Democrats Say Rice Misled About Iraq War
 

WASHINGTON - Senate Democrats said Tuesday that Condoleezza Rice (news - web sites) lied to them, misled Americans about the Iraq (news - web sites) war or served as an apologist for Bush administration failures in Iraq, but she remained on track for confirmation as secretary of state.

Rice, who has been President Bush (news - web sites)'s national security adviser for four years, was one of the loudest voices urging war, Democrats said. She repeatedly deceived members of Congress and Americans at large about justifications for the war, said Sen. Mark Dayton (news, bio, voting record), D-Minn.

"I don't like impugning anyone's integrity, but I really don't like being lied to," Dayton said in opposing Rice's nomination on the Senate floor. "Repeatedly, flagrantly, intentionally."

Rice is expected to win confirmation on Wednesday. Senate Majority Leader Bill Frist, R-Tenn., predicted that Rice would have "an overwhelming majority" of votes.

Sen. Richard Lugar (news, bio, voting record), R-Ind., cautioned against "inflammatory rhetoric that is designed merely to create partisan advantage or to settle partisan scores."

Rice would succeed Colin Powell, who often found himself on the outside looking in with Bush's close circle of war and national security advisers.

By contrast, Rice is a trusted Bush loyalist. As a principal architect of the Iraq invasion and the administration's war on terrorism, she shares blame for overstating the threat posed by Saddam Hussein (news - web sites), Democrats said.

Dayton accused Rice and other Bush administration officials of "lying to Congress, lying to our committees, lying to the American people."

Politicians rarely use the word "lie," preferring some of the milder terms other Democrats used Tuesday.

"There was no reason to go to war in Iraq when we did, the way we did and for the false reasons we were given," said Sen. Edward M. Kennedy, D-Mass.

Rice is not directly responsible for intelligence failures prior to the Iraq war that overestimated Saddam's nuclear capability, said Sen. Carl Levin, D-Mich. "But she is responsible for her own distortions and exaggerations of the intelligence which was provided to her," Levin said.

"Dr. Rice is responsible for some of the most overblown rhetoric that the administration used to scare the American people," Sen. Robert Byrd, D-W.Va., said.

The Senate set aside most of the day Tuesday to debate the Rice nomination after Democrats revolted against a plan to confirm Rice last week, on the same day that Bush took his oath for a second term.

"We should have been done last week," Frist said. "I was disappointed that we are having to march through the debate today. But ultimately the vote will occur."

Republicans who took the floor to endorse Rice included Sen. Chuck Hagel, R-Neb., who has been a sometime critic of the Bush administration's Iraq policies.

"Dr. Rice has the intelligence, the integrity and the experience for this job. She has the president's confidence," Hagel said.

In his dealings with Rice, "she's always been candid and honest, and she listened," Hagel said.

The Democratic Senatorial Campaign Committee on Tuesday sought to capitalize on sharp questioning of Rice during her confirmation hearings. The DSCC sent a fund-raising e-mail signed by Sen. Barbara Boxer, D-Calif., with the subject line "Taking a Stand."

"I will continue to make my voice heard on the Senate Foreign Relations committee, but in order to put the brakes on four more years of misdirection in Iraq and reckless policies at home, we need to elect more Democrats to the Senate during the 2006 midterm elections," Boxer wrote, noting her questioning of Rice. "Click here to contribute to the DSCC today."

"This disturbing letter puts to rest any doubts some may have had that this is all about politics," Rice spokesman Jim Wilkinson said.

Meanwhile, the Republican National Committee sent an e-mail to its supporters with the subject line "Meet the New Face of the Democratic Party." It portrayed Boxer as having a "left of liberal" voting record and being closely tied to the Hollywood elite. The e-mail included a link for supporters to "support the Bush agenda by becoming a team leader today."

Democrats, in the minority in Congress, often resort to delaying what they cannot defeat.

Byrd, the longest-serving Democratic senator and a student of the Constitution, insisted that his party is merely doing its duty.

"I am particularly dismayed by criticism I have read that Senate Democrats by insisting on having the opportunity to debate this nomination have somehow been engaged in nothing more substantial than petty politics or partisan delaying tactics," Byrd said, his voice rising in anger.

That's telling em!
 

GIVE EM THE BYRD! (is there a smiley for THAT?) :nod:

They were not scared to hammer her and, therefore, W during the speeches today :cool:

they should hammer her. She should have been fired ages ago.

but what'dya wanna bet
 

she gets the job :mad:

I was having this conversation with a friend this evening. I made the analogy to an employee that made such a collosal mistake and that regardless of intent, they should be canned and any business would do so as no company can afford that kind of liability. My friend wisely noted that Bush would have no clue how to run a successful business because ALL of his have failed :eek: :nod:

I think Condi just might be the ticket to get Bush impeached. I can see her beeing W's Monica Lewinsky. Those two are so close I'd bet a small amount of money they're alreayd having an affair :laugh:

Not to be racist, but I don't think Bush would go there sexually.

Tynan

Why this Jim Wilkinson found Boxer's fund raising letter containing this quote, "... in order to put the brakes on four more years of misdirection in Iraq and reckless policies at home, we need to elect more Democrats to the Senate during the 2006 midterm elections," disturbing is beyond me. :shrug: She was just being honest, this administration is reckless and Iraq is a nightmare. Do they really not see this? Perhaps not, because they're living in some alternate universe.

True - but stranger things have happened. Look at Strom Thurmond - who, when he a HUGE racist, was having a clandestine affair with his parent's housekeeper and fathered a child through her out of wedlock - then paid hush money in the form of child support for YEARS. So, who knows.

Maybe it was because many Democrats voted to give W the authority to go to war :shrug: and now they, as a party, are complaining about :shrug:

I am not saying that I do not want more D's elected, I do :nod: I am just profering this as a possible rationale :cool:

It was a strange choice of words "disturbing". Of course she's going to say we need to get the republicans out and the democrats in in a fundraising letter, right? Duh.

I think he's more than likely to "go there", not that he did, But I don't think people are as "racist" when it comes to that as others may think they are...

Hehe. They didn't say jack **** until Barabara Boxer spoke up and throttled Minute Rice (along with Kennedy). Did you see the confirmation hearing last week when Obama had his turn to ask her some questions? Talk about kissing ass, my word. He did so much of it that his lips were brown.

I disagree. :xoxo:

Wasn't it just last month that an article was published in the Washington Post that said they don't have to speak to each toher at all to know what each other is thinking, they just act instictively and with the nod of ahead? It also said that when they do speak, it's usually only a few words. Majority Report had a contest on their blog to see what they say to each other and they read mine on the air. :D

What did you write, dare I ask? :laugh:

That's a real disappointment regarding Obama. :distress:

I forgot, actually. :laugh:

I'll check the blog, they should have it in the archives.

I'm not an Obama fan one bit, so there's no disappointment on my end. I saw the writing on the wall when I had the displeasure of hearing his Godspeak at the DNC.

I would have liked to see Obama be a little more forceful and/or pressing...he seemed to give advice rather than question...and of course voted for her..so.. there's that.
BUT, he is new to the Senate so I will give him that....

Chris

in any event
 

we're now stuck with her. its the end times for sure...

personally
 

I know nothing about Obama other than he is being packaged as the bright new up and comer in the party. I wonder if he is being groomed for bigger things?
:shocked:

The D's had no choice but to vote for her. To stand on principle would have been political suicide for those in moderate states. In politics, you fight the fights you can win and you can do no one any good if you are not there because you have lost to the other side in a hopeless battle like this one :shrug:

I hate it, but that is the reality of it, esp. considering W does have the clout right now, which I hate as well :shrug:

As for Obama - he is no fool - he is not about to bloddy himself on this done deal. I do think, however and hopefully, this was a gimme to Bush and perhaps a veiled warning to watch it when nominating the alleged new Justice this term. That is a fight the D's can win and they will swarm like bees IMO.

Gosh, I sure hope you're right, but it's hard to tell with the "roll over and spread em" that the dems have been doing... :(

Well, they have and they have not. I mean not all D's are screaming liberals. Most of them are moderate, which is reflected in their voting :shrug:

Dear God, let this be so.

Me too!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

Politics is all about nuance and the big picture. That is mostly a sad thing as far as I am concerned, but it is the way it is and has been for a long, long time.

I think the D's looked at Rice and thought - well, she is a lot better than some religious zealot that W could have nominated and while she has celarly made some mistakes and outright lied to support the war (which most of them voted for mind you :eek: ) - this is a battle they need not fight too hard as she has not been totally incompetent in her former job and appears to be a bright person in general.

I think they, therefore, are somewhat wisely saving their big guns for the fight on the SC nominee, which they CLEARLY can win because most of America is pro-choice, which is WAY different that pro-abortion.

But, this is all conjecture. Who knows what the Democrats will do and I am just thinking out loud :cool:

So true... :laugh:

Exactly. And they're even more moderate *now* ....Republocrats.... :wavey:

I tend to disagree because history demonstrates they have pretty much always been moderate. I think there have always been more moderates than liberals and that they make up the bulk of the D party :shrug: I certainly agree that the R party has grown bolder than is used to be in its willingness to assert the far religious right's agenda, but the same could be said for the D's and the far left. I support this by using gay marriage as an example. That issue is generally seen as far far left and less than 15 years ago there is not way it would have been raised to the extent it has been :shrug: Same thing in the right for the Partiot Act stuff (though most of that was available via RICO and other statutes that have been around for a very long time now). Thus, I think the far ends of each party are trying to assert themselves and are name calling the moderates. Having said that, the country as a whole has grown more conservative.

Food for thought :cool:

This is a somewhat retorical question, is it the inherent nature of a bi-partisan system to become polarized, each side moving far away from the other?

Well, I think it is more cyclical. I also think that events like 9/11 tend to make it lurch to the right because, to analogize, an angry (justifiable or not) mob has no conscious :shrug:

But, I think most D's are moderate and for the most part always have been - I think the voting history as a whole of the D party since the 70's shows that. I also think that as issues like abortion became more stylized over time, it tended to make moderates look conservative to the far left.

For example, what parent would not want to know if their 13 year old daughter is having an abortion? I get that the parental notice is tricky because some of those abortions are from parental abuse. But, the far far left screams about this not so much for that valid exception (even with an escape clause for abuse situations), but because they see it as a slippery slope argument in that it is just one more incident of the far right trying to chip away at the right to choose. Is is conservative to vote for a parental notification? I do not think so. Does it violate Roe v. Wade to require parental notification? I do not think so. AND - I think that is not that conservative of a position :shrug: Yet, I am sure to most far left people I just commited blasphemy :laugh:

Food for thought :cool:

That's a tough one because if identifying with the young girl, which I once was, I would NOT want my parents to know. But if I were the parent I would ABSOLUTELY want to know. I don't know what the answer is. I would say not to require notification just because it isn't part of the larger issue, keeping it legal and accessible when required. I don't know, this issue hurts my brain. I just think people, even young girls, should have a choice regarding this. I feel for any parent who finds out after the fact their little girl went through this. But imagine if your parents are very conservative and would send you away or something if they found out? The girl should have the ultimate say over her body, even if a minor.

I hope to hell isn't. I cannot stand him. He makes my skin crawl almost as much as Bush. Truly phony and annoying.

I agree to an extent, but the law is children have to have parental consent for any other kind of surgery :shrug: If the fetus is effectively nothing more than a pesudo-appendix because it is not viable but for being in the mother and a child must have parental consent to remove the appendix - I am unsure why abortion is any different. Moreover, a parent can make their child undergo a surgery the child may not want :shrug: This is just such a difficult area. In the end, I am for telling the parents solely because I think parents have dominion over their children in that they are responsible for them - but I think there are always exceptions.

:laugh: You like maybe two of well over 500 in FFederal Govt. leadership :laugh: Hmmmmmmmm :wavey: :wavey: :wavey: :p

I like many, just not the majority. :p

That sounds about right... :shrug: Though it may be one more than deserves it. :laugh:

You are SO called out - NAME THEM!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

Please note that when I asked you a similar question you responded that you liked Snow, Ford (who no longer is in power), and maybe another. But, this is a diff question, so let's hear what your definition of "many" is :wavey: :wavey: :wavey: :wavey:

The previous question was what Republicans I liked. Snowe and Ford were the only ones. :laugh:

As for who I like now? Sure.

Boxer
Leahy
Kennedy
Conyers
Kucinich
Cantwell (depending on the weather, but it's usually stormy)
Jeffords
Mikulski
Chafee (I have respect for him, not his politics)
Snowe (ditto)
Sheila Jackson Lee
Barney Frank
Corinne Brown (how could I forget her?)

Shall I go on? I could be here all night, especially if you want me to list politicians from my state. :woohoo: