Looks like Dr. Rice has been confirmed by the Senate Foreign Relations Committee, and the appointment will now be sent to the entire Senate, where she will most certainly be confirmed as our next Secretary of State, followed by her election as President in November, 2008.
She was confirmed 16-2, with the two voting against being Babs Boxer (fruitcake) and John Kerry (big weenie). Boxer, we expect this from. Kerry just doesn’t know when to quit, though, does he? Both he and Boxer, along with some other dems (who wisely voted for Condi), made asses out of themselves, with their speechifying and idiocy. They forget that they are here to represent the People of their States, as well as the People of the USA, not to feed their petty political needs for a tirade.
Boxer denounced Rice for what she said was making Americans believe that the war in Iraq was part of the United States’ response to the September 11, 2001, terrorist attacks and convincing the public that Saddam Hussein possessed weapons of mass destruction, when he didn’t.
No, Babs (may I call you Babs? Tough), those who claimed that line were from the Left. I have yet to read anything from the Right that makes that claim. Where their links? Yup. But nothing that suggested that Saddam had anything to do with 9/11/2001. And, again, per the 2003 State of the Union Address, it was about Saddam not complying with the 17 United Nations resolutions passed. It was up to Saddam to provide the proof. It was also shown that Saddam had every intention to restart his WMD programs. Stop re-writing history, Babs.
Oh, and I have some large towels for you, that way you can wipe the rabid foam off your mouth, Babs.
Question for ya…
What did Kerry mumble, after voting NO, to confirm Condee? His mic was still on, he was lounging in his chair like a bored kid in math class, and I thought I heard him mumble the word “tedious” something or other. Anyone???
Uh huh. Sure man. Never implied anything of the sort. Riiiight.
Unlinke most people, I think the best line of the cat fight wasn’t the denigration line from Condi. It was this one from Boxer:
“I didn’t actually read the bill, but my colleagues told me that it was based solely on weapons of mass destruction.”
Does anyone else find it remarkably funny, and telling, that she didn’t even read the authorization for the use of force?
If you’re wondering what everything was you can go to the follwoing website to read it for yourself.
http://www.whitehouse.gov/news/releases/2002/10/20021002-2.html
Jeremy, you just made their point with your own link.
SEC. 1. SHORT TITLE.
This joint resolution may be cited as the “Authorization for the Use of Military Force Against Iraq”.
SEC. 2. SUPPORT FOR UNITED STATES DIPLOMATIC EFFORTS
The Congress of the United States supports the efforts by the President to–
(a) strictly enforce through the United Nations Security Council all relevant Security Council resolutions applicable to Iraq and encourages him in those efforts; and
(b) obtain prompt and decisive action by the Security Council to ensure that Iraq abandons its strategy of delay, evasion and noncompliance [they let inspectors in with unfettered access] and promptly and strictly complies with all relevant Security Council resolutions. [did they?]
SEC. 3. AUTHORIZATION FOR USE OF UNITED STATES ARMED FORCES.
(a) AUTHORIZATION. The President is authorized to use the Armed Forces of the United States as he determines to be necessary and appropriate in order to
(1) defend the national security of the United States against the continuing threat posed by Iraq; and
(2) enforce all relevant United Nations Security Council Resolutions regarding Iraq.
I bolded what I think is so often ignored by the pro-Iraq-war crowd, and put a couple of [comments] in. The president had JACK. And went in anyway. It WAS about WMD.
.
Dude, you missed the entire point. She didn’t even read it. Just that little bit and she couldn’t even read it. Something of such importance and you’re going to make an accusation from what other people have told you?
BTW, I’m not going to be abfuscated by your misdirection on the issue. You are right though. It WAS about WMD…and the 22 other “whereas” paragraphs.
There is no doubt it was about WMD, I agree with you both. The thing is, the 2003 SOTU (which I messed up on the link), states it is to keep Saddam from having them, not to go find them. I still say that it was a mistake to hinge the war soley on that, and the UN resolutions. But would people have gotten worked up enough for war over the plight of the Iraqi people? Would the admin have been able to sell taking out a brutal dictator who supports ME terrorism, even though he really didn’t have more then glancing contacts with Al Queda? Unfortunatly, I do not think so.