NationStates Jolt Archive

Poor Barbara Boxer, she is the victim of the evil Dr. Rice.

http://www.washtimes.com/national/20050123-112502-7061r.htm

' "She turned and attacked me," the California Democrat told CNN's "Late Edition" in describing the confrontation during the Senate Foreign Relations Committee hearing.
"I gave Dr. Rice many opportunities to address specific issues. Instead, she said I was impugning her integrity," Mrs. Boxer said. '

"I gave Dr. Rice many opportunities to address specific issues. Instead, she said I was impugning her integrity," Mrs. Boxer said. '

That is, exactly, what happened. Boxer did her job and asked some tough and very specific questions that Rice deliberately avoided by saying that the question impugned her integrity. However, Rice's integrity was tthe very thing under scrutiny by the panel.

I think Rice was just shocked that the panel didn't just give her some cookies, shower her with praise, and welcome her to the position unquestioned.

However, Boxer doing her job is a clear sign to the nationalist neocon that Boxer is, therefore, a traitor.

I'd like to get me some of that spicy brown rice.

And yet Barbara Boxer was questioning Rice's integrity.

I thought Rice was very diplomatic in her responses.

Shall we find a transcript of the meeting? It is one thing to say that someone attacked someone but is it really so black and white? What constitutes an attack? How does one define an Attack?

All I'm seeing is that Rice gave an answer that Senator Boxer didn't like and then rebuffed Boxer's attempts to badger her into giving the response that Boxer wanted.

And yet Barbara Boxer was questioning Rice's integrity.

I thought Rice was very diplomatic in her responses.

Shall we find a transcript of the meeting? It is one thing to say that someone attacked someone but is it really so black and white? What constitutes an attack? How does one define an Attack?

All I'm seeing is that Rice gave an answer that Senator Boxer didn't like and then rebuffed Boxer's attempts to badger her into giving the response that Boxer wanted.That is exactly what happened. Boxer slandered Rice, and questioned her integrity, and when Rice calmly replied that she thought that was inappropriate, Boxer becomes the victim in her eyes, and in the eyes of those like Keruvalia. :rolleyes:

Yes, Boxer is a victim. A victim of that gray parasite that some mistake to be her "hair."

And yet Barbara Boxer was questioning Rice's integrity.

I thought Rice was very diplomatic in her responses.

Shall we find a transcript of the meeting? It is one thing to say that someone attacked someone but is it really so black and white? What constitutes an attack? How does one define an Attack?

All I'm seeing is that Rice gave an answer that Senator Boxer didn't like and then rebuffed Boxer's attempts to badger her into giving the response that Boxer wanted.
Rice is as dirty as any politician alive - why do you think she refused to testify UNDER OATH at the 911 commission? There is only one reason to refuse to do your testimony under oath.

That is exactly what happened. Boxer slandered Rice, and questioned her integrity, and when Rice calmly replied that she thought that was inappropriate, Boxer becomes the victim in her eyes, and in the eyes of those like Keruvalia. :rolleyes:

Of course, the fact that Rice didn't expect her integrity to be questioned was ludicrous. If the woman really thinks that her integrity shouldn't be questioned before she receives such an important job, she definitely shouldn't receive it. Her integrity is and should be one of the factors under question.

Rice is as dirty as any politician alive - why do you think she refused to testify UNDER OATH at the 911 commission? There is only one reason to refuse to do your testimony under oath.
Yeah, it's called precedent. No other National Security Advisor has been forced to. Research. :D

Of course, the fact that Rice didn't expect her integrity to be questioned was ludicrous. If the woman really thinks that her integrity shouldn't be questioned before she receives such an important job, she definitely shouldn't receive it. Her integrity is and should be one of the factors under question.
Whatever, you would the first one complaining if this had happened to a democrat... Speaking of integrity.

Whatever, you would the first one complaining if this had happened to a democrat... Speaking of integrity.

Considering that I have no more respect for a Democrat than a Republican, you have no idea what you are talking about.

Politicians are politicians, but when someone wishes to be Secretary of State of the US, they damn well better be willing to be held to the strictest of scrutiny.

Considering that I have no more respect for a Democrat than a Republican, you have no idea what you are talking about.

Politicians are politicians, but when someone wishes to be Secretary of State of the US, they damn well better be willing to be held to the strictest of scrutiny.
Scrutiny, yes. Badgering by the like of Babs and ex-Klansman Boyd, no.

Whatever, you would the first one complaining if this had happened to a democrat... Speaking of integrity.

If Bush went on live TV and killed a newborn baby and ate its heart you would be the first to defend him saying he was making a point about Democrats.

Scrutiny, yes. Badgering by the like of Babs and ex-Klansman Boyd, no.

I've heard the audio and I don't see how it was badgering. She came up against questions she didn't like and, instead of answering them, whined that she didn't think her integrity should be in question.

Rice is as dirty as any politician alive - why do you think she refused to testify UNDER OATH at the 911 commission? There is only one reason to refuse to do your testimony under oath.Because the 9/11 commission was a farce on a grand scale, and testifying under oath would have just allowed those grandstanding malcontents rife with conflict of interest to have yet another stick to beat opponents with and then feed to the fires of their own dying glory.

If Bush went on live TV and killed a newborn baby and ate its heart you would be the first to defend him saying he was making a point about Democrats.I don't know Salchicho, but somehow I doubt it. After all, it is Democrats who are given to the legalizing of killing live babies.

I don't see why this is posted, they both just went at each other. A couple of very good politicians posturing for their own side. When you find an example of two people in Washington who actually engage in a debate, instead of calling each other liars, I would recommend posting it immediately.

If Bush went on live TV and killed a newborn baby and ate its heart you would be the first to defend him saying he was making a point about Democrats.
Child, I am very protective of human life, to include children, unborn children, and innocents. Your attempt at a flame was lame.

I've heard the audio and I don't see how it was badgering. She came up against questions she didn't like and, instead of answering them, whined that she didn't think her integrity should be in question.
It was badgering, it was vicious, and it was Boxer playing to the extreme left. If you didn't think it was off the charts scummy, perhaps you are one of the far left wingnuts.

It was badgering, it was vicious, and it was Boxer playing to the extreme left. If you didn't think it was off the charts scummy, perhaps you are one of the far left wingnuts.

Frankly, I don't care whether it was badgering or not, I was just pointing out that the audio I have heard did not sound like such.

I am more worried about having someone who thinks she is above question as Secretary of State. My point has been that she should not expect to be let off the hook. Her integrity *should* be in question.

Frankly, I don't care whether it was badgering or not, I was just pointing out that the audio I have heard did not sound like such.

I am more worried about having someone who thinks she is above question as Secretary of State. My point has been that she should not expect to be let off the hook. Her integrity *should* be in question.
She never said she was above questions, she says she doesn't feel like her integrity should be impugned, or that she should be called a liar. There is a difference. Boxer grenadstands and calls Rice a liar. Boxer also in fact lies during her statements about what she voted for refering to the Iraq war.

http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-bloggers/1323770/posts

Now, isn't lying when trying to label someone else a liar the height of hypocricy?

She never said she was above questions, she says she doesn't feel like her integrity should be impugned, or that she should be called a liar.

She said that her integrity should not be questioned. Her exact quote was something along the lines of "I hope we can get through this without questioning my integrity..."

Edit: She did use the word "impugning", rather than questioning. However, one way or another, she should expect, especially considering past events, for her credibility and integrity to be questioned.

Following is a link to the transcipt of the Boxer/Rice discussion.

http://www.latimes.com/news/nationworld/world/la-011805boxertext_wr,0,7859017.story?coll=la-home-headlines

You will notice that right at the start Boxer started in on an inappropriately long rant. Dr. Rice had to interrupt her and ask to be able to respond. After a bried discussion, Boxer started on another long-winded rant. It might be worth noting that Kerry and Boxer have been asked by the Democratic party to tone down their attacks as Dr. Rice will be Secretary of State and they don't want their own people to chop her off at the knees in world opinion.

She said that her integrity should not be questioned. Her exact quote was something along the lines of "I hope we can get through this without questioning my integrity..."

The exact quote was

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

She said that her integrity should not be questioned. Her exact quote was something along the lines of "I hope we can get through this without questioning my integrity..."
Hey, great job following along. According to your post, we are now agree that Rice never said she was above questioning, just didn't want her integrity attacked.

Boxer even stated in her first remarks that she had no questions for Rice, and just wanted to make a statement. A statement that turned out to call Rice a liar.

Hey, great job following along. According to your post, we are now agree that Rice never said she was above questioning, just didn't want her integrity attacked.

Wrong. She stated that she should be above a questioning of her integrity.

Edit: My entire problem with this is that her integrity and credibility *should* be in question.

It might be worth noting that Kerry and Boxer have been asked by the Democratic party to tone down their attacks as Dr. Rice will be Secretary of State and they don't want their own people to chop her off at the knees in world opinion.
Being non-American, I probably can be considered as part of the "world opinion". One very small and insignificant part, but still.

And I have this to say: Dr. Rice is perfectly capable of chopping herself off at the knees. Whereas Powell at least showed signs of integrity here and there, Rice is mostly known for blindly saying everything Bush and his pals say as well.

And I have this to say: Dr. Rice is perfectly capable of chopping herself off at the knees. Whereas Powell at least showed signs of integrity here and there, Rice is mostly known for blindly saying everything Bush and his pals say as well.
This reveals your bias. Dr. Rice's job has been to report to the president, not make speeches. That will change, and then you might actually get a rounded view of her. Your saying Powell "showed signs of integrity here and there" is exactly the sort of dissembling condemnation that Americans hear and reject, while filing it under "more reasons to think the world is crazy and we are the light in it."

Being non-American, I probably can be considered as part of the "world opinion". One very small and insignificant part, but still.

And I have this to say: Dr. Rice is perfectly capable of chopping herself off at the knees. Whereas Powell at least showed signs of integrity here and there, Rice is mostly known for blindly saying everything Bush and his pals say as well.

By "world opinion" I was referring to world leaders. The general population of other nations often have their opinions formed by the media rather than facts. It's well documented that news is selectively reported (especially in parts of Europe). :rolleyes:

Poor Barbara Boxer, she is the victim of the evil Dr. Rice.

http://www.washtimes.com/national/20050123-112502-7061r.htm

' "She turned and attacked me," the California Democrat told CNN's "Late Edition" in describing the confrontation during the Senate Foreign Relations Committee hearing.
"I gave Dr. Rice many opportunities to address specific issues. Instead, she said I was impugning her integrity," Mrs. Boxer said. '

Well, that doesn't surprise me at all. Seems as if lots of Democrats have the "poor-lil-victim" role down pat! :headbang:

Well, that doesn't surprise me at all. Seems as if lots of Democrats have the "poor-lil-victim" role down pat! :headbang:
Yeah, it's an old liberal trick. People who treat the mentaly ill call it "projection".

I do like how everyone lined up on sides to defend their own side, when there is no substance, whatsoever, to be debating.

Jon Stewart would call this "partisan hackery".

Well, that doesn't surprise me at all. Seems as if lots of Democrats have the "poor-lil-victim" role down pat! :headbang:
and republicans have the "slander all democrats" thing down pretty well too

This reveals your bias. Dr. Rice's job has been to report to the president, not make speeches. That will change, and then you might actually get a rounded view of her. Your saying Powell "showed signs of integrity here and there" is exactly the sort of dissembling condemnation that Americans hear and reject, while filing it under "more reasons to think the world is crazy and we are the light in it."

If you noticed, a good bit of Powell's job was going back and correcting/smoothing over idiotic things that Bush/Cheney said. Most likely, Rice, who has always appeared to hold directly to the party line, will continue her yes-woman status and will not do so. *shrug*

Rice is as dirty as any politician alive - why do you think she refused to testify UNDER OATH at the 911 commission? There is only one reason to refuse to do your testimony under oath.

You mean Condi is AMISH?!??!?!

and republicans have the "slander all democrats" thing down pretty well too

Um ... were did I say "all?" I'll have you know that some of my best friends are Democrats! :D

This reveals your bias. Dr. Rice's job has been to report to the president, not make speeches. That will change, and then you might actually get a rounded view of her.

Hmm. True. If I'm not mistaken, Rice will need to handle foreign affairs. Like, for example, rallying other nations to follow America into its next war.

In that respect, yes, she has to report to Bush.

But she must also be able to give very compelling speeches in order to convince nations to do the US's bidding. Powell was known as a moderate voice in Bush's court, as opposed to the somewhat more radical "hawks" Cheney and Rumsfeld. Us spineless Europeans like there being what could be called the voice of reason or, failing that, someone who is willing to pull the brake once in a while and speak up for a little perspective.
Rice, however, is not known for that. This may strain relations a little, unless of course she's a very convincing orator.



Your saying Powell "showed signs of integrity here and there" is exactly the sort of dissembling condemnation that Americans hear and reject, while filing it under "more reasons to think the world is crazy and we are the light in it."
Yeah, well, I know a couple o' quotes like that too. They usually go "The mere fact that they voted Bush into office again is a sure sign that only we Europeans actually have some rational thought now and again."

So... what's your point?

Boxer is just playing up to the left-wing nutjobs. She is also the only senator that voted against certifying the Presidential election.

Boxer is just playing up to the left-wing nutjobs. She is also the only senator that voted against certifying the Presidential election.

Very few people would dispute that Boxer is extremely partisan in her views. In my opinion, Kerry being among only two on the committee that didn't confirm Condi makes him look like a petulant child and Boxer appears just about the same.

None of this changes the very simple fact that integrity, reliability, credibility etc. are all things that should be under question in a fonfirmation like this, espeically considering past events.

Very few people would dispute that Boxer is extremely partisan in her views. In my opinion, Kerry being among only two on the committee that didn't confirm Condi makes him look like a petulant child and Boxer appears just about the same.


I think Kerry is trying to put himself in the position to run in 2008. I think he realized that in the build up to Iraq he did not establish himself as a strong democratic figure, so he is trying to do that now.

Following is a link to the transcipt of the Boxer/Rice discussion.

http://www.latimes.com/news/nationworld/world/la-011805boxertext_wr,0,7859017.story?coll=la-home-headlines

You will notice that right at the start Boxer started in on an inappropriately long rant. Dr. Rice had to interrupt her and ask to be able to respond. After a bried discussion, Boxer started on another long-winded rant. It might be worth noting that Kerry and Boxer have been asked by the Democratic party to tone down their attacks as Dr. Rice will be Secretary of State and they don't want their own people to chop her off at the knees in world opinion.

Thanks Zooke! I would've done this but I got busy over here at school so I was unable to do so.

Well said too and accurate!

I think Kerry is trying to put himself in the position to run in 2008. I think he realized that in the build up to Iraq he did not establish himself as a strong democratic figure, so he is trying to do that now.

I don't know how strong a figure he will become by coming off as a petulant child, but no biggie. I doubt he'll get the nomination in 2008 anyways. Personally, I'm hoping McCain'll run again. Of course, with the fundamentalists taking over the Republican party like they have, that's pretty doubtful.

Interesting.

I was in a coffee shop doing some reading and I eavesdropped on two real old timers(one had to be at least 80 by the way he walked). The comment that caught my attention (not exact) "What is going wrong with this country? You are just about declared a traitor if you question anything about the goverment. Alls we need are brown shirts and we would have Germany again" He had a faint accent but I couldn't pick out what it was....

My views? So what if Babs was nasty to poor old Condi! If she is upset by this then she is the wrong person for the job. She is going to get far worst from other nations, especially the way the feel about this president.

By "world opinion" I was referring to world leaders. The general population of other nations often have their opinions formed by the media rather than facts. It's well documented that news is selectively reported (especially in parts of Europe). :rolleyes:

Once again Zooke, you show the world what the media is like. It is selective to fit their viewers viewpoints.

I don't know how strong a figure he will become by coming off as a petulant child, but no biggie. I doubt he'll get the nomination in 2008 anyways. Personally, I'm hoping McCain'll run again. Of course, with the fundamentalists taking over the Republican party like they have, that's pretty doubtful.

McCain I would consider voting for myself. But like you said with the Fundis making the Repubs a theocratic party, not going to happen.

and republicans have the "slander all democrats" thing down pretty well too

He does at any rate! I try to give them the benefit of the doubt unless they show themselves to be idiots and then I'll go after them.

Heck, I've been known to go after republicans too.

That is exactly what happened. Boxer slandered Rice, and questioned her integrity

*GASP* :eek: :eek: :eek: A public figure's integrity is QUESTIONED?!?! Oh NOES!!11!!eleven11!one

Well, that doesn't surprise me at all. Seems as if lots of Democrats have the "poor-lil-victim" role down pat! :headbang:
And yet... (http://forums2.jolt.co.uk/showthread.php?t=391346)

So, what-exactly, and I mean quotes, people, was soooo out of line in Boxers questions. I don't want hersay, I don't want "If you don't see it your just a leftwing nutjob" or any other little bits of white noise to cover dessent, what is it, specificly, that you find sooooo offensive about what Boxer asked during the confermation hearing? Becuase really, I find it more offensive that senators wasted thier time and made a mockery of the practice by asking her if she knew if the football team from thier state won a championship. To me, thats a slap in the face of the process and the people it's supposed to represent. Why aren't you mad at the people like that who are just jerking us around????

Yeah, it's called precedent. No other National Security Advisor has been forced to. Research. :D

Whats your point? Just because no one else has doesn't mean she shouldn't. There was been no other attack like 9/11 on US soil. I think it was just about time to set up some new precendents. Like having ALL elected officials testify under oath.

It was badgering, it was vicious, and it was Boxer playing to the extreme left. If you didn't think it was off the charts scummy, perhaps you are one of the far left wingnuts.
So if you think that Condi is a liar it means you're on the extreme left? Boy, your lack of political education is depressing.

The USA has no extreme left.

Your saying Powell "showed signs of integrity here and there" is exactly the sort of dissembling condemnation that Americans hear and reject, while filing it under "more reasons to think the world is crazy and we are the light in it."
The fact that they reject without thinking shows how they are the crazy ones driven by ideology.

By "world opinion" I was referring to world leaders. The general population of other nations often have their opinions formed by the media rather than facts. It's well documented that news is selectively reported (especially in parts of Europe).
Yes, I myself get my news from the Irish Communist Media Outlet. :rolleyes:

Well, that doesn't surprise me at all. Seems as if lots of Democrats have the "poor-lil-victim" role down pat! :headbang:
Both parties do it. In the last year I heard a lot of Republicans whining about how the liberal-biased media, the liberal elite and the Hollywood elite was constantly attacking them.

For someone who claims to be moderate, your posts are very partisan.