NationStates Jolt Archive

First there was the demand that electoral votes from Ohio be challenged as legitimately going to Bush, now ( yesterday ) it's badgering the nominee for SecDef, Condoleeza Rice. What IS this woman up to? Building a future for herself in the Democratic party, or just being a b***h?

She's the "bulldog" of the of Democrats in Congress. I guess her constituency supports her strongly enough that she can be the one severely partisan voice of the Dems without risking her seat come election time. She just says what everyone else is thinking. :)

edit: I stole the "bulldog" bit from this article. It's mostly about Kerry, but mentions Boxer too. http://slate.msn.com/id/2112386/

She's just jealous that Condi is smarter, better looking, more successful, and more talented.

Maybe, just maybe, she's doing what we (I'm Californian) elected her to do-stand up instead of just rolling over for the republicans. But, yeah-keeping bitching that people won't tow your line.

First there was the demand that electoral votes from Ohio be challenged as legitimately going to Bush, now ( yesterday ) it's badgering the nominee for SecDef, Condoleeza Rice. What IS this woman up to? Building a future for herself in the Democratic party, or just being a b***h?
thats cause Bush hacked Ohio and Condi Rice allowed 911 to happen

She's just jealous that Condi is smarter, better looking, more successful, and more talented.
Condi is a total dog--Id take Boxer anyday over her

thats cause Bush hacked Ohio and Condi Rice allowed 911 to happen
You know, after reading your posts on here, I begin to understand why some animals eat their young!

rice was a whiney little maggot on the stand, crying that it was mean of boxer to imply she was a liar just because she was lying to her face. actually i think that makes her a perjurer and she should be jailed not promoted to the highest cabinet post(heck it might verge on treason since she is lying to congress about matters of state). she must have taken lessons from the queen bitch rumsfeld on how to lie self righteously to the congress why whining about how unfairly she was being treated , when the congressmen don't bow down and accept her fabrications as gospel.

First there was the demand that electoral votes from Ohio be challenged as legitimately going to Bush, now ( yesterday ) it's badgering the nominee for SecDef, Condoleeza Rice. What IS this woman up to? Building a future for herself in the Democratic party, or just being a b***h?Question for you Eutrusca. Is she your Senator?


Well she's mine, I voted for her every one of her four terms.

And she's doing exactly what I expect from her.

Isn't that the job of any elected official?

First there was the demand that electoral votes from Ohio be challenged as legitimately going to Bush, now ( yesterday ) it's badgering the nominee for SecDef, Condoleeza Rice. What IS this woman up to? Building a future for herself in the Democratic party, or just being a b***h?

Thank god someone in the Democratic Party is showing backbone and exposing Rice for the lying bitch that she is.

Question for you Eutrusca. Is she your Senator?


Well she's mine, I voted for her every one of her four terms.

And she's doing exactly what I expect from her.

Isn't that the job of any elected official?
Of course! But that doesn't mean the rest of us have to like it ... OR her! :D

Thank god someone in the Democratic Party is showing backbone and exposing Rice for the lying bitch that she is.
"Backbone?" Hmmm. Looks more like Boxer is the self-serving b***h! :D

Of course! But that doesn't mean the rest of us have to like it ... OR her! :D
Keep that little nugget in mind the next time you feel compelled to write "Bush won, get over it" when someone criticizes Bush...

"Backbone?" Hmmm. Looks more like Boxer is the self-serving b***h! :D
i would say that sounds more like condi, but she isn't self serving, she is the loyal servant of bush and his neocon handlers. much like powell, but at least he had the decency to appear uncomfortable and a bit ashamed when he had to tell their lies. condi has no such hint of morality, she is a shameless whore of the administrations propaganda machine and she seems to enjoy it.

Of course! But that doesn't mean the rest of us have to like it ... OR her! :DAs long as you acknowledge she's just doing the job she's elected to, I could care less what you think of her.

Your opinion isn't among the the one's that matter now is it? Those of us she represent think she's doing just fine. In fact I e-mail her office quite regularly to either prompt some action or, as in the case of her standing up in the senate to contest the Ohio electorial vote, thank her for her actions and tell her that we the people she represents, support them.

Maybe you ought to take similar actions with your elected representatives and quit bitching about the ones that represent others.

Condi Rice is Bushs whore who has the blood of world trade center victims all over her--Randi Rhodes said she was a nasty B****h in college too

First there was the demand that electoral votes from Ohio be challenged as legitimately going to Bush, now ( yesterday ) it's badgering the nominee for SecDef, Condoleeza Rice. What IS this woman up to? Building a future for herself in the Democratic party, or just being a b***h?

OK stop already! I heard Diane Feinstein's speech about Condoleeza Rice, nominating her and saying a LOT of nice things about her. So please don't go assuming all Democrats are out to get Condoleeza Rice.

It was on NPR and it was a very flattering speech. I am not a huge Condoleeza Rice fan, but Diane Feinstein said some things I didn't know about her, and she's making me reconsider my previous opinion, something most Republicans would NOT be able to do with me.

Just thought I'd point that out. :)

OK stop already! I heard Diane Feinstein's speech about Condoleeza Rice, nominating her and saying a LOT of nice things about her. So please don't go assuming all Democrats are out to get Condoleeza Rice.

It was on NPR and it was a very flattering speech. I am not a huge Condoleeza Rice fan, but Diane Feinstein said some things I didn't know about her, and she's making me reconsider my previous opinion, something most Republicans would NOT be able to do with me.

Just thought I'd point that out. :)
then Diane Feinstein should be impeached for treason

As long as you acknowledge she's just doing the job she's elected to, I could care less what you think of her.

Your opinion isn't among the the one's that matter now is it? Those of us she represent think she's doing just fine. In fact I e-mail her office quite regularly to either prompt some action or, as in the case of her standing up in the senate to contest the Ohio electorial vote, thank her for her actions and tell her that we the people she represents, support them.

Maybe you ought to take similar actions with your elected representatives and quit bitching about the ones that represent others.

Hmm. Where to begin?

Our district's Congressman is a friend with whom I have the occasional lunch, and I know Senator Elizabeth Dole ( her home town of Salisbury is just down the road ), to whom I send the occasional email.

I would have trouble counting the times people have raised hell about one Senator or Congressman or other on here, and I have no intention of restricting my right to free speech, voluntarily or otherwise.

Perhaps you should learn a few actual, like ... facts before you so blithely attack others, yes? :)

And BTW ... if you "could care less," that means that there is still more "less" that you could choose to not care about. I suspect the phrase you seek is "I couldn't care less." Just a suggestion for you to consider ... kinda like the one that you could find someone less antagonistic, biased and reality-challenged to represent you. :)

Hmm. Where to begin?

Our district's Congressman is a friend with whom I have the occasional lunch, and I know Senator Elizabeth Dole ( her home town of Salisbury is just down the road ), to whom I send the occasional email.

I would have trouble counting the times people have raised hell about one Senator or Congressman or other on here, and I have no intention of restricting my right to free speech, voluntarily or otherwise.

Perhaps you should learn a few actual, like ... facts before you so blithely attack others, yes? :)

And BTW ... if you "could care less," that means that there is still more "less" that you could choose to not care about. I suspect the phrase you seek is "I couldn't care less." Just a suggestion for you to consider ... kinda like the one that you could find someone less antagonistic, biased and reality-challenged to represent you. :)

ohh ohh a grammar nazi, better watch out, someone's got their red pen out and points will be deducted... lol

no one believes you luncheon with your congressman whether its true or not, so don't both trying to impress us with your political connections. they might be true, but this is the internet and they make you appear to be a self aggrandizing(and possibly pathological) liar.

Hmm. Where to begin?

Our district's Congressman is a friend with whom I have the occasional lunch, and I know Senator Elizabeth Dole ( her home town of Salisbury is just down the road ), to whom I send the occasional email.

I would have trouble counting the times people have raised hell about one Senator or Congressman or other on here, and I have no intention of restricting my right to free speech, voluntarily or otherwise.

Perhaps you should learn a few actual, like ... facts before you so blithely attack others, yes? :)

And BTW ... if you "could care less," that means that there is still more "less" that you could choose to not care about. I suspect the phrase you seek is "I couldn't care less." Just a suggestion for you to consider ... kinda like the one that you could find someone less antagonistic, biased and reality-challenged to represent you. :)like...facts? Is that a republican code word for misleading information? If the best you can come up with is to challenge me on colloquialisms, I don't really value your opinion on representatives, but thanks anyway.



You know my sister lived in NC for a while.

She went through three marraiges while there. Must be something in the water.

ohh ohh a grammar nazi, better watch out, someone's got their red pen out and points will be deducted... lol

no one believes you luncheon with your congressman whether its true or not, so don't both trying to impress us with your political connections. they might be true, but this is the internet and they make you appear to be a self aggrandizing(and possibly pathological) liar.

What ... ever! Actually, whether you believe me or not is a matter of virtually total indifference to me.

like...facts? Is that a republican code word for misleading information? If the best you can come up with is to challenge me on colloquialisms, I don't really value your opinion on representatives, but thanks anyway.

You know my sister lived in NC for a while. She went through three marraiges while there. Must be something in the water.

More likely something in your sister.

"Facts" is actually a code word for "things foreign to Californians." :D

What ... ever! Actually, whether you believe me or not is a matter of virtually total indifference to me.
my isn't that a ackward construction for someone so critical of the turns of phrase of their fellow posters.

First there was the demand that electoral votes from Ohio be challenged as legitimately going to Bush, now ( yesterday ) it's badgering the nominee for SecDef, Condoleeza Rice. What IS this woman up to? Building a future for herself in the Democratic party, or just being a b***h?

Hmmm, unfamiliar with the role played by an opposition party?

Hint: not the majority party's rubber stamp.

Hmmm, unfamiliar with the role played by an opposition party?

Hint: not the majority party's rubber stamp.

Clue: never expected HER to be! :D

EDIT: Or any other Democrat, with the possible exception of Zell Miller, for whose courage and fiestiness I have great admiration! :)

More likely something in your sister.

"Facts" is actually a code word for "things foreign to Californians." :D
Yeah she never did make good choices, she too was in the military.

And we Dems prefer "facts" to mean "truth".

I know, what a strange concept.

Condi is a total dog--Id take Boxer anyday over her

Ditto. Well I would take others over both but if I had to choose between the two.....

Yeah she never did make good choices, she too was in the military.

And we Dems prefer "facts" to mean "truth".

I know, what a strange concept.

What are you? An exercise in artificial stupidity? There's a world of difference between "facts" and "truth." Even extreme leftists can use "facts." "Truth," however, seems to constantly escape them. :D

Clue: never expected HER to be! :D

EDIT: Or any other Democrat, with the possible exception of Zell Miller, for whose courage and fiestiness I have great admiration! :)

Ahh you like the crack pots!

"I wish I could challenge you to a duel"

He should just declare himself a republican and get over with it....

What are you? An exercise in artificial stupidity? There's a world of difference between "facts" and "truth." Even extreme leftists can use "facts." "Truth," however, seems to constantly escape them. :DWell there you go.


A true conservative never lets the truth get in the way of his facts.

Well there you go.

A true conservative never lets the truth get in the way of his facts.

Hmm. I would have thought THEY were just the opposite: never let the facts get in the way of Truth, but that's probably another thread. Not being a conservative, I really wouldn't know. :)

thats cause Bush hacked Ohio and Condi Rice allowed 911 to happen

This is the part where I ask you to prove either one of these claims.

This is the part where I ask you to prove either one of these claims.

Don't bother. Proof, as a concept, escapes him. :D

Don't bother. Proof, as a concept, escapes him. :D

Yeah, I figure there's about a 70% chance he responds with "I've already proven it in a lot of other threads," despite the fact that I call him on these claims every time I see them and I have yet to see him respond with any evidence.

Ah, well. Que sera sera.

Don't bother. Proof, as a concept, escapes him. :D

Hey are you saying he is the shrub? :eek:

Clue: never expected HER to be! :D

EDIT: Or any other Democrat, with the possible exception of Zell Miller, for whose courage and fiestiness I have great admiration! :)
Zell Miller is a senile embarassment and it was shameful the way the GOP exploited him during the convention

Hey are you saying he is the shrub? :eek:

I'm sorry. I don't know anyone by that derogation. :)

Zell Miller is a senile embarassment and it was shameful the way the GOP exploited him during the convention

Zell Miller, if they allow him to, could be the salvation of the Democratic Party!

Zell Miller, if they allow him to, could be the salvation of the Democratic Party!

How so?

They all join the Republican party?

Yeah, I figure there's about a 70% chance he responds with "I've already proven it in a lot of other threads," despite the fact that I call him on these claims every time I see them and I have yet to see him respond with any evidence.

Ah, well. Que sera sera.

Let's see what he does with my reply to his last post. Five will get you ten he comes back with either an innanity or something untranslatable into logical thought. :D

Zell Miller, if they allow him to, could be the salvation of the Democratic Party!
you must have him confused with Howard Dean

Copiosa only accepts proof if it agrees with him

How so?

They all join the Republican party?

LOL! Noooo. I don't advocate anything even remotely approaching a one-party system in the US. I meant that if the current crop of "neolibs" would simply listen to the reasons behind his passionate rhetoric, they might realize how far left they have drifted and move a bit back toward center. :)

Copiosa only accepts proof if it agrees with him

Innanity!!! I WIN! :D

EDIT: TWICE! "you must have him confused with Howard Dean" ROFLMAO!!

Zell Miller is a senile embarassment and it was shameful the way the GOP exploited him during the convention

An embarassment? I heard he punched a tornado and stopped it from taking out a small town! That's not embarassing, that's fucking sweet!

An embarassment? I heard he punched a tornado and stopped it from taking out a small town! That's not embarassing, that's fucking sweet!

ROFL! Actually, after seeing his performance at the Republican National Convention, I suspect he simply shouted it into submission! :D

Zell Miller, if they allow him to, could be the salvation of the Democratic Party!We traded him to the republicans for a future third round draft pick. His knees are shot and he's lost his head for the game.

We traded him to the republicans for a future third round draft pick. His knees are shot and he's lost his head for the game.

Perhaps so, but you have to admit that he still has the jaw for the game! :D

Perhaps so, but you have to admit that he still has the jaw for the game! :D

He has 1/2 of the jaw. He only seems to talk to the Repubs. Doesn't know how to talk to the demos.

He has 1/2 of the jaw. He only seems to talk to the Repubs. Doesn't know how to talk to the demos.

[ Bites tongue to keep from stating the obvious ] :D

Copiosa only accepts proof if it agrees with him

That's false, and I doubt you can support that claim by citing an instance in which I rejected facts just because it didn't support my views. By contrast, I could find many instances in which you've done exactly that.

That's false, and I doubt you can support that claim by citing an instance in which I rejected facts just because it didn't support my views. By contrast, I could find many instances in which you've done exactly that.

Repeat after me ... "Skapedroe ... is ... a ... troll!" THere now, isn't that better? :D

Repeat after me ... "Skapedroe ... is ... a ... troll!" THere now, isn't that better? :D

Oh, I'm well aware he's a troll. You have to understand, playing with trolls is sort of my equivalent of solitaire or minesweeper.

Oh, I'm well aware he's a troll. You have to understand, playing with trolls is sort of my equivalent of solitaire or minesweeper.


ROFL! Sorry. Have at it! :D

Repeat after me ... "Skapedroe ... is ... a ... troll!" THere now, isn't that better? :D
You know, after reading your posts on here, I begin to understand why some animals eat their young!
"Backbone?" Hmmm. Looks more like Boxer is the self-serving b***h!
And BTW ... if you "could care less," that means that there is still more "less" that you could choose to not care about. I suspect the phrase you seek is "I couldn't care less." Just a suggestion for you to consider ... kinda like the one that you could find someone less antagonistic, biased and reality-challenged to represent you.

More likely something in your sister.

"Facts" is actually a code word for "things foreign to Californians."
What are you? An exercise in artificial stupidity? There's a world of difference between "facts" and "truth." Even extreme leftists can use "facts." "Truth," however, seems to constantly escape them.

How's that glass house workin' out for ya?

First there was the demand that electoral votes from Ohio be challenged as legitimately going to Bush, now ( yesterday ) it's badgering the nominee for SecDef, Condoleeza Rice. What IS this woman up to? Building a future for herself in the Democratic party, or just being a b***h?

It's funny that it worked out this way. When Boxer was elected to the Senate, there was a big womens rights, equal opportunity movement going on. One of the things we kept hearing over and over was how women in government would be more effective because they approached problems, not with confrontation, but with "caring".

Somewhere Barbara has missed several doses of caring and replaced them with confrontation. So much for women being "different" when it comes to politics.

And to answer the original question, she's just a partisan hack, like so many of the Democrats. And a lot of the Republicans, too, to be fair and balanced.

He has 1/2 of the jaw. He only seems to talk to the Repubs. Doesn't know how to talk to the demos.

Go to the library and get Miller's book. There's too much I did this and I did that, but in between, you can get an idea of what the Democratic party used to mean to normal people. Not ones that needed to be represented by a special interest group. That's the kind of Democratic party I voted in too. And the way it is now is the reason I left.

LOL! Noooo. I don't advocate anything even remotely approaching a one-party system in the US. I meant that if the current crop of "neolibs" would simply listen to the reasons behind his passionate rhetoric, they might realize how far left they have drifted and move a bit back toward center. :)
Miller is your idea of moderate? He's even more authoritarian than most Repubs.

LOL! Noooo. I don't advocate anything even remotely approaching a one-party system in the US. I meant that if the current crop of "neolibs" would simply listen to the reasons behind his passionate rhetoric, they might realize how far left they have drifted and move a bit back toward center. :)


Hehe. From over here (England) both of your parties look more conservative than our conservatives. The dems are not left wing, at least by European standards as they support the death penalty and wouldn't dare push for a public health service.

Just to clear things up the term neo-liberal refers to people supporting libertarian economic plans and less then libertarian beliefs about personal freedoms. Many neo-liberals are also neoconservatives, who are politicians who were formerly new liberal or socialist leaning and later shifted away from that.

New liberals are liberal politicans who adopted many social democrat policies.

Hehe. From over here (England) both of your parties look more conservative than our conservatives. The dems are not left wing, at least by European standards as they support the death penalty and wouldn't dare push for a public health service.
Most Democrats don't support the death penalty.

Miller is your idea of moderate? He's even more authoritarian than most Repubs.
Miller is a Southern Democrat. Before this focus on special interests, most southerners voted Democratic and the candidates were generally conservative. Look at Sam Nunn, for instance. Very conservative Democrat.

Most Democrats don't support the death penalty.

Sorry. I thought Kerry had said he supported the death penalty. He actually supports it for 'terrorists' only. Well, he's heading in the right direction!

But I still doubt that any Dem presidential candidate would call for free healthcare for all though.

She said what she wanted to say and I think she had some dam good questions. What scares me is that the "smart" Condi couldn't awnser any of them.

I hope the people of the USA won't support an other war (in Iran), but I think this administration will finde a way to start any war the want (even if there aren't any reasons or WMD's).

:headbang:

...badgering the nominee for SecDef, Condoleeza Rice.

Perhaps you should learn a few actual, like ... facts before you so blithely attack others, yes? :)Like the fact that Rice has been nominated as Secretary of State, not Secretary of Defence. But nice Freudian slip there, it looks good on you. ;)

Like the fact that Rice has been nominated as Secretary of State, not Secretary of Defence. But nice Freudian slip there, it looks good on you. ;)

This has been pointed out to me and I was properly chagrined. Thank you for your kindness and concern. :rolleyes:

She said what she wanted to say and I think she had some dam good questions. What scares me is that the "smart" Condi couldn't awnser any of them.

Um ... you did watch the same hearing I did, yes? You know, the ones held in DC where various people from both parties grilled Ms. Rice about her eligibility for the post of Secretary of State? The one where Ms. Boxer ( who apparently was trying to live up to her name ) asked questions to which even Solomon or Stephen Hawking wouldn't have been able to respond in the time alotted? The one where even the Minority Leader stated that he was going to vote for her?

Miller is your idea of moderate? He's even more authoritarian than most Repubs.

I never even hinted that Zell Miller was a moderate.

Ever hear of the Hegelian dialectic? The left-wing extremists in the US have used this device to pull the Democratic party far, far to the left. All I'm suggesting is that by at least listening to Zell Miller and others who now feel aliented from the Democratic Party, the Party might be able to correct this steady leftward drift and return a bit to its roots, and thus be able to actually ... like ... WIN a few elections! :)

First there was the demand that electoral votes from Ohio be challenged as legitimately going to Bush, now ( yesterday ) it's badgering the nominee for SecDef, Condoleeza Rice. What IS this woman up to? Building a future for herself in the Democratic party, or just being a b***h?
I think you mean sec. of state. But on Boxer, I agree with you fully.

As long as you acknowledge she's just doing the job she's elected to, I could care less what you think of her.

Your opinion isn't among the the one's that matter now is it? Those of us she represent think she's doing just fine. In fact I e-mail her office quite regularly to either prompt some action or, as in the case of her standing up in the senate to contest the Ohio electorial vote, thank her for her actions and tell her that we the people she represents, support them.

Maybe you ought to take similar actions with your elected representatives and quit bitching about the ones that represent others.
The fact of the matter is she isn't. She was elected to serve the interests of the people of California. Instead she is serving the interests of the Democratic Party. Putting her party's interests ahead of those of her own constituents. Not to mention she supports almost every special interest out there, including multinational corporations.
She is supposed to represent the people of California in the Senate, instead, she is representing the Democratic Party and multinational corporations.

As long as you acknowledge she's just doing the job she's elected to, I could care less what you think of her.

Your opinion isn't among the the one's that matter now is it? Those of us she represent think she's doing just fine. In fact I e-mail her office quite regularly to either prompt some action or, as in the case of her standing up in the senate to contest the Ohio electorial vote, thank her for her actions and tell her that we the people she represents, support them.

Maybe you ought to take similar actions with your elected representatives and quit bitching about the ones that represent others.
And who are you to say whose opinions count and don't count? Do you have some kind of a special license that you carry in your in pocket.
So you email her office, I know for a fact that there are a lot of other people who don't agree with you, who do the same.

And who are you to say whose opinions count and don't count? Do you have some kind of a special license that you carry in your in pocket.
So you email her office, I know for a fact that there are a lot of other people who don't agree with you, who do the same.

SIC 'em, Whittier! They've hijacked your Party! :D

like...facts? Is that a republican code word for misleading information? If the best you can come up with is to challenge me on colloquialisms, I don't really value your opinion on representatives, but thanks anyway.



You know my sister lived in NC for a while.

She went through three marraiges while there. Must be something in the water.
Again, what makes your views anymore valuable than his? As far as I know you could some high school student playing on the forum while in class, instead of doing his classwork.

Perhaps you should learn a few actual, like ... facts before you so blithely attack others, yes? :)
Just a suggestion for you to consider ... kinda like the one that you could find someone less antagonistic, biased and reality-challenged to represent you. :)
Well that rules you out completely, as anything even remotely approaching the truth (ie anything that's opposite to what the Bush admin say) has you scrambling for your tin foil hat and hiding behind the couch with your fingers in your ears yelling "lalalalala I can't hear you!!".

Well that rules you out completely, as anything even remotely approaching the truth (ie anything that's opposite to what the Bush admin say) has you scrambling for your tin foil hat and hiding behind the couch with your fingers in your ears yelling "lalalalala I can't hear you!!".

Arghhh! Your incisive reasoning, dazzling logic, and rapier sharp wit have cut me to the quick! I surrender! Take me away in chains to the nearest padded cell and make me listen to the recorded wisdom of Hermann Goering and Mao tse Tung! Alternate beating me with a copy of Das Kapital and the compiled lyrics of Bob Dylan! Aieeeee! :D

Arghhh! Your incisive reasoning, dazzling logic, and rapier sharp wit have cut me to the quick! I surrender! Take me away in chains to the nearest padded cell and make me listen to the recorded wisdom of Hermann Goering and Mao tse Tung! Alternate beating me with a copy of Das Kapital and the compiled lyrics of Bob Dylan! Aieeeee! :D
Oh how pithy of you. To imply that because I don't agree with you, therefore I must be both Fascist and Communist (which is contradictory if you knew anything about politics), as well as being a hippie.
Gosh, I'd best not debate with you, as you're obviously far superior to all.

Actually I'd best not debate with youas you have shown an immense capability to ignore anything or anyone who has a contra viewpoint, resorting instead to flaming rather than introspection and considered opinion.

First there was the demand that electoral votes from Ohio be challenged as legitimately going to Bush, now ( yesterday ) it's badgering the nominee for SecDef, Condoleeza Rice. What IS this woman up to? Building a future for herself in the Democratic party, or just being a b***h?



Yeah.... why the hell would anyone ask tough questions of somebody who is going to lead the foreign policy of the country. I mean, it's not like the leaders of the countries she will have to deal with will ever do that....

:rolleyes:

it's badgering the nominee for SecDef, Condoleeza Rice. What IS this woman up to?

I did not read the entire thread to see if anyone else already pointed out that Ms. Rice is nominee for Sec. of State not Sec. of Defense.

A good chunk of the text of the "badgering" by Ms. Boxer from her initial statement:


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.



What exactly was unreasonable about that?

Condi's response included this gem:

"We knew that he was the world's most dangerous man in the world's most dangerous region." refering to Saddam.


Really Condi? Saddam was the most dangerous man in the world?


Bullshit.

SIC 'em, Whittier! They've hijacked your Party! :D

Psst. He is a repub.....

The fact of the matter is she isn't. She was elected to serve the interests of the people of California. Instead she is serving the interests of the Democratic Party. Putting her party's interests ahead of those of her own constituents. Not to mention she supports almost every special interest out there, including multinational corporations.
She is supposed to represent the people of California in the Senate, instead, she is representing the Democratic Party and multinational corporations.

And your point is what?

Instead of a Democrat serving special interests we should put in a Repub that will serve special interests?

The person and party will change but the end result is the same.

Again, what makes your views anymore valuable than his? As far as I know you could some high school student playing on the forum while in class, instead of doing his classwork.

Ahh so the viewpoints of the youth have no value?

Yeah.... why the hell would anyone ask tough questions of somebody who is going to lead the foreign policy of the country. I mean, it's not like the leaders of the countries she will have to deal with will ever do that....

:rolleyes:

Hey Zepp, worry about your impotent country for once, and try not to bludgeon any baby seals today.

Ahh so the viewpoints of the youth have no value?

Actually they don't as they can't vote. Even if they are of age to vote, they hardly ever do, so they don't matter.

Actually they don't as they can't vote. Even if they are of age to vote, they hardly ever do, so they don't matter.

Well you are a conservative and I bet a republican. Youth is always a threat to the Republicans so they like them not to vote.

It's funny people complain about the "morals" and what not of the country but then they go about dismissing the young and tell them their viewpoints don't matter since they can't vote.

You want to change the country? Engage the young.

Hey Zepp, worry about your impotent country for once, and try not to bludgeon any baby seals today.

The points he makes are valid and since the US does affect Canada, he should have a right to express concern.

She's just jealous that Condi is smarter, better looking, more successful, and more talented.

HA! Like Hell she's smarter, better, more successful, and more talented! Condi Rice ought to be checked to make sure there is not a chip in her head!

(For those who did not understand, I was referring to the Stepford Wives)

Both she and Bush are completely incompetent. After all, September 11 happened on THEIR watch!

Boxer is one of a handful of politicians up there who really calls it as she sees it. I support her challenge of the election, and her "no" vote against Rice.

God forbid somone has the genuine moral and ethical decency to call lying politicians liars.


Oh dear me oh my, maybe condoleeza rice should cry about.

Ahh so the viewpoints of the youth have no value?
They have value, as long as they don't do it on taxpayer's time. When they are in school, they are on taxpayer time. school is for studying, not for engaging in politics on online forums.

The fact of the matter is she isn't. She was elected to serve the interests of the people of California. Instead she is serving the interests of the Democratic Party. Putting her party's interests ahead of those of her own constituents. Not to mention she supports almost every special interest out there, including multinational corporations.
She is supposed to represent the people of California in the Senate, instead, she is representing the Democratic Party and multinational corporations.

I'm a Californian, and she's serving me.

Therefore, you are WRONG

Emphasis added for truth ^_^


Boxer is awesome. I'm glad we stuck with her.

HA! Like Hell she's smarter, better, more successful, and more talented! Condi Rice ought to be checked to make sure there is not a chip in her head!

(For those who did not understand, I was referring to the Stepford Wives)

Both she and Bush are completely incompetent. After all, September 11 happened on THEIR watch!

Boxer is one of a handful of politicians up there who really calls it as she sees it. I support her challenge of the election, and her "no" vote against Rice.
So you support her, challenging the right of the American people to elect whoever they want to the White House. Bush did get a supermajority nationwide.

Hey Zepp, worry about your impotent country for once, and try not to bludgeon any baby seals today.


Thank you - both for your interest in my interest, your well-considered contribution to the topic at hand, and for your keenly insightful commentary on Canadian policy.



It really cleared things up for people here and I'm sure they apreciated it just as much as I do.



Kudos on a job well done!!

The Dems have been pushovers lately, God knows they need someone like her. If we dont have people putting our government under scrutiny at all times, administrations, Democratic or Republican can get out of hand.

So you support her, challenging the right of the American people to elect whoever they want to the White House. Bush did get a supermajority nationwide.

I know I do.

Pssst-it wasn't a "supermajority." Really, don't have a dick waving contest if you're flaccid.

So you support her, challenging the right of the American people to elect whoever they want to the White House. Bush did get a supermajority nationwide.

61 million to 58 million is a super majority?

I'm a Californian, and she's serving me.

Therefore, you are WRONG

Emphasis added for truth ^_^


Boxer is awesome. I'm glad we stuck with her.

That's about as compelling as me saying that I'm a Californian and that she ISN'T serving me, so he's right. :-\

That's about as compelling as me saying that I'm a Californian and that she ISN'T serving me, so he's right. :-\

Actually, his statement requires for her to activly server against ALL of california.

If she serves for just one californian, then she's serving for California-just a small percentage.

Actually, his statement requires for her to activly server against ALL of california.

If she serves for just one californian, then she's serving for California-just a small percentage.
Goed, it doesn't work that way. When the people of California, elect you to the US Senate, you are elected to serve the interests of all Californians, not just those of a tiny minority or those of your biggest contributers.
If you are serving the interests of Tom, Dick, and Jane but ignoring the interests of everyone else, then you are not serving the interests of California.

Hey Zepp, worry about your impotent country for once, and try not to bludgeon any baby seals today.
I would disagree there. Since many foreigners know more about the US Constitution and how American government operates than most Americans do. Which is unfortunate, but that can be changed if we required that all high school students take special Constitution and Government classes to graduate.
Some schools offer them, but most don't require them. We need to make government a nationwide requirement for graduation from high school.

She's a bona fide b**ch.

She's a bona fide b**ch.

Could be.

However, she has light-years to catch up to Queen Annie of the Repubs.

Could be.

However, she has light-years to catch up to Queen Annie of the Repubs.

Who?

Could be.

However, she has light-years to catch up to Queen Annie of the Repubs.
I really don't think they're that far apart.

Oh how pithy of you. To imply that because I don't agree with you, therefore I must be both Fascist and Communist (which is contradictory if you knew anything about politics), as well as being a hippie.
Gosh, I'd best not debate with you, as you're obviously far superior to all.

Actually I'd best not debate with youas you have shown an immense capability to ignore anything or anyone who has a contra viewpoint, resorting instead to flaming rather than introspection and considered opinion.
Oh? And this is "introspective and considered?"


Well that rules you out completely, as anything even remotely approaching the truth (ie anything that's opposite to what the Bush admin say) has you scrambling for your tin foil hat and hiding behind the couch with your fingers in your ears yelling "lalalalala I can't hear you!!"

Give me a friggin' BREAK! :rolleyes:

I really don't think they're that far apart.

Well has Boxer ever expressed hatred against a group of people? Implied that violence against them and death was valid?.....

It won't change anything now, but if the dems make a big enough stink about it, maybe the machines will have to leave a paper trail next time. That would be good for everyone. It may be nothing, but it just naturally makes people suspicious when there are objections to leaving a paper trail.

Maybe, just maybe, she's doing what we (I'm Californian) elected her to do-stand up instead of just rolling over for the republicans. But, yeah-keeping bitching that people won't tow your line.
Ditto on everything

California is becoming more like the America that we all hope for. Billions into stem cell research, a senator that kicks ass in Congress...

of course there's the whole deficit issue, but hopefully Arnie will work something out. I like him because he has yet to be corrupted by politics.

Clue: never expected HER to be! :D

EDIT: Or any other Democrat, with the possible exception of Zell Miller, for whose courage and fiestiness I have great admiration! :)

I challenge you to a duel--with spitballs! :D

Well has Boxer ever expressed hatred against a group of people? Implied that violence against them and death was valid?.....
Have the Republicans? Just remember that what you say about Dems or Reps. does apply to other group as well.

Condi's just a puppet, she's really controlled by bush, and does whatever he asks her to do. Where's the check and balances people?

yes I'm Californian, and can put a long, truthful rant about how much Bush will mess up our economy and our national debt, which, incedently is currently just over 7.6 TRILLION dollars.

and anyways, what's with the war in Iraq? If we will have any hope of succeeding there and everywhere else, the US has to be united, and Bush must somehow appease the Democrats, according to Machievelli, in the book The Prince .

Condi's just a puppet, she's really controlled by bush, and does whatever he asks her to do. Where's the check and balances people?

yes I'm Californian, and can put a long, truthful rant about how much Bush will mess up our economy and our national debt, which, incedently is currently just over 7.6 TRILLION dollars.

and anyways, what's with the war in Iraq? If we will have any hope of succeeding there and everywhere else, the US has to be united, and Bush must somehow appease the Democrats, according to Machievelli, in the book The Prince .
Not gonna happen, cause he doesn't seem the type to give in to children who throw temper tantrums.

Could be.

However, she has light-years to catch up to Queen Annie of the Repubs.

True, but Anne Coulter is just one of the Republicans' wackos, while Boxer is one of the Democrats' senators.

Thank god someone in the Democratic Party is showing backbone and exposing Rice for the lying bitch that she is.

Hear, hear!

Or maybe that should be "read, read!"

Goed, it doesn't work that way. When the people of California, elect you to the US Senate, you are elected to serve the interests of all Californians, not just those of a tiny minority or those of your biggest contributers.
If you are serving the interests of Tom, Dick, and Jane but ignoring the interests of everyone else, then you are not serving the interests of California.

And yet, somehow she was elected. So obviously enough people see her as serving California.

Just to bring this back around to the actual words said (thanks Zepp)
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.

Rice is applying for the job of chief diplomat-the person we send to communicate with other nations. Boxer is bringing up LEGITIMATE concerns about Rice's OPPORTUNISM (hey Eutrusca, pay attention)-Boxer is pointing out that Rice seems to say what suits her at the time REGARDLESS OF WHAT SHE HAS SAID BEFORE or WHAT THE ADMINISTRATION IS SAYING-as long as it will 'sell' what she is pushing. This credibility gap may fly in fly-over-FOX newsland, but the rest of the world is going to have a problem with that-and regardless of what we're pretending that matters-especially when it's THIS POSITION.

So tell me, how is this being opportunistic on Boxers part? And if that standard is being applied, why is it not also being applied to Rice who has a demonstratable history of it? Hmm? Looks to me like Boxer is doing her fucking job. Too bad she's the only one.

And yet, somehow she was elected. So obviously enough people see her as serving California.

Maxine Waters and Cynthia McKinney get elected every two years. Does that mean they represent their districts well? Not hardly. Waters is good at crying about discrimination and that must resonate will all her opressed constituents.

McKinney, if you remember, begged for the money that the feds refused from the Saudi government after the attacks on September 11. Her non-representation became so bad, Dekalb County, the bulk of which is in her district, hired a lobbyist to represent them in Congress. McKinney wins because she's got a good organization and dumb constituents.

Just to bring this back around to the actual words said (thanks Zepp)


Rice is applying for the job of chief diplomat-the person we send to communicate with other nations. Boxer is bringing up LEGITIMATE concerns about Rice's OPPORTUNISM (hey Eutrusca, pay attention)-Boxer is pointing out that Rice seems to say what suits her at the time REGARDLESS OF WHAT SHE HAS SAID BEFORE or WHAT THE ADMINISTRATION IS SAYING-as long as it will 'sell' what she is pushing. This credibility gap may fly in fly-over-FOX newsland, but the rest of the world is going to have a problem with that-and regardless of what we're pretending that matters-especially when it's THIS POSITION.

So tell me, how is this being opportunistic on Boxers part? And if that standard is being applied, why is it not also being applied to Rice who has a demonstratable history of it? Hmm? Looks to me like Boxer is doing her ... job. Too bad she's the only one.

Okay, I don't have Boxer's staff, nor do I have the time to look up quotes, but let's just look at some of the stuff in Boxer's statement and try to reconcile it with news that is generally common knowledge.

First, Babs came prepared with graphics that were large enough that it took "staffers" to hold them up to the cameras. That smacks of opportunism. She was clearly playing to the media, in the hopes that the pictures would leave the kind of impression she knew her sound bites would lack.

Next, you get an opinion completely out of context. This guy may have been ignored by Bush, just like that other terrorism "expert" that wrote the tell-all book. Can't remember his name just now. Anyhow, why should we take one opinion from a guy that may well have had a chip on his shoulder and just made the whole statement up to suit his purposes?

As we get into the nuclear stuff, shame on Congress for being snookered in by such convincing lies. Only they weren't lies. Four major intelligence services, the US, Britain, Russia, and France, thought that Saddam was trying to acquire nuclear technology. And not to power the grid, either. The heads of the two inspection teams reported that they saw evidence of nuclear weapons programs. Then we have the fake letter about the the yellowcake from Niger, but the activity was thought to be real by that same international group of intelligence agencies.

So when Bush said, "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.", he had good information to go on. When Rice said,"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.", it's not like there were dates marked on a calendar. Bush's "If...could..." setup was never a promise that Saddam would nuke the US in a year, only that the effort and potential was there.

The rest of Babs statement looks like hyperbole and inaccuracy. Why let facts get in the way of a good speech. No one will ever check up on them. No one at CBS, NBC, or ABC, anyway.

Let me say one personal thing about the war. Bush had intelligence that pointed to Saddam's efforts to acquire nukes. He had a couple choices to make. The first was wait and see. The disadvantage to that was that the "see" part might have been in New York, or LA.

Another option was to invade and arrest Saddam. The worst thing that could happen in that case would be that there was no plan to acquire nukes and we'd just remove a really evil man from power. I'm glad we went with plan 2.

I'm even more appreciative that we are fighting terrorists in Bagdad and Mosul, instead of Atlanta and Chicago. Plus we have started the Iraqis down the path to liberty, if they can handle it. At least now, they'll have the chance.

What are you? An exercise in artificial stupidity? There's a world of difference between "facts" and "truth." Even extreme leftists can use "facts." "Truth," however, seems to constantly escape them. :D

You know Eutrusca when you first came here, while I never agreed with your politics you at least tried to make sound arguments. Over the last few months a large number of your posts are nothing more than flames and flamebait, what happened?

I find Boxer's behavior no more outlandish, and her opinions no more specious, than Schumer, Feinstein, Pelosi, or some other Democrats. Which is to say that I rarely can agree with someone who seems so bent on taking away my rights to protect myself, to educate my own children, and to be taxed less by the Federal Government.

I don't find her any different in tactics, public relations ploys, or innuendo spewing than Tom DeLay or other Republicans. People who are Senators are generally cynical assholes who rarely really have the interests of their consitutents, or the country as a whole, at heart. They are self-aggrandizing egomaniacs who make any troll that has ever been on any Internet forum look like Mother Teresa in her selfless prime.

It's too easy to use the B-word for her, or any other Senator. None, and I mean, none of them can pass muster if you spend some time examining their speeches and voting records. They either severely contradict themselves (and strongly deny any contradiction), or they will outright lie to protect the positions they really care about.

First there was the demand that electoral votes from Ohio be challenged as legitimately going to Bush, now ( yesterday ) it's badgering the nominee for SecDef, Condoleeza Rice. What IS this woman up to? Building a future for herself in the Democratic party, or just being a b***h?

Probably both.

But, to be fair, poor Condie was saying idiotic things like "I hope we can get through this without questioning my integrity."

Seriously lady, you are up for Secretary of State of the US, your integrity (or lack thereof) is an important issue and *should* be questioned!

Okay, I don't have Boxer's staff, nor do I have the time to look up quotes, but let's just look at some of the stuff in Boxer's statement and try to reconcile it with news that is generally common knowledge.

First, Babs came prepared with graphics that were large enough that it took "staffers" to hold them up to the cameras. That smacks of opportunism. She was clearly playing to the media, in the hopes that the pictures would leave the kind of impression she knew her sound bites would lack.
Are you seriously claiming that the accusation of oportunism rests in the fact that she came prepared to a public hearing? That she had information viewable by the public at this public hearing? Visual aids? Thats like calling a mechanic opportunistic for having all those tools in his garage.

Next, you get an opinion completely out of context. This guy may have been ignored by Bush, just like that other terrorism "expert" that wrote the tell-all book. Can't remember his name just now. Anyhow, why should we take one opinion from a guy that may well have had a chip on his shoulder and just made the whole statement up to suit his purposes?
I guess we could dismiss a formost authority on terrorism if it doesn't gel with the agenda, accept:
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.
.

As we get into the nuclear stuff, shame on Congress for being snookered in by such convincing lies. Only they weren't lies. Four major intelligence services, the US, Britain, Russia, and France, thought that Saddam was trying to acquire nuclear technology. And not to power the grid, either. The heads of the two inspection teams reported that they saw evidence of nuclear weapons programs. Then we have the fake letter about the the yellowcake from Niger, but the activity was thought to be real by that same international group of intelligence agencies.
The biggest problem is those four where listening to the same guy. And there where plenty of people saying it was, in fact, NOT a slam dunk-including Hans Blix who was heading the inspections.


So when Bush said, "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.", he had good information to go on. When Rice said,"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.", it's not like there were dates marked on a calendar. Bush's "If...could..." setup was never a promise that Saddam would nuke the US in a year, only that the effort and potential was there.
Wow. That's a pretty good out. "We had our fingers crossed." With that the argument could just as easily have been "If Saddam is allowed to build a time machine, he could be able to go back and assasinate Washington and there would be no America."

And it dodges the primary concern, that what she says goes back and forth-look at the dates.

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."
and then:
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."
Hmmm. On PBS she backs off the claims-denies them even, and on FOX she goes back-whos pandering to audiences again?


The rest of Babs statement looks like hyperbole and inaccuracy. Why let facts get in the way of a good speech. No one will ever check up on them. No one at CBS, NBC, or ABC, anyway.
Nothing like a parting 'cry wolf' at the liberal media....Let me ask you-if this: If we're crucifying media as a whole because of some memos that can't be verified, why are you so willing to give a pass on this:
Then we have the fake letter about the the yellowcake from Niger
when that one cost lives?
Claims of hyperbole and innaccuracy are empty when you don't even point out what you are talking about.

Let me say one personal thing about the war. Bush had intelligence that pointed to Saddam's efforts to acquire nukes. He had a couple choices to make. The first was wait and see. The disadvantage to that was that the "see" part might have been in New York, or LA.

Another option was to invade and arrest Saddam. The worst thing that could happen in that case would be that there was no plan to acquire nukes and we'd just remove a really evil man from power. I'm glad we went with plan 2.

I'm even more appreciative that we are fighting terrorists in Bagdad and Mosul, instead of Atlanta and Chicago. Plus we have started the Iraqis down the path to liberty, if they can handle it. At least now, they'll have the chance.
Accept the idea is to make us safer, to reduce the terrorists, but it hasn't-in fact it has gotten worse-
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.
So in our time of 'danger' we made another countries people unstable-that's the only way you can describe Iraq now-and the world a more dangerous place. And we can't seem to get a straight answer out of the person we're making chief diplomat.

I'm pretty glad that Boxer took her 'opportunity' to question that decision.

Maxine Waters and Cynthia McKinney get elected every two years. Does that mean they represent their districts well? Not hardly. Waters is good at crying about discrimination and that must resonate will all her opressed constituents.

McKinney, if you remember, begged for the money that the feds refused from the Saudi government after the attacks on September 11. Her non-representation became so bad, Dekalb County, the bulk of which is in her district, hired a lobbyist to represent them in Congress. McKinney wins because she's got a good organization and dumb constituents.

But we arn't arguing on the intellence of the constituents, we're arguing on weither or not they SERVE them.

As far as I'm conserned, getting elected shows that they're serving their constituents. Important note here-they're getting elected legally. Obviously dictators and such don't server anyone if they arn't elected legally.

It simple: if they didn't server their constituents, would they be elected?

But we arn't arguing on the intellence of the constituents, we're arguing on weither or not they SERVE them.

As far as I'm conserned, getting elected shows that they're serving their constituents. Important note here-they're getting elected legally. Obviously dictators and such don't server anyone if they arn't elected legally.

It simple: if they didn't server their constituents, would they be elected?
simple way for people to get reelected without serving their constituents: serve the rich and elite. That is what Boxer does and that is why she got reelected, cause the rich and elite poured hundreds of millions into keeping her in office so they would not have to lose one of their puppets.

Have the Republicans? Just remember that what you say about Dems or Reps. does apply to other group as well.

Hmm I thought we were talking about Babs and Annie? You said Babs was similar to Annie to the question remains has Babs, expressed rather violent views against a group of people?

Hmm I thought we were talking about Babs and Annie? You said Babs was similar to Annie to the question remains has Babs, expressed rather violent views against a group of people?
this isn't about their views, its about their policy positions.

Not gonna happen, cause he doesn't seem the type to give in to children who throw temper tantrums.

Yup children are that way.

The Shrub: I am right!
The Demos: No I am right!
The Shrub: No I am right!
and so forth....

And yet, somehow she was elected. So obviously enough people see her as serving California.

Tsk Tsk!

How quickly you forget Republican/Consertive thought

You have mental problems and or a traitor if you vote Democratic! ;)

simple way for people to get reelected without serving their constituents: serve the rich and elite. That is what Boxer does and that is why she got reelected, cause the rich and elite poured hundreds of millions into keeping her in office so they would not have to lose one of their puppets.

And yet, if a liberal suggests that Bush did that, they are called everything from traitors to insane.

Interesting.


And secondly, could you actually explain how that works? Most poor college students that I know-I being one of them-voted for her. We certainly arn't rich or elite.

thats cause Bush hacked Ohio
How can you hack punchcard ballots?

and Condi Rice allowed 911 to happen
Like FDR allowed Pearl Harbor to happen?

I am a citizen of the great state of California who is neither rich nor powerful. I voted for Boxer with the express hope that she'd go to Capitol Hill to kick ass and take names in the administration - in other words, with the express hope that she'd act as a responsible member of the opposition party. I'm sorry if Rice went home crying, but so far Boxer has only confirmed me in my decision to vote for her.

Maybe, just maybe, she's doing what we (I'm Californian) elected her to do-stand up instead of just rolling over for the republicans. But, yeah-keeping bitching that people won't tow your line.

Here here! I love how the right wing talking heads are all blustering about this (for days, my god, it's unending), trying to say that Boxer is just a fringe nut. Of course, these are the same people that would have you believe that the election results show that America overwhelmingly supports Bush's administration or that they and Fox are the only sources for honest news. If you buy the "Boxer = looney left" bit, you need to turn off your dittobox. She said nothing out of the usual, nothing surprising, save for the direct way in which she went after Rice - and bravo for that.

I, for one, loved the, "Please don't impugn my integrity (while accusing me of lying)" bit. Oh, poor Condi... :( Thank you, Barbara Boxer, for earning my vote.

Boxer is adequitly representing the people who voted for her. I did, and she's doing everything I wanted. Personally I think that's all there should be to it.

And secondly, could you actually explain how that works? Most poor college students that I know-I being one of them-voted for her. We certainly arn't rich or elite.

The Neocons took a page from the Nazis' book on how to marginalize a group - watch "The Eternal Jew" sometime. Jews, the menace from within, are conspiring to destroy America (sound familiar?). They come in two types - the rich, powerful Jews, and the gutter Jews (ie. Liberal elites and dirty hippies). There is, of course, no one in between...that's where the "normal" people are, and God knows that normal people support George W. Bush! Normal people, then, would not have put Boxer into office...only fatcat liberals, totally unlike the fatcats Bush is partying with this week, who are the good kind.

Times change, but stereotyping is part of human nature, for those so base.

Here here! I love how the right wing talking heads are all blustering about this (for days, my god, it's unending), trying to say that Boxer is just a fringe nut. Of course, these are the same people that would have you believe that the election results show that America overwhelmingly supports Bush's administration or that they and Fox are the only sources for honest news. If you buy the "Boxer = looney left" bit, you need to turn off your dittobox. She said nothing out of the usual, nothing surprising, save for the direct way in which she went after Rice - and bravo for that.

I, for one, loved the, "Please don't impugn my integrity (while accusing me of lying)" bit. Oh, poor Condi... :( Thank you, Barbara Boxer, for earning my vote.

I didn't see as Boxer's comments or attempt to insinuate that Condi was lying had any real effect.

She's free to insinuate all she likes - outside of her constituency, the majority of Americans probably could care less what Boxer says or thinks.

I didn't see as Boxer's comments or attempt to insinuate that Condi was lying had any real effect.

She's free to insinuate all she likes - outside of her constituency, the majority of Americans probably could care less what Boxer says or thinks.

No real effect at all...about half the country is busy being shocked and outraged, and the other half agrees with her already. As I mentioned, she said nothing surprising. It's just refreshing when someone within the system points out that the emperor has no clothes.

I didn't see as Boxer's comments or attempt to insinuate that Condi was lying had any real effect.

She's free to insinuate all she likes - outside of her constituency, the majority of Americans probably could care less what Boxer says or thinks.

I was more worried by the fact that Condie seemed to think that the question was out of line. Whether she likes it or not, she is a public figure, and her integrity can, and definitely *should* be questioned.

No real effect at all...about half the country is busy being shocked and outraged, and the other half agrees with her already. As I mentioned, she said nothing surprising. It's just refreshing when someone within the system points out that the emperor has no clothes.
Whereas Boxer's been naked since she became a senator.

The Neocons took a page from the Nazis' book on how to marginalize a group - watch "The Eternal Jew" sometime. Jews, the menace from within, are conspiring to destroy America (sound familiar?). They come in two types - the rich, powerful Jews, and the gutter Jews (ie. Liberal elites and dirty hippies). There is, of course, no one in between...that's where the "normal" people are, and God knows that normal people support George W. Bush! Normal people, then, would not have put Boxer into office...only fatcat liberals, totally unlike the fatcats Bush is partying with this week, who are the good kind.

Times change, but stereotyping is part of human nature, for those so base.
Wait a minute, which party advocates the use of gun control, an idea pioneered by Hitler?

No real effect at all...about half the country is busy being shocked and outraged, and the other half agrees with her already. As I mentioned, she said nothing surprising. It's just refreshing when someone within the system points out that the emperor has no clothes.

If you figure that less than 70 percent turned out overall (that may not be the exact number, but this concept should hold), then we have 30 percent who don't care.

If Bush gets 55 percent of the remaining 70 percent, that means he gets 38.5 percent of the overall number.

If you add 38.5 to 30 percent, that means that 68.5 percent, or very nearly 70 percent of people either like Bush (and by extension Condi), or they don't care. That leaves a minority of people who might be wringing their hands or slitting their wrists.

We could say then, that roughly 2 out of 3 people either like Condi or don't care, and 1 out of 3 don't like her.

You'll notice that there are roughly twice as many people on one side (or not caring) as the other.

Go ahead, keep doing this: :headbang:

Whereas Boxer's been naked since she became a senator.
My, what an awful picture that paints.

Whereas Boxer's been naked since she became a senator.

Blah blah blah...do you have any reasons to back this up, or is this just yet another snide remark against the bad lady who spoke up? Boxer went into great detail in attacking Rice, but I seem to be missing that detail from people such as yourself who make such comments.

I wonder why that could be? *snicker*

If you figure that less than 70 percent turned out overall (that may not be the exact number, but this concept should hold), then we have 30 percent who don't care.

If Bush gets 55 percent of the remaining 70 percent, that means he gets 38.5 percent of the overall number.

If you add 38.5 to 30 percent, that means that 68.5 percent, or very nearly 70 percent of people either like Bush (and by extension Condi), or they don't care. That leaves a minority of people who might be wringing their hands or slitting their wrists.

We could say then, that roughly 2 out of 3 people either like Condi or don't care, and 1 out of 3 don't like her.

You'll notice that there are roughly twice as many people on one side (or not caring) as the other.

Go ahead, keep doing this: :headbang:

Because, of course, anyone who voted for Bush is exactly the same as anyone else. There absolutely weren't people only voting for him for the party line. Nor were some people voting solely because they didn't like gay marriage or abortion. Of course, people are of diverse opinion, and we know that there are plenty of people who voted for Bush who did not do so based on Iraq and such issues that Rice was involved with. So, your 38.5 percent is shot full of holes. that number lowers, of course, when you take 10% off to get the real total voter turnout, which was about 60%. You could also remove another 5% for bush, because he got barely over 50% (some mandate). Now,. let's refigure things.

http://story.news.yahoo.com/news?tmpl=story2&u=/ap/20050115/ap_on_re_us/election_turnout

60.7% (turnout)
x 50.8% (for Bush) = 30.8% in favor of Bush (to say nothing of Condi, but we covered that)

So, we establish that 40% didn't vote, and you conveniently assume that they "didn't care," which is crap because the vote wasn't over Rice, but for a vote between two candidates who were pretty lackluster. Simply because people didn't feel the need to get out to vote for Kerry doesn't mean that they didn't care about Bush's administration. Furthermore, since the vote was so polarized, people in certain "safe" areas didn't vote because they didn't feel it would help. These were pretty high density population areas...imagine if all my fellow Californians (such as Chess Squares) voted...I think your assumption that these people were apathetic is pretty wrong and self-serving. I love how you try to lump in non-votes as votes which favor your side, as if 1/3 is a fraction which can just be thrown around - classic. Point: Your fuzzy math is crap, and your slanting of the figures in your favor is pathetic.

I'm banging my head on a wall? Let me remind you that I'm the one who's happy about my politicians doing their jobs (finally) and you're the one in a happy lala land pretending that everyone loves Bush and his cronies. Just keep making noise about it, though, and maybe it'll come true. Or, are you just trying to convince yourself?

Wait a minute, which party advocates the use of gun control, an idea pioneered by Hitler?

My point - mindset of a group likened to that of another very dangerous group, to whose ideology said mindset was a cornerstone.
Your counterpoint - one particular issue, not even held by the group in question for the reason that it's held by the other.

Nice try, no.