Reply #27: Boxer gave her best left swing! [View All]

[JDPriestly]

Boxer was great. The Democrats before her were mealymouthed wimps every one, compromising with evil. Boxer pointed out that we went to war because of the lie that Saddam had WMDs. She said Condi was not truthful and gave examples, presenting quotes that proved her point. In July, Condi said that no one had ever said that Iraq would have nuclear weapons within the year. Condi quoted from statements they made when they were selling the war in which they specifically said that Hussein could have nuclear weapons within the year. She also pointed to other lies Condi has told. During the hearing Condi stated that Al Qaeda has been limited with regard to the territory in which it can operate and has been diminished, therefore, in its capacity to operate. Boxer pointed to a government report stating that terrorism has now spread to 60 countries -- showing the growth of terrorism and that terrorists are now operating in a larger territory than in the past.

Condi defended herself by pointing out the difference between "could" and "would" on the issue of her conflicting statements. She said that just showed how difficult it was to know and what problems they had with intelligence. Condi characterized the difference between Condi's statement in the hearing about the territory of the Al Qaeda and the government report as one of semantics -- the meaning of "territory," for example. Condi justified the war by pointing to the fact that the U.S. fought Hussein three times (including 1998) before, that he hid information about what happened to the WMD programs he had (not true -- see the Vanity Fair article (spring 2004, I think) on the events during the weeks before our invasion of Iraq), that he had used WMDs, that Hussein violated UN resolutions -- that Hussein paid suicide bombers, that Hussein launched missiles against Israel -- in short was a bad guy and that she is happy he is gone. (Note the similarity between these justifications and those the terrorists use to justify their violence against the West and the U.S. in particular). Then, Rice wen on the offensive, mustered her self-righteous indignation and asked Boxer not to question her integrity.

Rice -- liar, liar pants on fire. See the move, Nuremburg. If it is historically accurate, Roemer never admitted his wrongs and lies and never felt empathy for his victims. Boxer asked Rice if she had seen Fog of War and said she hopes Rice doesn't have to write a similar book in the future.

Rice was confronted by her own mistatements, inconsistencies and downright lies and showed no remorse or even embarrassment. She shields herself with academic language and flaunts her considerable knowledge, but she doesn't speak from her soul. She sounds artificial -- detached. She acknowledges the suffering of the soldiers and their families (no mention of innocent Iraqi civilians) superficially, but her "sorrow" doesn't touch your heart because she doesn't feel it in her heart. I don't think she can. I don't think she has the ability to feel real empathy for others. To quote the Rolling Stones, "There's a part that's not screwed on." (I think that's from Sympathy for the Devil, Rolling Stones -- might be wrong.)

Rice and Bush are hard-hearted, just fundamentally mean. They know no doubts. They believe that, no matter what they do, it is right. They do not question or learn compassion from their mistakes. Their only value is political victory, and the only pain they really understand is political defeat. Biden, Kerry, Feingold, the other Democrats are wonderful people, but, maybe because they are such men of character, they do not comprehend and cannot fathom the reality of the Bush administration. They are naifs -- far too trusting.

Sorry for typos. Spell check did not work. I tried to catch what I could.