Wednesday, January 26, 2005
Public Weakening
Oliver Willis brings to our attention this from John Cole:
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:
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.
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....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.
Thanks guys- publicly weakening our representative to the world for nothing other than partisan gain.
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.
# posted by Dylan @ 1:43 AM 
Comments:
<< Home
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?
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?
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
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.
<< Home
