PDA

View Full Version : Boxer Busted on Iraq Lie During Condi Confirmation



Chopstick
01-25-2005, 12:31 PM
www.crushkerry.com (http://www.crushkerry.com) (soon to be www.anklebitingpundits.com (http://www.anklebitingpundits.com)) ^ | 1/19/05
Posted on 01/19/2005 5:36:11 AM PST by crushkerry

The big news today was Michael Moore's favorite Senator Barbara Boxer taking aim at Condi Rice's credibility at today's confirmation hearings. You can go here to read the entire transcript of the exchange. Frankly, these confirmation hearings strike us as a colossal waste of time. Rather than actually question the nominee windbag Senators like Babs go on over the allotted time limit and ask one question. The rest of the time is spent filibustering and hearing themselves bloviate (see especially Biden, Joe).

What was perhaps most infuriating about Boxer's pissy little tirade was that she cited a movie by a hate America lefty called Fog of War as if it were gospel, and had the unmitigated gall to basically call Condi a liar on Iraq. This from a woman who defended Bill Clinton during the Lewinsky matter. True to here nature as nobody's fool, Condi shot back with a wonderful defense of the Iraq war that Boxer, one of the Senate's dimmest bulbs (and that's saying something), probably didn't understand because Condi used words over 2 syllables.

However, in her harangue against everything about President Bush and Iraq, Boxer made a statement that was patently false. Even worse, it's easy to prove as such. And we're not talking about a lie on a little thing either. This is something you have to see, and we're sure won't be reported in the mainstream press, but hey, that's why you have people like us, right?

After Condi had so brilliantly and passionately defended the Iraq war, and the reasoning for it that included cites to reasons other than WMD's, half-wit Boxer smugly made this astounding statement:

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.

In trying to make a point that Condi's own words proved she's a liar Boxer became the proverbial Polish firing squad. (Save the emails Poles, as you probably call it an Italian firing squad, or the Irish call it a "British firing squad). Her very specific words state flatly that the presence of WMD's was the sole reason given in the legislation authorizing the Iraq war.

The only problem for Boxer is that the internet exists, and we can go back and read, and link to, the actual text of the resolution. As you can see we just linked to it, but feel it is important to lay the text of the findings in the actual resolution, with the important parts highlighted. It reads as follows:

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

<font color="red"> Free SF! </font color>

Qtec
01-25-2005, 01:28 PM
Can you prove ANY of the assumptions regarding a terrorist connection to Iraq?
Can you show me how Iraq was an immediate threat to the US?
Did you know that GW signed a paper in 2001 that sanctioned countries suspected of harbouring terrorists and that Iraq wasnt one of them?
If we invaded every country that broke a UN resolution Israel would have been invaded 30 times.

This is taken from a neo-con website!

[ QUOTE ]
State/INR Alternative View of Iraq's Nuclear Program

The Assistant Secretary of State for Intelligence and Research (INR) believes that Saddam continues to want nuclear weapons and that available evidence indicates that Baghdad is pursuing at least a limited effort to maintain and acquire nuclear weapons-related capabilities. The activities we have detected do not, however, add up to a compelling case that Iraq is currently pursuing what INR would consider to be an integrated and comprehensive approach to acquire nuclear weapons. Iraq may be doing so but INR considers the available evidence inadequate to support such a judgment. Lacking persuasive evidence that Baghdad has launched a coherent effort to reconstitute its nuclear weapons program, INR is unwilling to speculate that such an effort began soon after the departure of UN inspectors or to project a timeline for the completion of activities it does not now see happening. As a result, INR is unable to predict when Iraq could acquire a nuclear device or weapon.

In INR's view Iraq's efforts to acquire aluminum tubes is central to the argument that Baghdad is reconstituting its nuclear weapons program, but INR is not persuaded that the tubes in question are intended for use as centrifuge rotators. INR accepts the judgment of technical experts at the U.S. Department of Energy (DOE) who have concluded that the tubes Iraq seeks to acquire are poorly suited for use in gas centrifuges to be used for uranium enrichment and finds unpersuasive the arguments advanced by others to make the case that they are intended for that purpose. INR considers it far more likely that the tubes are intended for another purpose, most likely the production of artillery rockets. The very large quantities being sought, the way the tubes were tested by the Iraqis, and the atypical lack of attention to operational security in the procurement efforts are among the factors, in addition to the DOE assessment, that lead INR to conclude that the tubes are not intended for use in Iraq's nuclear weapon program.<hr /></blockquote>


http://newamericancentury.org/iraq-20030722.htm <hr /></blockquote>



You obviously missed this.
7 months before 9/11.
C Powell.
[ QUOTE ]
We will always try to consult with our friends in the region so that they are not surprised and do everything we can to explain the purpose of our responses. We had a good discussion, the Foreign Minister and I and the President and I, had a good discussion about the nature of the sanctions -- the fact that the sanctions exist -- not for the purpose of hurting the Iraqi people, but for the purpose of keeping in check Saddam Hussein's ambitions toward developing weapons of mass destruction. We should constantly be reviewing our policies, constantly be looking at those sanctions to make sure that they are directed toward that purpose. That purpose is every bit as important now as it was ten years ago when we began it. And frankly they have worked. He has not developed any significant capability with respect to weapons of mass destruction. He is unable to project conventional power against his neighbors. So in effect, our policies have strengthened the security of the neighbors of Iraq, and these are policies that we are going to keep in place, but we are always willing to review them to make sure that they are being carried out in a way that does not affect the Iraqi people but does affect the Iraqi regime's ambitions and the ability to acquire weapons of mass destruction, and we had a good conversation on this issue.
<hr /></blockquote>
10 months later Saddam is "the most dangerous man in the world, in the most dangerous place".
Condi,
[ QUOTE ]

The fact is that we did face a very difficult intelligence challenge in trying to understand what Saddam Hussein had in terms of weapons of mass destruction.<hr /></blockquote>

Was that the impression you got? It sounded to me that they were pretty certain.

Q

highsea
01-25-2005, 01:42 PM
Lol, leave it to Qtec to try to change the subject.

Boxer is playing to her constituency, nothing more or less. She would like to position herself as the next Teddy Kennedy, I think. Funny how her and Kerry were the only ones to vote against Condi.

Wrt the Senate vote, it's interesting how Boxer emphasizes that she didn't vote for the use of force. So even though it had been the official US policy (regime change) for 5 years, and all the intel and virtually every politician in the US, UK, Germany, France, etc. believed Saddam had WMD's, Boxer was still unwilling to use force to enforce the UN resolutions and remove Saddam.

Wally_in_Cincy
01-25-2005, 02:03 PM
She also said that 25% of the war deaths were from California when it is actually 11.5%

Qtec
01-25-2005, 02:12 PM
LOL. Leave it to HS to avoid answering the question.

Q

Qtec
01-25-2005, 02:16 PM
[ QUOTE ]
and all the intel <hr /></blockquote>

Not true. read my post.

Q

highsea
01-25-2005, 02:17 PM
You are off-topic, and just repeating yourself. All of your complaints have been addressed in prior threads.

Chopstick
01-25-2005, 02:35 PM
<blockquote><font class="small">Quote Qtec:</font><hr> Can you prove ANY of the assumptions regarding a terrorist connection to Iraq?
Can you show me how Iraq was an immediate threat to the US?
Did you know that GW signed a paper in 2001 that sanctioned countries suspected of harbouring terrorists and that Iraq wasnt one of them?
If we invaded every country that broke a UN resolution Israel would have been invaded 30 times.

This is taken from a neo-con website!

Q

<hr /></blockquote>

Ya' gotta keep it simple for me Q. Ya'll know I'm not very bright. For starters, what's a neo-con?

wolfdancer
01-25-2005, 02:36 PM
you actually felt that this name-calling article, has enough journalistic value, to be repeated here in it's entirety?
Calling Barbara Boxer the "Senate's dimmest bulb"....and Condi's defense of the war "Brilliant and passionate" does it for you?
And you can see something valid in a comparision between Condi's defending the war..... with Boxer, defending Pres. Clinton on a sexual peccadillo?
So Boxer made a false statement...wow! she had a great role model though in our leader.

" This from a woman who defended Bill Clinton during the Lewinsky matter. True to here nature as nobody's fool, Condi shot back with a wonderful defense of the Iraq war that Boxer, one of the Senate's dimmest bulbs (and that's saying something), probably didn't understand because Condi used words over 2 syllables. "
It's a sad day when this kind of garbage has to be included
to support a story........

highsea
01-25-2005, 02:51 PM
<blockquote><font class="small">Quote wolfdancer:</font><hr> you actually felt that this name-calling article, has enough journalistic value, to be repeated here in it's entirety? <hr /></blockquote>Oh, come on. It's certainly no worse than this one (http://www.billiardsdigest.com/ccboard/showflat.php?Cat=&amp;Board=npr&amp;Number=175381&amp;page=0&amp;v iew=collapsed&amp;sb=5&amp;o=&amp;fpart=1&amp;vc=1) , which has generated a spate of name calling that's rare even for NPR.

Ppppbbbtthhtt! /ccboard/images/graemlins/smirk.gif
________________________________________

eg8r
01-25-2005, 02:51 PM
[ QUOTE ]
So Boxer made a false statement...wow! she had a great role model though in our leader.
<hr /></blockquote> Nice twist. It is alright to call Reps liars, but a liberal is only making a "false statement". LOL, incredible. /ccboard/images/graemlins/smile.gif

eg8r

eg8r
01-25-2005, 02:53 PM
[ QUOTE ]
Can you prove ANY of the assumptions regarding a terrorist connection to Iraq?
Can you show me how Iraq was an immediate threat to the US?
Did you know that GW signed a paper in 2001 that sanctioned countries suspected of harbouring terrorists and that Iraq wasnt one of them?
If we invaded every country that broke a UN resolution Israel would have been invaded 30 times.

This is taken from a neo-con website!
<hr /></blockquote> Q, any chance you will one day comment on the subject of the thread? Why do you continue to try and change the subject?

eg8r

wolfdancer
01-25-2005, 03:05 PM
being "no worse" doesn't justify either article's put-downs.
I could make insulting remarks about one fat man here, based solely on my interpretations of his printed rantings....but they would only be my assumptions....and may not be true....only his hairdresser would know for sure

wolfdancer
01-25-2005, 03:28 PM
Thanks eg8r for the unexpected compliment.
I'm an astute student, and learning from
both your's and SF's posts.

Chopstick
01-25-2005, 03:36 PM
<blockquote><font class="small">Quote highsea:</font><hr> <blockquote><font class="small">Quote wolfdancer:</font><hr> you actually felt that this name-calling article, has enough journalistic value, to be repeated here in it's entirety? <hr /></blockquote>Oh, come on. It's certainly no worse than this one (http://www.billiardsdigest.com/ccboard/showflat.php?Cat=&amp;Board=npr&amp;Number=175381&amp;page=0&amp;v iew=collapsed&amp;sb=5&amp;o=&amp;fpart=1&amp;vc=1) , which has generated a spate of name calling that's rare even for NPR.

Ppppbbbtthhtt! /ccboard/images/graemlins/smirk.gif
________________________________________ <hr /></blockquote>

<font color="blue">Yeah, me too. Ppppbbbtthhtt! </font color> /ccboard/images/graemlins/laugh.gif

highsea
01-25-2005, 03:41 PM
<blockquote><font class="small">Quote wolfdancer:</font><hr> being "no worse" doesn't justify either article's put-downs. <hr /></blockquote>
I'm not suggesting that it does. As a matter of fact, I do not consider either post an article. They are both commentary. As such, they will generate responses from members here who are either in agreement or opposition to the author.

What I get tired of is the devolution of the discussion to the name-calling/schooolyard-bully level. How this is possible among mature adults is something of a mystery to me, maybe it's a good subject for a case study.

I don't really find offense in criticizing the authors of these articles. They open themselves up to this when they write them. The same can be said of us when we write responses to them here, but a curious transference seems to take place. Criticism of the author somehow becomes criticism of those persons in agreement, and vice-versa.

Follow the thread I mentioned previously, and you will see what I mean. After about 3 comment/response cycles, half the board is calling the other half fags and/or challenging them to a fight.

While most of the threads are created with the intention of opening a discussion on the subject, a few members here can almost always be counted on to bait and flame, rather than offer reasoned discussion on the topic. The ad hominem attack seems to be the preferred response for these posters. There is no need to mention any names, because we all know who I am referring to.

I think it detracts from the board, because it stifles mature discourse. In general I avoid these threads for this reason. NPR is what we make of it, the moderators will not intervene. If we choose to make it a flame board, that's exactly what it will be.
____________________________________________

nhp
01-25-2005, 03:55 PM
Isn't it funny how so many of us said there were no WMD's over there in the first place, but all of the Bushites tried to prove us wrong? Even when they had no evidence that Saddam had WMD's, they automatically went along with everything Bush said. Now that the Bush admin has finally admitted there were no WMD's over there, the rest of the conservatives finally admit it. Talk about blindly following someone!

I'm used to having blind faith in God. I didn't know being a Bushite was a new religion!

/ccboard/images/graemlins/laugh.gif just poking fun

wolfdancer
01-25-2005, 04:17 PM
Highsea, as usual a well constructed post....When I realised
I was getting into the same barroom politics debates, I asked to be removed from the board.....but kept right on posting.
Discourse is good, but dis ain't discourse,an dis ain't good fer one's G.I. tract...all that's missing is the alcohol
So I'm going to drop out of the political harangue, and concentrate on my pool game....which is why I first came over to this site....but don't hold me to it.

Qtec
01-26-2005, 02:50 AM
Boxer is obviously not that bright, but she is not the subject of these hearings. As I understand it, Rice is the one who should be under scrutiny.
The main crux of her questions are the conflicting statements made by Rice , before and after the Iraq invasion.

There was no UN resolution to invade Iraq and he was not an immediate threat to the security of the US. In fact, according to Powell in Feb 2001, he was not even a threat to his neighbours!
Again I quote,
[ QUOTE ]
That purpose is every bit as important now as it was ten years ago when we began it. And frankly they have worked. He has not developed any significant capability with respect to weapons of mass destruction. He is unable to project conventional power against his neighbors. So in effect, our policies have strengthened the security of the neighbors of Iraq <hr /></blockquote>
If you read the whole transcript you will find this section.

Boxer,
[ QUOTE ]
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." <font color="blue">This is plainly A LIE. </font color>

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.
<hr /></blockquote>

"How can you be 100% sure Saddam has WMD and be 100% wrong about where they are." Hans Blix.

The reason for the Iraq invasion was opportunity, not security.

Q

nhp
01-26-2005, 04:02 AM
<blockquote><font class="small">Quote highsea:</font><hr> Boxer is playing to her constituency, nothing more or less.
<hr /></blockquote>

I think it's safe to say that most senators are instructed delegates.

eg8r
01-26-2005, 06:33 AM
[ QUOTE ]
Boxer is obviously not that bright, but she is not the subject of these hearings. As I understand it, Rice is the one who should be under scrutiny.
The main crux of her questions are the conflicting statements made by Rice , before and after the Iraq invasion.
<hr /></blockquote> You are right, Boxer is not the person that should be under scrutiny. However, she should also not take liberty in giving false information while chastising another for purportedly doing the same thing.

eg8r