go barbara boxer. here is some of the transcript from 1/18/05. essentially the lone rational voice in the rice confirmation hearings. she really built a sound case against rice piece by lucid piece. this is another under reported story in the conventional press. except from the right where she is characterised as rabid. i cant find any reporting (yet) of substance on boxers excellent work in yesterdays hearings in todays news / see 1/23 wolcott via moody - sign the boxer petition
Rice brings no credibility to her post
"Heaven has no rage like love to hatred turned, Nor hell a fury like a woman scorned."
-- William Congreve
Or, if the woman happens to be Condoleezza Rice, when she's confronted with past distortions and falsehoods, as our future Secretary of State was on day one of her pro forma confirmation hearing before the Senate Foreign Relations Committee.
With other senators of both parties fawning over Rice, it fell to Barbara Boxer to inject a measure of reality into the proceedings. Boxer did this by confronting Rice with documentary records of her (Rice's) public utterances over the last four years.
Boxer's evidence was similar to a survey compiled by the House Committee on Government Reform at the behest of its ranking minority member Henry Waxman, which detailed false and misleading public statements about Iraq made by Bush administration officials.
That survey produced this finding: "Ms. Rice made 29 misleading statements about the threat posed by Iraq in 16 separate public statements or appearances. Of the 29 misleading statements by Ms. Rice, 19 concerned Iraq's efforts to develop nuclear weapons; six overstated Iraq's chemical or biological weapons capacity, and six misrepresented Iraq's links to al-Qaida. Ms. Rice made significantly more statements that were false -- eight -- than any of the other four officials."
That prompted this exchange, as reported by New York Times reporters Steven Weisman and Joel Brinkley, who felt compelled to preface their account with this observation:
"By far the most severe questioning came from Senator Barbara Boxer, a California Democrat, whose berating tone clearly rankled Ms. Rice and brought an uncharacteristic flash of irritation." (Emphasis mine.)
Boxer: "I personally believe, this is my personal view, that your loyalty to the mission you were given, to sell this war, overwhelmed your respect for the truth."
Rice: "Senator, I have to say that I never ever lost respect for the truth. It is not my nature. It is not my character. And I would hope that we can have this conversation and discuss what happened before, and what went on before and what I said, without impugning my credibility or my integrity."
To which Boxer might well have replied, but didn't: "What credibility?" Because Rice has as much credibility as the bosses she serves -- Cheney and Bush -- which is none at all. But that hardly matters, because both Cheney and Bush have proclaimed in so many words that their re-election proves the American people not only accept but approve their lies and distortions, their ruinous policies and practices at home and abroad.
More disturbing than Rice's misplaced umbrage is The Times' craven deference to her. A caption under a photo of Boxer and Rice on an inside page of the same edition read: "Senator Barbara Boxer, left, sharply questioned Condoleezza Rice yesterday at her confirmation hearing. Ms. Boxer's berating tone drew a flash of irritation from Ms. Rice."
Berating tone? I watched that exchange and Boxer wasn't berating. Berate means to scold. Boxer didn't scold. She didn't even raise her voice. But she was insistent. And that was too much for Rice, who is not accustomed to being challenged.
And what about the editorializing comment earlier in the piece about Rice's "uncharacteristic flash of irritation?" Uncharacteristic? Where were Weisman and Brinkley when Rice was testifying, reluctantly, before the 9/11 commission? She was at her petulant best on that occasion, snapping at panel members, and either dodging or interrupting their questions. She even managed to annoy some of the Republicans on the commission.
As for The Times, it appears that the paper's Washington Bureau isn't waiting for Gary Trudeau's Secretary of Toady Affairs to be sworn in. Instead, it's voluntarily reverting to its post 9/11 obsequiousness.
David Rossie is associate editor of the Press & Sun-Bulletin. His column appears on Sunday, Wednesday and Friday. Write to him c/o P.O. Box 1270, Binghamton, N.Y. 13902-1270.
|
- bill 1-26-2005 3:22 pm
Rice brings no credibility to her post
"Heaven has no rage like love to hatred turned, Nor hell a fury like a woman scorned."
-- William Congreve
Or, if the woman happens to be Condoleezza Rice, when she's confronted with past distortions and falsehoods, as our future Secretary of State was on day one of her pro forma confirmation hearing before the Senate Foreign Relations Committee.
With other senators of both parties fawning over Rice, it fell to Barbara Boxer to inject a measure of reality into the proceedings. Boxer did this by confronting Rice with documentary records of her (Rice's) public utterances over the last four years.
Boxer's evidence was similar to a survey compiled by the House Committee on Government Reform at the behest of its ranking minority member Henry Waxman, which detailed false and misleading public statements about Iraq made by Bush administration officials.
That survey produced this finding: "Ms. Rice made 29 misleading statements about the threat posed by Iraq in 16 separate public statements or appearances. Of the 29 misleading statements by Ms. Rice, 19 concerned Iraq's efforts to develop nuclear weapons; six overstated Iraq's chemical or biological weapons capacity, and six misrepresented Iraq's links to al-Qaida. Ms. Rice made significantly more statements that were false -- eight -- than any of the other four officials."
That prompted this exchange, as reported by New York Times reporters Steven Weisman and Joel Brinkley, who felt compelled to preface their account with this observation:
"By far the most severe questioning came from Senator Barbara Boxer, a California Democrat, whose berating tone clearly rankled Ms. Rice and brought an uncharacteristic flash of irritation." (Emphasis mine.)
Boxer: "I personally believe, this is my personal view, that your loyalty to the mission you were given, to sell this war, overwhelmed your respect for the truth."
Rice: "Senator, I have to say that I never ever lost respect for the truth. It is not my nature. It is not my character. And I would hope that we can have this conversation and discuss what happened before, and what went on before and what I said, without impugning my credibility or my integrity."
To which Boxer might well have replied, but didn't: "What credibility?" Because Rice has as much credibility as the bosses she serves -- Cheney and Bush -- which is none at all. But that hardly matters, because both Cheney and Bush have proclaimed in so many words that their re-election proves the American people not only accept but approve their lies and distortions, their ruinous policies and practices at home and abroad.
More disturbing than Rice's misplaced umbrage is The Times' craven deference to her. A caption under a photo of Boxer and Rice on an inside page of the same edition read: "Senator Barbara Boxer, left, sharply questioned Condoleezza Rice yesterday at her confirmation hearing. Ms. Boxer's berating tone drew a flash of irritation from Ms. Rice."
Berating tone? I watched that exchange and Boxer wasn't berating. Berate means to scold. Boxer didn't scold. She didn't even raise her voice. But she was insistent. And that was too much for Rice, who is not accustomed to being challenged.
And what about the editorializing comment earlier in the piece about Rice's "uncharacteristic flash of irritation?" Uncharacteristic? Where were Weisman and Brinkley when Rice was testifying, reluctantly, before the 9/11 commission? She was at her petulant best on that occasion, snapping at panel members, and either dodging or interrupting their questions. She even managed to annoy some of the Republicans on the commission.
As for The Times, it appears that the paper's Washington Bureau isn't waiting for Gary Trudeau's Secretary of Toady Affairs to be sworn in. Instead, it's voluntarily reverting to its post 9/11 obsequiousness.
David Rossie is associate editor of the Press & Sun-Bulletin. His column appears on Sunday, Wednesday and Friday. Write to him c/o P.O. Box 1270, Binghamton, N.Y. 13902-1270.
- bill 1-26-2005 4:24 pm [add a comment]