 | Barbara Boxer Kicks Butt! |
It was beautiful, yesterday, to see a prominent Democrat stand up to the Bush Administration. Senator Barbara Boxer directly challenged Condoleeza Rice several times yesterday, demanding explanations for her misconduct as part of the Bush Administration, and bringing specific examples of lies, hypocrisies, and - dare I say it? - violations of the law.
In the match of Boxer vs. Rice, there was no contest. Condoleeza Rice sat and stewed, but simply could not offer any rational response to Senator Boxer’s pointed questioning. Republican Chairman Senator Richard Lugar was forced to call a recess in order to protect Condoleeza Rice from further embarassment, and to allow Rice time to recover from her unexpected confrontation with the truth.
In the most beautiful confrontation between Senator Boxer and Condoleeza Rice, Senator Boxer began by pointing out that Rice, in cooperation with President Bush, had recently killed a measure that would have strengthened the ban on torture. The language that Condoleeza Rice and President Bush demanded be removed from pending legislation was as follows: “In general, no prisoner shall be subject to torture or cruel, inhumane or degrading treatment or punishment that is prohibited by the Constitution, laws or treaties of the United States.”
Senator Boxer reminded Condoleeza Rice that she and President Bush had sent a letter, just a few weeks ago, to members of a congress conference committee editing the bill, demanding that they remove the language. The letter from Rice and Bush declared that the anti-torture language “provides legal protections to foreign prisoners to which they are not now entitled under applicable law and policy.”
Here we have a concrete, specific example of how the Bush White House itself has consistently supported the use of torture by American soldiers and intelligence agents. Imagine the message this must send to Americans soldiers and agents in Iraq, in Afghanistan, and at Guantanamo Bay. George W. Bush and Condoleeza Rice are now on the record as declaring that protection from torture is something that foreign prisoners “are not now entitled under applicable law and policy.” It’s a clear signal - torture all you want, but just don’t take pictures of it!
Rice could only respond by declaring that “the Geneva Conventions should not be extended to those who don’t live up to the obligations of the Geneva Convention.”
Think about the implications of this statement for just a moment, and you’ll see that the amateurish, legalistic, circular justifications for torture concocted by Condoleeza Rice, Alberto Gonzales, and others in the Bush Administration can only bring about the complete destruction of Geneva Conventions. If the Geneva Conventions should not be extended to those who don’t live up to the obligations of the Geneva Convention, then it clearly follows that the United States should not be protected by the Geneva Conventions. And then, those nations that would refuse to recognize the USA’s protection under the Geneva Conventions would themselves become exempt from protection under the Geneva Conventions, and on, and on, and on, until the whole world would be reduced to lawless chaos.
Let me explain that to those who have trouble following the circular disintegration of logic employed by Condoleeza Rice and the Bush Administration. Rice has declared that:
- if the enemies of the United States have violated the Geneva Conventions,
- then the United States has the right to violate the Geneva Conventions…
- …by subjecting prisoners from that enemy to torture and inhumane treatment
But then:
- if any nation or group that has violated the Geneva Conventions is exempt from protection under the Geneva Conventions,
- and the United States has violated the Geneva Conventions through what Rice admits is torture and inhumane treatment of prisoners,
- then the United States, and all of its soldiers and intelligence agents, is exempt from protection under the Geneva Conventions,
- and would then have no legal standing to protest the torture and inhumane treatment of its American when they are held prisoner by enemies of the USA
The truth is, of course, that Condoleeza Rice’s excuse for torture and inhumane treatment of prisoners by American soldiers and intelligence agents just doesn’t hold water. The body of domestic and international laws that make it illegal for the US government or any of its agents to engage in acts of torture provide absolutely no exceptions. The Geneva Conventions, to which the US has agreed and is bound, have no clause that states that its requirements are void if someone else breaks the rules first.
I applaud Barbara Boxer for exposing the Bush Administration’s clear affection for torture. As Condoleeza Rice’s letter to Congress shows, the plan for the torture of prisoners held by American forces comes right from the top - George W. Bush himself.
Torture is a serious crime. If the United States of America is to be a nation of laws, and not the feifdom of king, there must be no exceptions to the law - not even for the President. If Americans continue to look the other way while the President of the United States breaks the law, there is no guarantee that they will themselves be protected by the rule of law. The Constitution itself becomes mere kindling in the growing flames of American nationalism.
The choice is clear: Either the American people bring Bush to justice, or they allow justice itself to be wholly consumed by Bush’s ambition for unprecidented power.
Incidentally, I am including this article in the categories of “Democrats” and “Election 2008″ because Senator Barbara Boxer’s actions since Election Day 2004 have been a perfect example of what national Democratic leaders should be, but for the most part are not, doing. I’ll take this opportunity to add my voice to the growing group of progressive Americans who are calling upon Barbara Boxer to run for President in 2008.
Contact Us
After being the only Senator to stand up for testimony on voting rights, and after being the only Senator to seriously question Condoleeza Rice on torture, I too say:
Boxer for President!
Barbara Boxer for President (bumper sticker)
Boxer: President 2008 (bumper sticker)
Barbara Boxer Speaks for Me (bumper sticker)
Comment by J. Matthew — 1/19/2005 @ 8:13 am
I was really ticked to hear Rice say, “And I would hope that we can have this conversation […] without impugning my credibility or my integrity.†Credibility and integrity are a large part of a confirmation hearing examines. If she doesn’t like it, she can withdraw.
Comment by John Stracke — 1/19/2005 @ 9:36 am
Indeed! John is right. If Barbara Boxer is impugning Condoleeza Rice’s integrity, then maybe it’s because Condoleeza Rice’s integrity has been shown to be lacking!
Oh, wait a minute. I forget that we live in the Homeland now. What I meant to say is this: How DARE Barbara Boxer not put her rubber stamp on Condoleeza Rice’s nomination!
Comment by Neal — 1/19/2005 @ 10:49 am
I hope she DOES run for Pres. in ‘08…
Then, all people will see just what a hypocritical phony she really is.
It’s nice of her to devote her 12 minutes to belittling someone who is in the process of being confirmed while avoiding the main goal of the process: To ask questions. She asked NOT A SINGLE QUESTION. Was she afraid to face Rice on the issues because Boxer would have been served by a far classier and more intellectual person such as Rice, or was it just that she is a whiner with an agenda so far out of touch with reality (She and Kerry were the lone dissenting votes, but one can hardly count on Kerry– he’s probably already retracted that vote.)
Ms. Boxer claims that the sole reasoning for going to war was WMD’s, and she made that point by exclaiming “Period,” as in, end of discussion. Well…
Ms. Boxer OBVIOUSLY didn’t bother to read the entire bill (which should scare the crap out of everyone) or she would have noticed the following were ALSO in the bill for war in Iraq:
* crimes against humanity by Hussein’s regime
* funded terrorist organizations
The full resolution can be found here:
http://www.c-span.org/resources/pdf/hjres114.pdf
Perhaps someone should send a copy to Ms. Boxer as well…
Or, perhaps she has forgotten her stance in Kosovo:
Voted YES on allowing all necessary forces and other means in Kosovo. (May 1999)
Voted YES on authorizing air strikes in Kosovo. (Mar 1999)
(But then again, this was under Clinton, a Liberal…)
So, go ahead. Support Boxer. I hope she DOES challenge the Republican nominee in ‘08. That way, all of you at the Anti-Conservative websites and blogs will at least have FOUR MORE YEARS.
Comment by Kevin — 1/20/2005 @ 9:58 am
Oh, Bullshit, Kevin.
The reason for war was WMD, WMD, and WMD. Anything else is revisionist politics:
“We have high confidence that they have weapons of mass destruction. That is what this war was about and it is about. And we have high confidence it will be found.” — Ari Fleischer, April 10, 2003
I read the resolution. In the “Whereas” statements, the phrases “weapons of mass destruction,” “biological weapons,” “chemical weapons,” and “nuclear weapons” appear more than any other substantive set of phrases.
Don’t dissemble. Don’t be a silly goose. Don’t imagine we’re idiots. Don’t imagine we don’t have memories.
The nation was taken to war against Iraq on the basis of WMDs that do not exist.
No amount of mumbo jumbo on your part can remove that highly embarrassing, highly shameful reality.
Comment by J. Matthew Cook — 1/20/2005 @ 2:41 pm
Yeah, and Kevin, if you look at the transcript, Boxer DID ask questions, and Rice could NOT offer a coherent response to them.
Oops! Little facts getting in the way of Republican nationalist propaganda! Damn! Where’s that rubber stamp when you need one?
Comment by Neal — 1/20/2005 @ 6:26 pm
For example, one question Senator Boxer asked Condoleeza Rice: “Did you see the photos, all of the photos that were available from that prison?”
Looks like you were just making bullshit up, Kevin.
Comment by Neal — 1/20/2005 @ 6:32 pm
Ooh ooh! Two more questions Senator Boxer asked Condoleeza Rice (oh, if you want to be a stinker, it’s one question phrased two ways):
“Why on earth did you do that after we passed this unanimously? And you say that what happened in Abu Ghraib was unacceptable and it was abuse. It is to me rather stunning. So can you explain to me why you wrote that letter?”
Yet, Kevin the Republican Nationalist propaganda stooge says that Senator Boxer “asked NOT A SINGLE QUESTION”! Where did you pull that lie out of, Kevin? Did you hear it on Fox News or Rush Limbaugh? Did you read it on Matt Drudge’s Who’s Sucking Whose Dick Report?
Comment by Neal — 1/20/2005 @ 6:35 pm
Oh hey! More questions Senator Boxer asked of Condoleeza Rice:
“So do you, then, oppose that language in the defense bill?”
But then Condoleeza Rice was afraid and refused to answer the question so Senator Barbara Boxer asked the following question (hint to Kevin: See the question mark? It looks like this ?)
“No, no, you’re — you’re missing — you’re not listening to the question. You said you don’t want to extend these international laws to all prisoners. However, it is extended in the defense bill. And this was just extending it to the intelligence officers. Now you’re — so that’s why I’m asking you, since you said you can’t extend it, do you support it in the defense bill? “
Comment by Neal — 1/20/2005 @ 6:37 pm
Oh, MY GOSH! ANOTHER question that Senator Boxer asked Condoleeza Rice:
“If that was the case, why not leave it in, so the world can see that we’re not only willing to put it in the defense bill, but in the intelligence bill?”
Or, what, Kevin, was it not really Barbara Boxer asking that question, but really an evil genie that was just moving Barbara Boxer’s lips for her?
So, Kevin, how about you apologize to all of us here for passing this big lie without ever actually bothering to read the easily accessible transcript? I want an apology from you that goes like this. “I was wrong to say that Senator Barbara Boxer did not ask Condoleeza Rice one single question. It looks like I was wrong to say that Senator Boxer was afraid. She was not. I am sorry I lied.”
See, now, I’m gonnna ask you a question, Kevin, ’cause I’m not afraid of you any more than Barbara Boxer is afraid of Condoleeza Rice. Here’s the question, Kevin, remember to look for the question mark:
Will you please offer us this apology for lying to us, and tell us where you got your bogus information, if you didn’t just make it up out of thin air?
(hint: that was a question. let’s see if Kevin is afraid to answer it)
Comment by Neal — 1/20/2005 @ 6:42 pm
Just a technical point: I’m not anti-conservative. There is no longer any such thing as a coherent conservative political movement or conservative political philosophy. The Republicans aren’t conservatives. They have put in the biggest government expansion in history, and have abandoned all fiscal discipline. The Republicans aren’t conservatives. They’ve abandoned traditional American values like liberty.
The Republicans are nationalists. I’m an anti-nationalist. There are no conservatives any more, so why would I bother being anti-conservative?
Comment by Neal — 1/20/2005 @ 6:48 pm
Interesting.
“Oh, Bullshit, Kevin.
The reason for war was WMD, WMD, and WMD. Anything else is revisionist politics:”
Here’s some of YOUR relevant quotes taken from a 2003 article of IR:
“If there are problems with the war in Iraq, they don’t come from the folks doing the fighting. Those men and women are doing a heck of a job. If there are problems, they stem from spin doctoring.
We must invade Iraq without U.N. support. Iraq has weapons of mass destruction.
Saddam Hussein was behind the attack on the World Trade Center.
All Iraqis will welcome us as conquering heroes as soon as we depose Hussein.
The White House sent these messages, not the troops.”
So to read your post from 2003, you said basically:
1. The White House said Iraq had WMDs- point taken.
2. ” ” ” ” Iraq had links to the terrorists of 9/11
3. ” ” ” ” Saddam is a despot whose people will be happy he’s gone.
There’s 3 points there that YOU said in 2003 were part of the White House message. One of those three is WMDs, two are not. How far back are you calling history revisionist? While it’s still happening?
Comment by Benny — 1/21/2005 @ 8:00 am
Um, Benny, ALL THREE OF THOSE POINTS WERE COMPLETE BULL. Get it?
Interesting that the conservative doesn’t mention the falsehood perpetrated by Kevin that Neal has uncovered, a falsehood I’ve seen repeated elsewhere on the web.
Comment by Patricia — 1/21/2005 @ 8:23 am
Neal. Read the transcript of Boxer’s rant.
She stated, and I paraphrase: “The reasons for going to war with Iraq were WMD’s. Period.”
What part of that do you Liberals not understand???
Sure, WMD’s were EMPHASIZED. That was wrong.
Should we let Saddam go and turn him loose on his people? YEAH, let’s do that!!!
Neil, you’re not in touch with reality. Boxer didn’t ask ‘questions,’ she made rhetorical remarks that were outrageous and inflammatory. She exhibited the professionalism of a kindergartener.
But I do hope she runs.
Comment by Kevin — 1/21/2005 @ 9:49 am
“The nation was taken to war against Iraq on the basis of WMDs that do not exist.”
Well, J.Matthew, there’s plenty of blame to go around…
“One way or the other, we are determined to deny Iraq the capacity to develop weapons of mass destruction and the missiles to deliver them. That is our bottom line.â€Â
President Clinton, Feb. 4, 1998
“If Saddam rejects peace and we have to use force, our purpose is clear. We want to seriously diminish the threat posed by Iraq’s weapons of mass destruction program.â€Â
President Clinton, Feb. 17, 1998.
“Iraq is a long way from [here], but what happens there matters a great deal here. For the risks that the leaders of a rogue state will use nuclear, chemical or biological weapons against us or our allies is the greatest security threat we face.â€Â
Madeline Albright, Feb 18, 1998.
“He will use those weapons of mass destruction again, as he has ten times since 1983.â€Â
Sandy Berger, Clinton National Security Adviser, Feb, 18,1998.
“[W]e urge you, after consulting with Congress, and consistent with the U.S. Constitution and laws, to take necessary actions (including, if appropriate, air and missile strikes on suspect Iraqi sites) to respond effectively to the threat posed by Iraq’s refusal to end its weapons of mass destruction programs.â€Â
Letter to President Clinton, signed by Sens. Carl Levin, Tom Daschle, John Kerry, and others Oct. 9, 1998
“Saddam Hussein has been engaged in the development of weapons of mass destruction technology which is a threat to countries in the region and he has made a mockery of the weapons inspection process.â€Â
Rep. Nancy Pelosi (D, CA), Dec. 16, 1998.
“Hussein has … chosen to spend his money on building weapons of mass destruction and palaces for his cronies.â€Â
Madeline Albright, Clinton Secretary of State, Nov. 10, 1999.
“There is no doubt that … Saddam Hussein has reinvigorated his weapons programs. Reports indicate that biological, chemical and nuclear programs continue apace and may be back to pre-Gulf War status. In addition, Saddam continues to redefine delivery systems and is doubtless using the cover of a licit missile program to develop longer-range missiles that will threaten the United States and our allies.â€Â
Letter to President Bush, Signed by Joe Lieberman (D-CT), John McCain (Rino-AZ) and others, Dec. 5, 2001
“We begin with the common belief that Saddam Hussein is a tyrant and a threat to the peace and stability of the region. He has ignored the mandated of the United Nations and is building weapons of mass destruction and the means of delivering them.â€Â
Sen. Carl Levin (D, MI), Sept. 19, 2002.
“We know that he has stored secret supplies of biological and chemical weapons throughout his country.â€Â
Al Gore, Sept. 23, 2002.
“Iraq’s search for weapons of mass destruction has proven impossible to deter and we should assume that it will continue for as long as Saddam is in power.â€Â
Al Gore, Sept. 23, 2002.
“We have known for many years that Saddam Hussein is seeking and developing weapons of mass destruction.â€Â
Sen. Ted Kennedy (D, MA), Sept. 27, 2002.
“The last UN weapons inspectors left Iraq in October of 1998. We are confident that Saddam Hussein retains some stockpiles of chemical and biological weapons, and that he has since embarked on a crash course to build up his chemical and biological warfare capabilities. Intelligence reports indicate that he is seeking nuclear weapons…â€Â
Sen. Robert Byrd (D, WV), Oct. 3, 2002.
“I will be voting to give the President of the United States the authority to use force– if necessary– to disarm Saddam Hussein because I b elieve that a deadly arsenal of weapons of mass destruction in his hands is a real and grave threat to our security.â€Â
Sen. John F. Kerry (D, MA), Oct. 9, 2002.
“There is unmistakable evidence that Saddam Hussein is working aggressively to develop nuclear weapons and will likely have nuclear weapons within the next five years … We also should remember we have always underestimated the progress Saddam has made in development of weapons of mass destruction.â€Â
Sen. Jay Rockerfeller (D, WV), Oct 10, 2002.
“He has systematically violated, over the course of the past 11 years, every significant UN resolution that has demanded that he disarm and destroy his chemical and biological weapons, and any nuclear capacity. This he has refused to doâ€Â
Rep. Henry Waxman (D, CA), Oct. 10, 2002.
“In the four years since the inspectors left, intelligence reports show that Saddam Hussein has worked to rebuild his chemical and biological weap ons stock, his missile delivery capability, and his nuclear program. He has also given aid, comfort, and sanctuary to terrorists, including al Qaeda members … It is clear, however, that if left unchecked, Saddam Hussein will continue to increase his capacity to wage biological and chemical warfare, and will keep trying to develop nuclear weapons.â€Â
Sen. Hillary Clinton (D, NY), Oct 10, 2002.
“We are in possession of what I think to be compelling evidence that Saddam Hussein has, and has had for a number of years, a developing capacity for the production and storage of weapons of mass destruction.â€Â
Sen. Bob Graham (D, FL), Dec. 8, 2002.
“[W]ithout question, we need to disarm Saddam Hussein. He is a brutal, murderous dictator, leading an oppressive regime … He presents a particularly grievous threat because he is so consistently prone to miscalculation … And now he is miscalculating America’s response to his contin ued deceit and his consistent grasp for weapons of mass destruction … So the threat of Saddam Hussein with weapons of mass destruction is real …â€Â
Sen. John F. Kerry (D, MA), Jan. 23. 2003.
Comment by Kevin — 1/21/2005 @ 9:53 am
Neil: I’m not afraid of anyone or anthing, much less YOU…
Do not question my integrity or my bravery, Neil. Oftentimes, we point out faults in others that we find within ourselves as a way of diverging guilt or grief.
Comment by Kevin — 1/21/2005 @ 9:55 am
“Yeah, and Kevin, if you look at the transcript, Boxer DID ask questions, and Rice could NOT offer a coherent response to them.”
Neil, you’re right. Ms. Boxer DID ask a couple of questions. Her first question, “Could you hold that up?” was in reference to a State Document report. Her second, “Who would care what we said,” was in reference to a hypothetical situation involving a can opener.
Neil, you’re either a poor reader or a poor debater.
Neil, I don’t care if you apologize to me or not. My satisfaction is knowing that YOU are wrong and I am right.
Re-read the transcript of the exchange, Neil. If you need one, I will send you a pop-up book version of the exchange.
http://www.informationclearinghouse.info/article7750.htm
Comment by Kevin — 1/21/2005 @ 10:44 am
Kevin, you’re out of line. Neil has cited not just “a couple” questions that Senator Boxer asked of Condoleeza Rice, and not just meaningless questions like “could you excuse me for a moment?”, but MANY substantive, probing questions on important foreign policy issues - and Condoleeza Rice was evasive in response to those questions.
Evasive, just like you’re being. You lied to us, Kevin. You said that Senator Barbara Boxer did not ask “one single question”. She asked many, and they were very good questions.
I think Neil’s right on this one. Why don’t you just admit that you were making it up, apologize, and stop pretending?
I read the transcript, Kevin. What Neil says was in there was in there. You can’t deny the facts. Many questions. You said there were none. Now you’re suggesting that the questions were of no substance. Again, you’re just plain wrong.
I don’t think you’ve read the transcript, Kevin. I want to know where you got this ridiculous idea that Barbara Boxer asked no questions of Condoleeza Rice. It’s just plain wrong.
Oh, and Kevin? That link you’re providing is to a PARTIAL TRANSCRIPT. It’s NOT a FULL TRANSCRIPT. Read the WHOLE THING, before you come here spouting off your crackpot theories.
Comment by Patricia — 1/21/2005 @ 11:14 am
The link is above, Patricia.
Where is the COMPLETE transcript, oh wise Patricia? Why, when searching for a complete transcript, the one I posted was the ONLY posting out of the 20 I visited?
Tell me where to find the ‘complete’ transcript, and I’ll be glad to read it.
Comment by Kevin — 1/21/2005 @ 11:17 am
I just found the complete transcript.
I stand corrected, Neil, others. She DID ask questions. I based my observations on an abbreviated transcript, which I thought, in all honesty, was the COMPLETE transcript. It was not.
But let’s be honest here. The Bush Administration DID NOT ‘invent’ the WMD claims. The proof has been posted above, with various comments from DEMOCRATS, notably H.R. Clinton and Kennedy.
And Boxer, I think, will fade into oblivion after her 15 minutes are up.
Comment by Kevin — 1/21/2005 @ 11:40 am
And Neil: Don’t ever call me a liar. I did not intentionally mislead ANYONE. As you will read from my post above, I based my observations on what I thought was the complete transcript. I had to rely on transcripts because I was not able to see the exchange live.
A lie, Neil, is when you INTENTIONALLY mislead people. I did not. Grow up, and stop the petty name calling.
Comment by Kevin — 1/21/2005 @ 11:42 am
Kevin, you’ve lost your credibility here. You didn’t bother to do the research, and then you came on here, blasting away, screeching at those people who actually DID do the research.
Why should we believe anything you say? You’ve shown yourself to be extremely sloppy. Any careful consideration would have shown that what you claimed to be the transcript could not possibly have contained two whole days of questions and answers.
The really powerful lesson here, Kevin, is how easy it has become for Republicans to blast, blast, blast at liberal underdogs without feeling that they need to do any actual research.
I say it once more: You’ve lost your credibility here, Kevin.
Comment by Patricia — 1/21/2005 @ 11:48 am
That’s funny, Kevin. You just said, “but let’s be honest here”. Ha, ha, ha! I get it! You’re asking everyone else to be honest! Oh, that’s funny! What expert use of irony!
Kevin is asking us to be honest! Hoo hoo!
Kevin, your mean-spirited sarcasm (”oh, wise Patricia”) turned out to be based on a paper-thin foundation.
Eagerly awating your next batch of “information” Kevin.
You know, I wonder: do you still hope that Barbara Boxer runs for President in 2008? It looks like she’s tougher than you gave her credit for, Kevin.
Comment by Lars — 1/21/2005 @ 11:53 am
Look you two (Patricia and Lars): I admitted a mistake. That’s more than I can say for you two.
Lars, you are nothing but a bandwagon-riding insignificant who takes jolly in pointing out the shortcomings of others. At least I have the fuckin’ balls to admit a mistake, dude.
Patricia: You consistently accuse me of things, and when I ask you to prove your position, you conveniently drop out of sight.
You are gutless and you have no room to talk.
Either of you.
Comment by Kevin — 1/21/2005 @ 12:19 pm
And losing credibility in your eyes, Patricia, is like a fish loosing its driver’s license.
Comment by Kevin — 1/21/2005 @ 12:20 pm
‘Patrica’ What credibility are you offering, Ms. IR-shill (we know)
Here’s a question posed to you, which you evaded of course.
“So to read your post from 2003, you said basically:
1. The White House said Iraq had WMDs- point taken.
2. ††††Iraq had links to the terrorists of 9/11
3. ††††Saddam is a despot whose people will be happy he’s gone.
There’s 3 points there that YOU said in 2003 were part of the White House message. One of those three is WMDs, two are not. How far back are you calling history revisionist? While it’s still happening?
Comment by Benny  1/21/2005 @ 8:00 am
Um, Benny, ALL THREE OF THOSE POINTS WERE COMPLETE BULL. Get it?…
Comment by Patricia  1/21/2005 @ 8:23 am ”
The issue above is not whether the points are BS from the White House, that’s your smokescreen. The real issue is that the IR website posted those comments back in 2003, and said that “THE
WHITE HOUSE SENT THOSE MESSAGES..”
That is more than just WMDs, you putz! Were you making up that statement then? Or just revising your own history?
Comment by Benny — 1/21/2005 @ 12:26 pm
That’s just typical Patricia, Benny. She’s quick to shoot at the enemy but runs away when they return fire.
Comment by Kevin — 1/21/2005 @ 12:57 pm
Kevin,
You mistake me for a Democrat.
I don’t have respect for politicians of either stripe who push for war.
But you cannot escape that GEORGE W. BUSH and HIS administration are the ones that took us there on the basis of flimsy evidence they said was “bulletproof” and otherwise lied about.
Bush lied. People believed him. People died.
Seems like there’s a lesson to learn there.
Comment by J. Matthew Cook — 1/21/2005 @ 1:24 pm
J.Matthew: I posted quotes from the other predominant party merely for illustration; I won’t lump you in with them so soon in the future. My point was this: It’s funny that the Bush Administration is condemned for misleading when, in fact, they are really only following the previous administration’s claims.
If we didn’t do something and Iraq had WMDs, what then?
Comment by Kevin — 1/21/2005 @ 1:27 pm
Who ran away, Kevin? You ran with your tail between your legs.
You based your dis of Barbara Boxer on incorrect information.
You insulted people for pointing out your error.
Then you insulted people for pushing you on it.
You reap what you sow, Kevin.
Here’s my read: You’re a partisan. You didn’t like what Boxer had to say, but you couldn’t critcize the substance. So you found some stupid little procedural point to talk about (She didn’t ask any questions!). Then, when you had to back off on even that procedural point, you decided to harp on Patricia.
…all the while not engaging with the substance of what Barbara Boxer said.
Nice distraction technique.
I also like how “Benny” conveniently supplied a new procedural question: that Bush lied about WMD, an Iraq-Al Qaeda Link, and about how Iraqis would dance in the streets and throw flowers at the Americans’ feet when Hussein left… and not just about WMD!
Sorry, I’m not going down that procedural road with you, because I frankly don’t think it matters whether Bush lied about just one of those things or all three. What matters is:
Bush lied. People believed him. People died.
And you haven’t addressed the substance of Barbara Boxer’s comments at all.
Why? Does it make you UNCOMFORTABLE?
Comment by J. Matthew Cook — 1/21/2005 @ 1:32 pm
No, Kevin, they weren’t “only following the previous administration’s claims.”
They were manipulating, misrepresenting and lying about the evidence.
They repeatedly told the American people and the world that there was “no doubt” WMDs were there, that they “know where they are,” and that they had “bulletproof evidence” to that effect.
Oh, let me be kind. Perhaps the media misheard when Donald Rumsfeld said it. The words “bulletproof” and “bullshit” sound so similar in a crowded room.
Comment by J. Matthew Cook — 1/21/2005 @ 1:34 pm
“If we didn’t do something and Iraq had WMDs, what then?”
If we didn’t do something and Darth Vader were aiming a destructo-beam at the White House, what then?
If we didn’t do something and the Easter Bunny were being held hostage by Saddam Hussein, what then?
If we didn’t do something and Tariq Azziz had implanted cancerous cells in boxes of Cheerios, what then?
See, the thing is that ALL OF THESE STATEMENTS ARE COUNTERFACTUAL.
WHEN WILL YOU ADDRESS THE SUBSTANCE OF BARBARA BOXER’S STATEMENTS AND QUESTIONS?
WHY DO YOU KEEP CHANGING THE SUBJECT?
WHAT ARE YOU RUNNING FROM?
Comment by J. Matthew Cook — 1/21/2005 @ 1:36 pm
Uh, J.Matthew, excuse me: I admitted my error. I was insulted as well, and I don’t sit back and shout, “Thank you, sir, may I have another?”
Where did I run away with my fuckin’ tail between my legs, J.Matthew? Where in the fuck do you get that from, sir? I have posted more on this fuckin’ thread AFTER admitting error than anyone else, so take your tail comment and well, you know…
I did respect you before, J.Matthew. That respect is waning. Not that you give a shit.
I may be a lot of things, but I ain’t a fuckin’ coward who runs away from adversity.
If that was the case, why the fuck am I still here after two months and countless insults directed at me? Maybe in your world, J.Matthew, that equates to cowardice; in mine, that means ya got balls.
Maybe it is YOU who is uncomfortable admitting that the Bush Administration DID NOT invent WMD claims. In fact, I think it DOES make you uncomfortable; otherwise, you wouldn’t shift the blame to me, would you? Speaking of running away with the proverbial tail between your legs…
Comment by Kevin — 1/21/2005 @ 1:39 pm
And that comment before your tirade, J.Matthew, was my attempt to have a civil discussion with you. I see that doesn’t work with you.
Noted.
Comment by Kevin — 1/21/2005 @ 1:42 pm
Never called you a coward.
But this isn’t about who’s a coward and who wins discussion.
It’s a post about Barbara Boxer.
And you haven’t addressed any of the substance.
And I continue to wonder why.
Comment by J. Matthew Cook — 1/21/2005 @ 1:46 pm
Civil discussion requires that you:
* comment on the topic at hand
* don’t bullshit
* don’t start personal attacks
You started #3.
Don’t be surprised when a hand-wringing liberal gets in your face about it.
Now, again, why won’t you address the substance of Barbara Boxer’s statements and questions?
I continue to wonder why.
Comment by J. Matthew Cook — 1/21/2005 @ 1:48 pm
“Running away with your tail between your legs” certainly DOES insinuate cowardice, J.Matthew. I assure you, I have no tail…
Barbara Boxer is 15 minutes worth of egotistical, loud-mouthed arrogance who seems to forget she voted TWICE for attacks in Bosnia (a country that had NEVER attacked the U.S.A.)…
“Voted YES on allowing all necessary forces and other means in Kosovo. (May 1999)
Voted YES on authorizing air strikes in Kosovo. (Mar 1999)”
That alone tells me all I need to know about her. Her questioning was not a calm discussion, J.Matthew. It was an interrogation. The forum at the time was neither the time nor the place for that demeanor. She offered a question, and when Rice didn’t give the response Boxer wanted, she jumped in with another question. It was a confirmation hearing, not a criminal proceeding. There is a difference. And if Boxer is so adamant about criminal charges, she should present a case to a court. We’ll see…
And for the record, J.Matthew: I didn’t change the subject AWAY from Boxer… You presented a situation that obviously demanded a response from me. I did as you wished.
But that’s typical of the ilk on this site. Present a position, have someone critque it, bring in another scenario, and the opposite opinion is criticized when responding because they changed the subject.
Ridiculous. It ought to make a good read for my book, however.
Comment by Kevin — 1/21/2005 @ 2:00 pm
You’ve talked about Boxer’s STYLE loads.
Fine, you don’t like her STYLE.
I frankly don’t give half a shit about STYLE.
Address her SUBSTANCE.
Why won’t you address the SUBSTANCE of what she said?
That’s what Peregrin’s post was about.
What are you trying to avoid?
Comment by J. Matthew Cook — 1/21/2005 @ 2:02 pm
Oh, I get it. When I try to offer a little illustration for my point, I’m changing the subject. When a LIBERAL does the same, it’s elaboration.
Damn, I’m an idiot! I shoulda known better!
J.Matthew: I have addressed her ’substance.’ Here’s my impression of me, addressing the issue:
“She stated, and I paraphrase: “The reasons for going to war with Iraq were WMD’s. Period.â€Â
I addressed her main argument, J.Matthew. A few times. In this thread. Did you not bother to read that?
Well, I guess I’ll have to spell it out for you: The SUBSTANCE of her rant was ridiculous because:
A) suspicions about WMD’s in Ira
Comment by Kevin — 1/21/2005 @ 2:56 pm
continued… hit the return button too soon. Oh well.
A)suspicions about WMDs in Iraq were mentioned during the Clinton Administration. I have posted proof of that claim.
B)She stated the sole reason for going to war with Iraq was WMDs. The resolution proves her false.
Happy? Probably not.
Excuse me. I have a pep rally to attend.
Comment by Kevin — 1/21/2005 @ 2:59 pm
No, not happy.
A) Suspicions about WMDs in Iraq were mentioned during the Clinton Administration. The Bush administration repeatedly misrepresented suspicions as “bulletproof evidence” with “no doubt” (one of their favorite phrases) as to the existence of WMDs.
Bush lied. People believed him. People died.
B)“We have high confidence that they have weapons of mass destruction. That is what this war was about and it is about. And we have high confidence it will be found.†– Ari Fleischer, April 10, 2003
I read the resolution. In the “Whereas†statements, the phrases “weapons of mass destruction,†“biological weapons,†“chemical weapons,†and “nuclear weapons†appear more than any other substantive set of phrases.
Don’t dissemble. Don’t be a silly goose. Don’t imagine we’re idiots. Don’t imagine we don’t have memories.
The nation was taken to war against Iraq on the basis of WMDs that do not exist.
All the other items were secondary. Benny’s attempt to play stylistic gotcha by dredging up an Irregular Times post in 2003 making reference to two other nominal references to reasons ignores that those two other reasons (Iraq-Al Qaeda cooperation that didn’t exist, despotism) were both considered dangerous because Iraq was said to have WMDs. Bush administration officials said the alleged Iraq-Al Qaeda cooperation (which didn’t actually exist) was dangerous because Saddam Hussein would give Al Qaeda nukes (which didn’t actually exist), chemical weapons (which he did not have), or biological weapons (which he did not have). Bush administration officials argued that Hussein was a despot to take out (as opposed to the scores of other despots around the world) because he had WMD (which he did not have).
Get it?
So no, Boxer was not wrong when she said that WMDs were the Alpha and the Omega of the Bush pre-war justification.
The only reason you’d conclude Boxer was wrong is if you were to be so hopelessly literal that you’d noticed Bush used words other than WMD in his addresses. WMDs were the lynchpin. Without WMDs, the Bush case was not there. WMDs. WMDs. WMDs. WMDs. WMDs.
C)You are strangely silent on all the subject matter of Barbara Boxer’s confrontation with Condoleeza Rice that is contained in Peregrin Wood’s post.
D)It is striking to me how unwilling you are to turn your analytical eye toward criticism of Bush and Bush administration officials. Why is this?
E)WMDs.
F)WMDs.
G-Z)WMDs.
Comment by J. Matthew Cook — 1/21/2005 @ 3:12 pm
I see there’s no sense arguing with you. You don’t see my point, and I don’t see yours.
Later.
(No, I am not tucking tail and running. I’m tired of going in circles, and that’s all this thread will ever be.)
Comment by Kevin — 1/21/2005 @ 3:40 pm
But before I go, I say:
Barbara Boxer in ‘08.
Sure loser…
Comment by Kevin — 1/21/2005 @ 3:46 pm
George W. Bush in 2004.
America loses.
Comment by J. Matthew Cook — 1/21/2005 @ 3:51 pm
Kevin, you have offered comments here that are not only insulting to Patricia, but insulting to women in general. You have refused to apologize, just admit that you made a huge mistake, insulting people all the while.
I WILL address the substance of what Barbara Boxer did. She is my new hero! I will definitely do all I can to support Senator Boxer - someone who shows what true integrity is all about!
Comment by Jean — 1/21/2005 @ 8:11 pm
And, I agree with Patricia. By intentionally lying - more than once - Kevin has lost his credibility here.
By degrading into personal insults, Kevin has lost any respect he might have earned.
It’s clear: Kevin is a partisan Republican who’s just trying to make trouble, and will lie and distort about whatever is convenient in his rage against liberals. Kevin is the kind of Republican that makes me proud to be a liberal. Thanks for reminding me of that, Kevin.
Comment by Jean — 1/21/2005 @ 8:14 pm
Jean, I don’t see any intentional lies from Kevin.
I just see someone who wants to talk about anything, anything but the subject of Peregrin Wood’s post:
Condoleeza Rice’s failure to own up to her own pro-torture activities as a member of the Bush administration.
Comment by J. Matthew — 1/21/2005 @ 8:47 pm
“Kevin, you have offered comments here that are… insulting to women in general.”
I know I said I was done, but this accusation can not go unnoticed.
Jean, prove where I have used the term “bitch,” “whore,” or “slut,” or hell, any other word with those connotations.
Jean, prove where I have degraded women for being, well, women. Prove where I have said women are inferior to men.
Prove it.
Two others have made that accusation and were asked to prove it, and those two others fell silent soon afterward. I have 95% of every post I have ever written.
It’s in YOUR corner, Jean.
Prove it.
Comment by Kevin — 1/21/2005 @ 10:19 pm
Still waiting, Jean…
Comment by Kevin — 1/21/2005 @ 11:59 pm
J.Matthew: Define ‘torture.’ Your definition. No links. No Webster’s definition. Your words.
I feel like I’m in The Godfather III…
(”I try to get out… but they keep pullin’ me back in!”
Guess I am a liar. Excuse me while I go slit my wrists and bleed on my baby book so my parents will be haunted for the rest of their lives.
Comment by Kevin — 1/22/2005 @ 12:02 am
Never mind, J.Matthew.
To be honest, at this point in time I don’t care what you think torture is or isn’t.
Maybe some other time.
(Won’t Mommy and Daddy be so happy they won’t have to make funeral arrangements!)
Jean: You ain’t off the hook.
Prove it.
Comment by Kevin — 1/22/2005 @ 1:32 am
Jean: (Damn, I’m having fun with you!)
” just admit that you made a huge mistake,..”
I said, ahem, MUCH earlier:
“I stand corrected, Neil, others. She DID ask questions. I based my observations on an abbreviated transcript, which I thought, in all honesty, was the COMPLETE transcript. It was not.”
AND…
“Uh, J.Matthew, excuse me: I admitted my error.”
?Habla ingles, Jean?
Yeah, you ARE a Liberal…
Comment by Kevin — 1/22/2005 @ 1:41 am
What I THINK torture is is irrelevant.
The definitions of torture in U.S. Legal Code, in Judicial Precedent and in International Treaties is relevant.
Comment by J. Matthew — 1/22/2005 @ 7:10 am
“What I THINK torture is is irrelevant.
Comment by J. Matthew ‗
Pretty much everything you say is irrelevant, but that’s never stopped you (yet) from yappin’
Comment by Benny — 1/22/2005 @ 7:14 pm
Kevin, you’re a dishonest creep. You should offer everyone here an apology.
I’m glad Barbara Boxer is standing up for truth, and freedom, and justice. It’s amazing how much partisan Republicans like Kevin hate her for that.
Why do the Republicans hate us liberals so much? It’s because they hate our freedom!
sorry. couldn’t resist the obvious opportunity. and it’s true. republicans can’t stand to have people free from reactionary old rules. makes ‘em get a rash. barbara boxer doesn’t let the republicans tell her what to do. she breaks the rules of the republican elitists, and they hate her for it.
keep it up, senator boxer. ya got my vote.
Comment by heather — 1/22/2005 @ 7:24 pm
it’s clear that the republicans have no integrity left. all they have left is the ability to intimidate and bullly americans who still stand up for freedom. benny and kevin’s crude attacks on women show that.
Comment by heather — 1/22/2005 @ 7:29 pm
“Kevin, you’re a dishonest creep.”
Such a loooovely sentiment, Heather!
And you’re an insignificant nothing. Take your petty insults somewhere else. They don’t hurt me.
Better yet, keep’em coming. Shows more about you than me.
You demand an apology after calling me a creep? Keep demanding.
Comment by Kevin — 1/22/2005 @ 11:17 pm
“benny and kevin’s crude attacks on women show that.”
Uh, crude attacks? And calling me a creep is supposed to give me a warm fuzzy? You need to get a grip before you make wild accusations such as that.
Again, you’re insignificant and will be easily forgotten.
Comment by Kevin — 1/22/2005 @ 11:19 pm
Pity party for Kevin time! The man spews complete nonsense, insults everyone who tries to point it out, then cries and moans because no one loves him and shows him the proper respect due to a Southern Baptist man who lives in Texas. Oh, come on and grow up Kevin. You blew it, man. Just admit it, or start a new web site at pitypartyforpoorrepublicanspersecturedbyuppityliberalwomen.com
Be a man, you!
Comment by Kirk Land — 1/23/2005 @ 12:49 am
Kirk Land:
I had a nice post for you, but I decided that defecating and reading my girlfriend’s People magazine about Brad and Jen’s breakup worth be more time-productive.
Have a great day, Kirk!
Comment by Kevin — 1/24/2005 @ 3:04 pm
“would be more time-productive”
Comment by Kevin — 1/24/2005 @ 3:04 pm
here’s some more waffling and dodging by cook, et. al
“I also like how “Benny†conveniently supplied a new procedural question..
All the other items were secondary. Benny’s attempt to play stylistic gotcha by dredging up an Irregular Times post in 2003 making reference to two other nominal references to reasons ignores that those two other reasons (Iraq-Al Qaeda cooperation that didn’t exist, despotism) were both considered dangerous because Iraq was said to have WMDs. Bush administration officials said the alleged Iraq-Al Qaeda cooperation (which didn’t actually exist) was dangerous because Saddam Hussein would give Al Qaeda nukes (which didn’t actually exist), chemical weapons (which he did not have), or biological weapons (which he did not have). Bush administration officials argued that Hussein was a despot to take out (as opposed to the scores of other despots around the world) because he had WMD (which he did not have).”
” Heather’s “: “benny and kevin’s crude attacks on women show that. ”
First to our fair ‘Heather’ (or Jean, or Patricia, it doesn’t matter when they are all the same) Before you make a statement that sounds very much like a lie (and would thereby render your credibility nil, even if it wasn’t already) why don’t you show explicitly where I made any kind of attack on women, crude or otherwise? You think you can get away with anything, no matter how ridiculous or unsupported it is? I’m sure you do.
To Jimbo: I didn’t start a “new procedural question”, you did, in post #5, which I responded to: To refresh your feeble memory,
“Oh, Bullshit, Kevin.
The reason for war was WMD, WMD, and WMD. Anything else is revisionist politics” So instead of the 1-2-3 WMDs you stated above, you contradict yourself from 2003.
Your attempt to cover that up with the paragraph posted above is one of the silliest, lamest attempts to dance around an issue that I have seen you do yet, and that’s going some.
Comment by Benny — 1/25/2005 @ 10:38 am
Benny writes:
“why don’t you show explicitly where I made any kind of attack on women, crude or otherwise?”
Benny, you can forget a response to that one. I have, on three separate occasions, been accused of being sexist. On three separate occasions, I have asked for proof of such an allegations. On three separate occasions, the accusers (Patricia, Latasha, Jean) fell mysteriously silent…
Add Heather to that list, I suppose.
Credibility? These ladies couldn’t get it even if Gloria Steinham delivered it personally to them.
When they (and others like them, regardless of sex- how I hate having to throw that disclaimer in there; it’s so PC) are called to task and they KNOW they are either incorrect or well, lying, they change the subject.
“When the law is on your side, argue the law. When the facts are on your side, argue the facts. When neither is on your side, change the subject and question the motives of the opposition.”
Don’t know who wrote that, but I’d like to find out and buy’em a beer.
Comment by Kevin — 1/25/2005 @ 11:31 am
Kevin, you got it wrong. Wrong. Wrong. You lied to us. You’ve got no credibility here. I’m on board: Barbara Boxer for President! We’ve got our candidate - who the hell can the Republicans run - Dick Cheney?!?
Comment by Neal — 1/27/2005 @ 1:35 pm
[…] that all are corrupt, that all are hopelessly out of touch with reality. You just have to look for those politicians who at the right time are willing to stand up and declare that the Emperor of the moment has no clothes. And then, as long as their authentic behavior […]
Pingback by Leahy Seizes Opportunity for Vigorous Action | JustDogs — 4/13/2007 @ 12:06 pm