repression and external aggression that the current regime in Baghdad now offers...

My Administration has pursued, and will continue to pursue, these objectives through active application of all relevant United Nations Security Council resolutions. The evidence is overwhelming that such changes will not happen under the current Iraq leadership...

The Iraq Liberation Act of 1998 provides additional, discretionary authorities under which my Administration can act to further the objectives I outlined above. There are, of course, other important elements of U.S. policy. These include the maintenance of U.N. Security Council support efforts   to eliminate Iraq's weapons and missile programs and economic sanctions that continue to deny the regime the means to reconstitute those threats to international peace and security. United States support for the Iraqi opposition will be carried out consistent with those policy objectives as well. Similarly, U.S. support must be attuned to what the opposition can effectively make use of as it develops over time. With those observations, I sign H.R. 4655 into law.

WILLIAM J. CLINTON

THE WHITE HOUSE,

October 31, 1998.

The only things that have changed since then were 9-11 and Bush becoming President. If you can explain to me how those 2 events some how translate to Saddam no longer being a threat, have at it. But to have Ms Boxer come out and accuse Dr. Rice of LYING about any of this only shows that Dems are living in fantasy land and / or are utterly incompetent and are using their position for the sole purpose vilifying Dr. Rice and the President.

[TexasTiger 13,017]

  At the risk of you accusing me of subjecting you to a "cyber-lynching", maybe its time to expand the vocabulary.

Tell that to Boxer or Kennedy who try to accuse Bush and Rice of LYING about the reasons we went to war, when the fact of the matter is that the Dems all but declared war on Saddam themselves. The Left's selective, short term memory on this issue is beyond repugnant. It was under the Clinton regime that Congress made it official US Policy to take Saddam out of power.

  Today I am signing into law H.R. 4655, the "Iraq Liberation Act of 1998." This Act makes clear that it is the sense of the Congress that the United States should support those elements of the Iraqi opposition that advocate a very different future for Iraq than the bitter reality of internal repression and external aggression that the current regime in Baghdad now offers...

My Administration has pursued, and will continue to pursue, these objectives through active application of all relevant United Nations Security Council resolutions. The evidence is overwhelming that such changes will not happen under the current Iraq leadership...

The Iraq Liberation Act of 1998 provides additional, discretionary authorities under which my Administration can act to further the objectives I outlined above. There are, of course, other important elements of U.S. policy. These include the maintenance of U.N. Security Council support efforts   to eliminate Iraq's weapons and missile programs and economic sanctions that continue to deny the regime the means to reconstitute those threats to international peace and security. United States support for the Iraqi opposition will be carried out consistent with those policy objectives as well. Similarly, U.S. support must be attuned to what the opposition can effectively make use of as it develops over time. With those observations, I sign H.R. 4655 into law.

WILLIAM J. CLINTON

THE WHITE HOUSE,

October 31, 1998.

The only things that have changed since then were 9-11 and Bush becoming President. If you can explain to me how those 2 events some how translate to Saddam no longer being a threat, have at it. But to have Ms Boxer come out and accuse Dr. Rice of LYING about any of this only shows that Dems are living in fantasy land and / or are utterly incompetent and are using their position for the sole purpose vilifying Dr. Rice and the President.

140622[/snapback]

Oh yes, the "Clinton thought it, too" argument. But he never manipulated the intelligence available to build a case for war. Never talked about the "mushroom cloud" being too late. Folks try to put all the blame on Tenet for bad intelligence, seemingly forgetting that when he shared the strongest case for invading Iraq based on WMD, Bush said nice try, but he didn't think it was a strong case. That was Bush's own judgment of the evidence. Then Tenet said selling the war was "slam dunk case" so Bush then went along? Bush doubted the strength of the evidence in private, but never in public. In public, there was never any doubt, only the sense that the threat was definite and imminent. It was a deception. When Clinton said, "I did not have sexual relations" that was not a technical lie. That term means intercourse. It was an intentional deception, however. Now the Bush administration is parsing language saying they didn't actually lie. Buy it if you want. They were deceptive about the strength of the evidence and the degree of threat. They may have genuinely believe there was some WMD there, as did others, but they knew there was not incontervertible evidence of the type of imminent threat the hammered on during the drumbeat to war.

[Auburn85 432]

Poor Dems they let an unintelligent president manipulate them to the point of voting for the war

Even manipulated them to vote for the tax break(for the rich) but oh wait we don't count. Every time the tax break is mentioned by the Dems, they only mentioning the rich getting the break. What about us? We get no recognition from a Kennedy, Kerry, Boxer, etc.

$87 billion to help troops

No child left behind

Wow, this president really knows how to manipulate congress as well as the country

[channonc 466]

Just a correction... she was voted out of the Foreign Relations Committee.  She has not been approved yet by the whole Senate.  There is expected to be a Roll Call Vote on her nomination next week.

140368[/snapback]

Yeah, "next week", because the Dems in the Senate wanted more time for "debate", aka more Bush/Condi/Republican bashing on the record. Just more stalling and delay tactics that serve no purpose other than to hold up the political process in this country.

140421[/snapback]

It seems obvious by this comment you have no idea the procedure and rules for nominations.

In the Senate, nominations that have been reported out of Committee are placed on the executive calendar. No Senator can move that the nomination be voted on until it has remained on the EC for at least one day. Thursday, although several Committees met, Congress was not in session, just the individual Committees. Congress is also not in session Friday, due to Inaugural activities. Monday is therefore the earliest day for a roll call vote on her nomination, and most Monday's congress is not in session until noon, and then are open for morning business for the rest of the day. Usually there are no roll call votes on Monday b/c not all Senators are back in Washington from their districts by early Monday.

Also, the Majority leader sets the floor schedule. So if you are upset about there not being a vote on Friday, please blame Sen. Frist as he is the only one who has the power to set the floor schedule.

[CCTAU 3,345]

Funny how somebody mentions public lynching and you automatically put up a picture if a black man being hung by a bunch of whities. Public lynchings were around long before blacks were imported to the Americas, and guess what, they usually were white. Just like all dems, you have bought into the poor black man mentatlity. Please give us equal examples of public lynchings, discrimination, etc..

Not just your demoncratic government brainwashed perception of it being owned by the color of one's skin.

And it was used as a metaphor, not an actualism. But it did allow you to get your bleeding heart liberal opinion in didn't it? What's next on your agenda, slave reparations?

[AURaptor 1,126]

  Oh yes, the "Clinton thought it, too" argument. But he never manipulated the intelligence available to build a case for war. Never talked about the "mushroom cloud" being too late. Folks try to put all the blame on Tenet for bad intelligence, seemingly forgetting that when he shared the strongest case for invading Iraq based on WMD, Bush said nice try, but he didn't think it was a strong case. That was Bush's own judgment of the evidence. Then Tenet said selling the war was "slam dunk case" so Bush then went along? Bush doubted the strength of the evidence in private, but never in public. In public, there was never any doubt, only the sense that the threat was definite and imminent. It was a deception. When Clinton said, "I did not have sexual relations" that was not a technical lie. That term means intercourse. It was an intentional deception, however. Now the Bush administration is parsing language saying they didn't actually lie. Buy it if you want. They were deceptive about the strength of the evidence and the degree of threat. They may have genuinely believe there was some WMD there, as did others, but they knew there was not incontervertible evidence of the type of imminent threat the hammered on during the drumbeat to war.

It isn't an 'argument', but the bare facts. You don't want to deal in the facts, so you try to parse them into some sort of sly scheme instead. Clintons Iraq Regime Change Act of 1998 , the laundry list of U.N. Resolutions against Iraq ( not all of them pertained strictly to WMD ) as well as the 107th Congress H.J. Resolution 114 - Use of force against Iraq - are all that one needs to show that Boxer, Kerry, Byrd, et al are lying hypocrites who put love of their party over their obligations to serve the citizens of the United States.

There is no deception here. If you would only be intellectually honest and simply say that you don't agree w/ the U.N. Resolutions which state that force can be used if Iraq fails to comply , then fine. But your argument falls completely apart when you try to imply that Bush and those in his Admin activly distorted the same exact facts which you applaud Clinton for acting on.

[Auburn85 432]

  Oh yes, the "Clinton thought it, too" argument. But he never manipulated the intelligence available to build a case for war. Never talked about the "mushroom cloud" being too late. Folks try to put all the blame on Tenet for bad intelligence, seemingly forgetting that when he shared the strongest case for invading Iraq based on WMD, Bush said nice try, but he didn't think it was a strong case. That was Bush's own judgment of the evidence. Then Tenet said selling the war was "slam dunk case" so Bush then went along? Bush doubted the strength of the evidence in private, but never in public. In public, there was never any doubt, only the sense that the threat was definite and imminent. It was a deception. When Clinton said, "I did not have sexual relations" that was not a technical lie. That term means intercourse. It was an intentional deception, however. Now the Bush administration is parsing language saying they didn't actually lie. Buy it if you want. They were deceptive about the strength of the evidence and the degree of threat. They may have genuinely believe there was some WMD there, as did others, but they knew there was not incontervertible evidence of the type of imminent threat the hammered on during the drumbeat to war.

It isn't an 'argument', but the bare facts. You don't want to deal in the facts, so you try to parse them into some sort of sly scheme instead. Clintons Iraq Regime Change Act of 1998 , the laundry list of U.N. Resolutions against Iraq ( not all of them pertained strictly to WMD ) as well as the 107th Congress H.J. Resolution 114 - Use of force against Iraq - are all that one needs to show that Boxer, Kerry, Byrd, et al are lying hypocrites who put love of their party over their obligations to serve the citizens of the United States.

There is no deception here. If you would only be intellectually honest and simply say that you don't agree w/ the U.N. Resolutions which state that force can be used if Iraq fails to comply , then fine. But your argument falls completely apart when you try to imply that Bush and those in his Admin activly distorted the same exact facts which you applaud Clinton for acting on.

140741[/snapback]

Thanks for putting this up. And it took 6 years to finally do somewhat of that plan.

Dems would have gotten over it alot quicker had Clinton done it.

[Auburn85 432]

Here's a thought, why didn't Jesse Jackson and Al Sharpton, not come to Rice's rescue.

Could it be because she's a Republican?

[mcgufcm 4,107]

i'm confused. what did she need rescuing from? being confirmed? oh no! save me from hard questions and votes of affirmation! save me, save me! i can see why they'd want to get involved. really, i can.

the clinton adminstration had every opportunity to act on its inclination that iraq was dangerous. like you point out, the first u.s. acts to mention use of force and regime change came when clinton still had two years left in his final term. if he saw iraq as such an impending danger, why would he sit on his hands knowing that he had nothing to lose? what, was he going to lose re-re-election by going to war?

"There are, of course, other important elements of U.S. policy. These include the maintenance of U.N. Security Council support efforts   to eliminate Iraq's weapons and missile programs and economic sanctions that continue to deny the regime the means to reconstitute those threats to international peace and security."

that language says that clinton intended to honor the u.n.'s policies on an equal level as u.s. policy which i think we can all agree didn't happen with bush's attack plan. on top of that, clinton clearly felt that the iraq missile program wasn't a threat or else we would've taken action to eliminate it. bush, with the same intel in hand, concluded that a mushroom cloud could be imminent? excuse me if i just don't buy it.

also, i don't know how much of this you actually watched, but the line of questioning frequently had nothing to do with policy; they simply had to do with misrepresentation by rice herself over the last four years. here's an excerpt for you:

" 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 longer 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 programs; that left unchecked he would have a nuclear weapon by the end of the year."

a little long, but you can see the point. she either lied, didn't listen to the president, or simply talked out of her @$$ and didn't think it would matter. it does matter when you're the sec. of state. it does.

that's why the questioning was fair. you have to get to the bottom of just how she is going to present herself and by extention this country. they also needed to find out if she actually had an opinion of her own that would add to the president's information. it's important to surround yourself with good people in politics just like it is in football.

for the record for cctau, film and photography as we know it today wasn't widely available until around 1890 (with the invention of "film" by george eastman... creator of kodak). prior to that, "snap shots" like the one used in the lynching photo didn't exist b/c it took so long to expose the plates and so much equipment was needed (especially for night photography). that's why the civil war photos are all posed or of dead people b/c they weren't going anywhere. so, the only lynching that really took place in america during the 1900's was the public lynchings of black americans generally in the south. therefore, the only photo you can find to display a lynching is from this era, during that time, with those victims. sorry to disappoint your race conspiracy.

the point? no one was lynched. horrible choice of words. i don't care if it's "modern day", "cyber", or whatever you want to put in front of it. you can't separate it from negative connotation. it'd be like saying the republican domination in the last election was a real genocide. there's just no way to make it okay.

[Auburn85 432]

I didn't mean for the Jesse and Al thing to be taken serious.

I agree she needed to be drilled, but not in that way.

It just seemed that Jesse had to pop up in Ohio because of apparent fraud by Republicans, and oppressed the vote of Democrats(especially blacks).

Yet in other states, there was a closer margin than in Ohio, but no democrats are worried about that.

Some dems, want to live in the little world where if 100,000 Ohio voters changed their vote, Kerry would be president.