It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.

Thank you.

 

Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.

 

Condi stands up in hearing and lets a senator have it

page: 4
0
<< 1  2  3    5  6  7 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Jan, 19 2005 @ 10:22 AM
link   
Here's an impression a well known expert on Iraq gets from the hearings:


Dr. Condaleeza Rice appeared before the Senate in confirmation hearings on her nomination by Bush to be Secretary of State. I was struck by how much tougher The LA Times was in its coverage than most other news outlets. It notes, e.g., that Dr. Rice seemed unwilling to condemn torture unreservedly (her people back in Birmingham must be proud of that one).

I was alarmed at how doctrinaire all her answers were, and how she consistently refused to take any responsibility for misleading the American public into an unnecessary war. Her notion that the US cannot afford to let failed states fester is something that could be debated. But Iraq was not a failed state in 2002. If anything Condi Rice has helped turn Iraq into a failed state. If it is undesirable for the US to let failed states fester, surely it is even more undesirable for the US to use false pretences to turn countries into failed states. She either doesn't get it, or doesn't have the elemental courage and integrity to admit that she was wrong. Her deputy Stephen Hadley, by the way, was the one who over-ruled the CIA and authorized the phrase about Iraq buying uranium from Niger in the 2003 State of the Union address. Condi is responsible for her subordinates. If you just went through and made a quotation table of everything she said about Iraq in the first term, it would be hilarious to read now.

The one thing I disagree with the LA Times piece about is that they say she might be more effective because she is closer to Bush than Powell was. Not so. Her lack of political and intellectual independence from Bush will turn her into a mere parrot, and all the heavy duty decisions will be taken by Donald Rumsfeld and his Neoconservative phalanx. Her testimony, which sounded as though she had been stuck in a time warp for the past three years and hadn't noticed the disaster in Iraq, was a good sign of her future irrelevance and current inability to deal with reality.


I suppose this sums it up for Condi. She's a disaster.


[edit on 19-1-2005 by Aelita]




posted on Jan, 19 2005 @ 10:56 AM
link   

Originally posted by Seekerof

Try a new one, k?
Cause till you and Kidfinger and some others produce, as factual fact, that Ms. Rice was "lying," you, as with those others, are the "Buffoon" Boxer's mouth-pieces, and as such, are your selves as incorrect as Senator Boxer was found to be!



Oh my.......... So if I say one thing today, and then say the opposite tomorrow, I am not lying? Now I see why you support Bush
Hey Seekerof, you have given the absolute best arguments I have ever heard. Am I lying or not? I have previously stated that your arguments in these situations are mostly just opinion and you continually "spin" the truth till it suits you, as you claim we Liberals do. This would mean that my first statement about your arguments was a lie. Its a good thing noone is being held accountable in the administration now isnt it.



posted on Jan, 19 2005 @ 11:25 AM
link   
I see that you have still to back your claim, Kidfinger.

Provide to the contrary, or keep teaching that brand of voodoo to "our" children that you do; the one that you call "morals".
Is calling someone a "liar," and not proving such, considered appropriate behavior in your society or culture? Is that the appropriate way to teach "morals," as associated to applied Ethics?
I guess it goes back to that old ethical (Ethics 101) adage that: what one may view and term as 'right', may not be what is 'right' for someone else.....





seekerof

[edit on 19-1-2005 by Seekerof]



posted on Jan, 19 2005 @ 11:28 AM
link   
I notice that like your link said,



TextHer testimony, which sounded as though she had been stuck in a time warp for the past three years and hadn't noticed the disaster in Iraq, was a good sign of her future irrelevance and current inability to deal with reality.



She sounded like her answers were so rehearsed and repeated that they lost their appeal as a reasonable answer.

Also how can she allowed herself to be call a liar and to be part of the mess in Iaq, when already our president said that he is not holding accountable any persons in his administration.

Occurs she has nothing to worry or she does not have to answer to the congress or the American people.

[edit on 19-1-2005 by marg6043]



posted on Jan, 19 2005 @ 11:35 AM
link   
Just wanted to chime and a post my favorite quote from the transcript.

SEN. BOXER: "Well, you should read what we voted on when we voted to support the war, which I did not, but most of my colleagues did. It was WMD, period. That was the reason and the causation for that, you know, particular vote. "

Anybody able to follow that?

Look, this whole argument boils down to comparing brainpans of Dr. Rice and Senator Boxer. Its a useless argument because they are in two separate leagues. Anyone who reads the transcript knows it. I hope the remarks between these two are something we can move on and forget.

In fairness to Ms. Boxer, she was not "privy" to the level of intel that Dr. Rice was during this event. These two are in two separate roles of the game. Both have two different backgrounds, educational and occupational.

The fact that a US senator made remarks such as the one above and that said remarks are being read around the world is truly something we need not continue to shed light on. Lets allow Ms. Boxer to live it down with a little quiet dignity and refrain from any further embarrassment...I hope.

I'm not siding with one side or the other, mind you. This is a critique from someone who holds both sides in equal contempt..but dammit, I can't deny how bad it was..and now that we have the net and the transcript so accessable, neither can anyone else.



posted on Jan, 19 2005 @ 01:05 PM
link   
Time to put the brickbats down, at least for a short while. The Senate Foreign Relations Committee has approved her nomination by a 16 - 2 vote. The dissenters? Kerry and Boxer.

It's off to the full Senate now.



posted on Jan, 19 2005 @ 01:08 PM
link   

Originally posted by Seekerof
I see that you have still to back your claim, Kidfinger.

Provide to the contrary, or keep teaching that brand of voodoo to "our" children that you do; the one that you call "morals".
Is calling someone a "liar," and not proving such, considered appropriate behavior in your society or culture? Is that the appropriate way to teach "morals," as associated to applied Ethics?
I guess it goes back to that old ethical (Ethics 101) adage that: what one may view and term as 'right', may not be what is 'right' for someone else.....





seekerof

[edit on 19-1-2005 by Seekerof]


It has already been proven and shown that she lied. But you believe in lying to the public obviously.

I will now ask you to refrain from ever making a comment about what I teach my child. It is NONE of your business. I happen to homeschool my little girl because I dont agree with the morals that are NOT being taught in school. I dont want my daughter to be 13 and pregnant, just another statistic.

Now, it is NOT up to me to prove she lied. The accusation was made AGIANST Condi, therfore, it is up to her and her supporters to prove she did not.



posted on Jan, 19 2005 @ 01:14 PM
link   

Originally posted by Kidfinger
Now, it is NOT up to me to prove she lied. The accusation was made AGIANST Condi, therfore, it is up to her and her supporters to prove she did not.


And I agree with you on this one Kidfinger your are right is not for you to proved that she lied but for our high ranking elected official in the senate to proved it.

After all we are just bringing into this thread the reasons as why our senator may had done the deed of calling Ms Rice in public and for the media to see that she was a liar.

So. our senator will not put do something like that without no reason.

So let her proved the fact.



posted on Jan, 19 2005 @ 01:15 PM
link   
I disagree, because if we apply the rules of our judicial system, she is innocent until proven guilty. An accused does not need to prove their innocence.



posted on Jan, 19 2005 @ 01:24 PM
link   

Originally posted by jsobecky
I disagree, because if we apply the rules of our judicial system, she is innocent until proven guilty. An accused does not need to prove their innocence.


Quite right JB. However, with our judicial system, you are accused, of something, and then you have to prove you didnt do it. I know thats not how it is supposed to work, but that is how it is. OJ is a perfect example of this.



posted on Jan, 19 2005 @ 01:26 PM
link   
Now, I don't believe the whole "Reptilians" theory, but Condoleezas reptillian face is pretty strong evidence! She is the most Reptile looking Human I've ever had the misfortune of seeing. Truly hideous



posted on Jan, 19 2005 @ 01:28 PM
link   

Originally posted by chebob
Now, I don't believe the whole "Reptilians" theory, but Condoleezas reptillian face is pretty strong evidence! She is the most Reptile looking Human I've ever had the misfortune of seeing. Truly hideous


Now that is a pretty racest remark...............even for a Lib. I think you should take her out to dinner and appologize.



posted on Jan, 19 2005 @ 01:30 PM
link   

Originally posted by DrHoracid


Now that is a pretty racest remark...............even for a Lib. I think you should take her out to dinner and appologize.


He is afraid she might eat HIM for dinner



posted on Jan, 19 2005 @ 01:32 PM
link   

Originally posted by Kidfinger
Now, it is NOT up to me to prove she lied. The accusation was made AGIANST Condi, therfore, it is up to her and her supporters to prove she did not.


I can't agree more with this statement. I'm not into bashing Dr. Rice as I think she should be applauded for her hard work and position she has attained. What does bother me though, is the dodging of the questions and the scripted answers. She is a brilliant woman and you could almost tell she wanted to answer questions posed, in her own way, but kept catching herself. For instance, when asked if she believed that the instances at Abu Gharib were torture, in her mind, she should have just said yes but they were isolated problems and would do everything she could do to stop them from ever happening again. Instead though, she jumped around uncomfortabley and dodged her honest answer. This, I believe would have been a good oppurtunity to raise her credibilty with the "other half" of America but she simply just took the old political way out. For someone who is supposed to be the presidents top advisor, I for one would like someone with thier own mind and train of thought. In desperate times, I want an advisor that can add to something to a plan not just back it. I wish her luck, and hope she is successful. I just hope she can become her own person overthe next four years. For a good start, she needs to begin working on being the new Secretary of State and not just simply the Presidents other Press Secretary.



posted on Jan, 19 2005 @ 01:39 PM
link   
What kind of proof is everybody looking for exactly? Should kidfinger produce an offical memo instructing everybody in the administration specifically to "lie"? They said Iraq had WMD stockpiles, there were none, now they say that wasn't the reason for the war. Lie. They said Iraq had links to Al Queda, there was no link, then they said they never even said it, although there are countless taped interviews proving they did say that. Lie. They lied about pretty much all of the reasons that countless people have died. Now it's just "the middle east will be better off", but how many Americans would approve of the war based on that alone? Not many. Which is why they had to fabricate and link Iraq to 9/11, although now they said they never did. Lie. They had to lie to gain support for their pre-planned invasion of Iraq. and those who think we are leaving Iraq, ever, are either stupid or naive. We WILL have a military base there, and we WILL make sure our newly acquired oil will be safe. But from now on, if anybody lies to you, just assume that they didn't, unless you can prove that they did in fact lie to you. And I mean SOLID proof, not just that you know they lied, that's not enough, you will need documentation.



posted on Jan, 19 2005 @ 01:41 PM
link   

Originally posted by skychief

Originally posted by Kidfinger
Now, it is NOT up to me to prove she lied. The accusation was made AGIANST Condi, therfore, it is up to her and her supporters to prove she did not.


I can't agree more with this statement. I'm not into bashing Dr. Rice as I think she should be applauded for her hard work and position she has attained. What does bother me though, is the dodging of the questions and the scripted answers. She is a brilliant woman and you could almost tell she wanted to answer questions posed, in her own way, but kept catching herself. For instance, when asked if she believed that the instances at Abu Gharib were torture, in her mind, she should have just said yes but they were isolated problems and would do everything she could do to stop them from ever happening again. Instead though, she jumped around uncomfortabley and dodged her honest answer. This, I believe would have been a good oppurtunity to raise her credibilty with the "other half" of America but she simply just took the old political way out. For someone who is supposed to be the presidents top advisor, I for one would like someone with thier own mind and train of thought. In desperate times, I want an advisor that can add to something to a plan not just back it. I wish her luck, and hope she is successful. I just hope she can become her own person overthe next four years. For a good start, she needs to begin working on being the new Secretary of State and not just simply the Presidents other Press Secretary.


What if she believes as do I that there was no "torture" at Abu Graib?

The Sec of State serves at the pleasure of the Prez. She has no personal "will" or opinion.



posted on Jan, 19 2005 @ 01:43 PM
link   
Boxer was heckling Rice and Rice cut her down to size, without venom, but with the sheer force of her integrity and authority. That one, simple, ten second response exhibited more character than Boxer could muster in a dozen lifetimes and probably secured her confirmation.

The nation is very fortunate to have Dr. Rice as Secretary of State. I'd take one Condi Rice or Colin Powell over a hundred Jesse Jacksons and Al Sharptons with their phony religiosity, race-baiting, and blackmail on any day of the week. It just goes to show that hard work and a commitment to service still trump cheap theatrics and victim politics on any day of the week.


[edit on 05/1/19 by GradyPhilpott]



posted on Jan, 19 2005 @ 02:06 PM
link   

Originally posted by Seekerof

as posted by Kidfinger
Did you learn a new word in class? There is nothing'moot' about my point. She lied and senator Boxer pointed it out. I guess Condi should be unaccountable for her actions. OH, THATS RIGHT! Bush already said no one in his administration is going to be held accountable for ANYTHING having to do with the Iraq war......




Your hilarious.
You get proven wrong. Your remarks get disproven. Now you resort to attacking my intelligence?

Prove she "lied", and prove that lie within the context of what that alledged "lie" was given in, k?

Simply stating she "lied" is placing you in the same category as Senator Boxer, which doesn't surprise me, at all.


seekerof


Seekerof,

You're correct in that this is just another example of the standard liberal/democratic response when you pin them down on some issue. It's because all they really know about issues are the sound bites. The proof is the when you ask them anything that goes deeper and requires more thought than that and all they can come up with are personal attacks.

Sad.



posted on Jan, 19 2005 @ 02:14 PM
link   
I would like the dems on this board to give us a list of all the democratic presidents that have appointed people that disagree with them on key issues to major cabinent posts such as state or defense?

OK, so you couldn't list any. So, why would you even believe for an instant tha Bush would do anything different than your boys have done?

Another liberal hypocritical argument destroyed.

Also, to the people suggesting that Rice has to prove she didn't lie. Almost everyone knows that it is very difficult to prove the negative. If I gave you more credit for thinking, I'd think you came up with that "test" for Rice on purpose, knowing she wouldn't be able to do it, so you could bash her some more.



[edit on 1/19/2005 by centurion1211]



posted on Jan, 19 2005 @ 02:20 PM
link   
On page 1 of this topic the substantive issues were swept aside by members who chose to engage in petty politicking and "butt kicking" as a sport. By page 4 it's still going.

Oh well.



new topics

top topics



 
0
<< 1  2  3    5  6  7 >>

log in

join