Sexy Friends Toronto
Toronto Escorts

Just wondering???

zydeco

Active member
Aug 16, 2003
1,493
0
36
I don't think so. I doubt there is any real "outrage" surrounding this. It's really just an exercise in political theatre.
 

langeweile

Banned
Sep 21, 2004
5,086
0
0
In a van down by the river
DonQuixote said:
Why do you see everything as black and white?
There are other colors. For instance, those in the rainbow or
those in your childs crayon box. Stop being so polar in your
thinking. Otherwise you'll be accused of being bi-polar.
Jeesh. Widen your horizons, take off your blinders. :confused:
DQ you know as well as I do, that if the shoe would be on the other foot, all hell would break loose.
Just imagine any R acting like she did yesterday. it is one thing to have a critical hearing, it is another to call someone a liar.
 

Shades

Shades of .....
Feb 8, 2002
2,999
2
38
zydeco said:
I don't think so. I doubt there is any real "outrage" surrounding this. It's really just an exercise in political theatre.
I agree. The good congress people are playing to the camera. So much of what they do as representatives isn't picked up by the national media. Consequently, when they get their hour on the stage they really want to milk it. Is anyone better at this than Teddy Kennedy? He made his career, such as it is, by his presence in such hearings. Ms. Rice is a done deal...it is a little strange hearing her try to sound more 'liberal' and less 'hawkish' than Mr. Powell. That is what makes good theatre...actors taking on difficult roles that stretch their credibility.
 

langeweile

Banned
Sep 21, 2004
5,086
0
0
In a van down by the river
DonQuixote said:
Actually, I agree with Senator Boxer. Why did we send troops into Iraq?
I've been tormented over that decision for almost 2 years now. It has nothing
to do with my political leanings. You know my military history. I don't trust
the government whatever their political persuasion. This is an unjust and immoral
war and someone has to take responsibility for it. Noone, from Bush down
admits it was a mistake. But, the death and destruction continues unabated.

Who is responsible for this debacle? God? According to Bush God said it was the
right thing to do. I'm not about to blame God. I pick my battles with God more
carefully than that. ;)
This misses the point.
Boxer was implying that Condi was deliberately lying, well that is a stretch. There is a distinct difference between lying and making a mistake(maybe). i learned that from your hero William Jefferson Clinton.
 

danmand

Well-known member
Nov 28, 2003
46,353
4,776
113
Well, she did lie, and on TV. The national security advisor of the US cannot hide behind the uninformed shield.
 

danmand

Well-known member
Nov 28, 2003
46,353
4,776
113
langeweile said:
Lied about what?
I saw her give a speech during the election campaign, where she maintained that Iraq had WMD and close ties to Al Quada.

I may add, that she is not stupid, being a Hoover Institute fellow, and she certainly is not uninformed.

And stop threatening me with this damn dog.
 

danmand

Well-known member
Nov 28, 2003
46,353
4,776
113
You are being generous, Don. She gave the speech about a month before the election, when the WMD discovery team had been working in Iraq for more than a year and a half.

Again, she is not stupid, and if she is misinformed, so help us God!
 

langeweile

Banned
Sep 21, 2004
5,086
0
0
In a van down by the river
A missinformed poltitcian is something new??Oh please....

Nobody has mentioned her commitment to try to mend fences with some of our former allies and friends.
Does anyone think she can do it? Do you believe our former friends are open to that?
Or do we have to wait for GWB to leave?
Personally i don't care if the Germans or the French love us (or should I say tolerate) again. Both of those countries are twofaced anyway.
I sure hope we can normalize the relationship to Russia, Canada, China and their likes again.
 

langeweile

Banned
Sep 21, 2004
5,086
0
0
In a van down by the river
DonQuixote said:
Please, separate Iraq from Al Quida. Two different confrontations; two different
I respectfully disagree with this statement.
But answer this,(maybe you did and I am just too dense to get it)
If the war was not about WMD, since you apply they lied about it.
I believe it's fair to say, that it wasn't about oil either.
Now you claim it wasn't about terrorism either.

Tell me please. what was the war about? and please don't give me that "Texas Cowboy" BS either.

So let me get this than the CIA, Colin Powell, Condi Rice, Rumsfeld and the countries of Great Britain, Australia, Spain,Hungary,Ukraine etc. etc. just woke up one morning and said "Hmmm I wonder what we could do today? Oh I got it, let's invade Iraq. We tell everybody there is WMD's and then we just invade them.
Yeah..it's that simple, and i am naive(or is it evian)
 
Y

yychobbyist

langeweile said:
http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,144771,00.html

After listening yesterday to the senate hearings on Rice and watching Boxer trying to portray Condi as a liar.
A thought came in my mind. What if Boxer would be a Republican and Condi a Democrat.
You think the ACLU, NAACP, Rainbow coalition and the likes, would be in an outrage?
Just wondering.
Do you have any links to the vid of what transpired or a transcript?
 
Y

yychobbyist

Thanks for the link Langeweile.

After looking at the exchanges (rather than reading a report of them) it seems to me that Boxer was fair in her comments. I mean, her questioning was the same kind of thing that you saw and heard during the campaign and it's the common kind of thing that's bandied about on the most respected political forums - including this one.

I always have an issue with someone calling a liar for political purposes. In my view the Bush administration did not lie. I believe they had a pre-conceived notion of what they wanted to achieve and they paid attention to only that information which fit that notion. That's very different from lying.

What is closer to lying is the issue of the administration now coming out and saying the war was about more than WMD because it was not - not publically at least. Sure the closer the war got the more often you heard other reasons being brought up but the first public comments about why invading Iraq was necessary had only to do with WMD. I think the administration is pulling the wool over our eyes if they argue anything else so for Ms. Rice to come out in front of her confirmation hearing and argue it was about other things is pretty close, in my view, to being cause in and of itself NOT to confirm her.

Finally, wasn't the time for public diplomacy a year or two prior to the invasion?

In answer to Langeweile's initial question, yes, I do think if the situation were reversed that the NAACP and the like would be all over this one. But only if the war were a popular one and Rice were a popular figure.

I'd also point out that I think this issue has so little to do with race and gender that it is a sign of maturity on the part of interest groups such as the NAACP that they've not come out and made an issue of it. In my view, these organizations do nothing but belittle themselves when they come out and make race or gender an issue when it is clearly not.
 

danmand

Well-known member
Nov 28, 2003
46,353
4,776
113
yychobbyist said:
it's the common kind of thing that's bandied about on the most respected political forums - including this one.

ROFLMAO
 

islandboy

New member
Nov 14, 2004
227
0
0
This is not like Vietman. Like this war or not - and I did not - there is NO turning back. The US can not maintain a foreign policy in the future if it does see this through to a point which is commonly accepted as fullfilling its initial commitment. The US has to do whatever it takes to get to that point and, unfortunately, when I say "whatever" I say this without qualification or limitation as to the type of military actions it takes so long as they comply with the Geneva Convention.

Rice should be asked hard questions as the hubris that lead to this intervention needs to be hemmed in. Public embarassment is the only thing these guys will listen to AND even then they make up cover stories to try to mislead their way out of what they have said and done.

The fine line about deceiving themeselves v lying, is a distinction without a point when it comes to evaluating if they are capable and trustworthy If focus on if what they do is trustworthy, on both dimensions they come up short.
 

langeweile

Banned
Sep 21, 2004
5,086
0
0
In a van down by the river
I am not taking issue with the tough questions, those are warranted and necessary. I am taking issue with Boxer's personal attacks on her, by accusing her of being a liar.
Her consistent declaration that the war as about WMD's only is not true. The Iraq resolution passed by the senate(she is a memeber of) and the congress, clearly stated a "laundry list" of issues regarding Iraq. One of them were the WMD's.
She was correct and warranted in some of her critism as to the handling and decision making in Iraq, but she clearly overstepped her boundaries, by making it a personal attack on her.

Her reasoning is probably her upcoming election CA. She just needed a stage to score some points with her fringe supporters.
I am not sure what John Kerry's agenda is?
 

mrpolarbear

New member
Sep 10, 2001
1,094
0
0
68
chicago
I say we put Condi on the front lines right in front of Dubya. :mad:
 
Toronto Escorts