Wednesday, January 26, 2005


Public Weakening

Oliver Willis brings to our attention this from John Cole:
What is so disgusting about Boxer's behavior is that they have no intention nor ability of blocking her nomination. They just want to weaken her so they can score points against this administration and the majority party in general.

Thanks guys- publicly weakening our representative to the world for nothing other than partisan gain.
...and then Willis points out that there have been a number of occasions in the past 10 years that the Republicans have done precisely the same thing.

Here is the difference, I think. While Clinton certainly had his own demons, and he caused many of his own problems, the Republicans had it in mind to find something they could take him down with, and they sprung. Their motivation was simply to "get" the guy they didn't like and to trample him (perhaps one could phrase it as "weakening") for the sole purpose of scoring points for their side (one might phrase it as "partisan gain").

Boxer and the Senate Dems who stood up today have had a different purpose in mind. They have been asked, through the course of their Constitutional duties, for advice and consent on the President's nominations. Due to the inconsistencies in the past four years by Dr. Rice (which our friends on the Right want to argue, but it boggles the mind how, when faced with the evidence of quotes during the run-up to the war that directly contradict themselves, they can maintain these arguments in good conscience), and her evasiveness before the Foreign Relations committee, a few Senate Dems felt compelled to, at risk to their reputations, advise against the nominee.

Boxer spoke to the relevance of this debate today:
President Bush in his Inaugural Address talked about bringing freedom to countries that don't have it. He didn't specify how. Now, the Non-Governmental Organization Freedom House estimates there are 49 countries in the world that are not free. The group believes there's another 54 countries that are considered only "partly free," and I worry about sending more troops on more missions based on hyped up rhetoric. That's why these questions are so important.
These proceedings were relevant because of the record of the past and the uncertainty of what future actions this administration may take. If those on the Right find it inconvenient to address a nominee's past record as a means of attempting to determine what they might do in the future, then it is only because they must realize, deep down, there are troublesome issues at hand.

If this weakens the nominee, it is only because they aren't used to someone on this side of the fence standing up and being strong.

There is a big difference between "standing up and being strong" and standing up and proving that you are dumb as a box of rocks, which is what Boxer did.

The Left can bleat all it wants about not finding any WMDs, but there were multiple reasons given for going to war with Iraq, the most compelling was the violation of the 16 UN resolutions since the end of the '91 Gulf War and Sadaam's refusal to deny that he had weapons of mass destruction. Every viable intellegence source in the World thought that he had them, indeed Sadaam wanted the world to think so, because he didn't think anyone would do what Bush had the nerve to do.

A President is entitled to the cabinet that he chooses, unless there are criminal or moral reasons to deny confirmation of the nominee. With Rice, her confirmation should have been completed last week.

BTW -- regarding your statement "Clinton certainly had his own demons, and he caused many of his own problems", as we would say back at the ranch, "Ain't that the truth!" And maybe also, "Where's my stogie?"
I love the smell of trolls fuming in the morning. Seriously, though...

I don't see how "publicly weakening our representative to the world" is possible. She already has no credibility in the world at large. She has proved incompetent time and time again. She's already as weak as she can be, no matter what the Democrats do to her. She is a terrible choice to head State, and if Democrats take their advise-and-consent responsibility seriously... as Sen. Boxer clearly does... they will bring up every bad judgment Rice has ever made, every lie she has ever told, and every instance of incompetent statesmanship she has engaged in.

If Rice can't take her critics' questioning in the Senate hearing, how sturdy will she be on the world stage?
This comment has been removed by a blog administrator.
The hardly-ever-right once again gets it wrong. Rice will not be weak and ineffective abroad because some Democrats opposed. Some Democrats oppose her for Secretary of State because she will be weak and ineffective.

As head of the NSA she ignored repeated warnings about Osama bin Laden's attack including the August 6th PDB. She and her husb... err Mr. Bush then went on vacation for a month in Crawford.

Dr. Rice is head of the Iraq Stabilization Task Force and we know how well that went. Nothing succeeds like failure in the Miserable Failure's administration.

Dr. Rice as Secretary of State will lead to a series of unfortunate events that will take America years if not decades to recover its credibility that have been tarnished by Bush, Rice and Rumsfeld.
Post a Comment

<< Home

This page is powered by Blogger. Isn't yours?