RKMBs Forums .::Important::. Politics and Current Events Calling for Surrender?

Quote:

---

Matter-eater Man said:

Quote:

---

Pariah said:
That's right MEM. Play the ignorance card.

---

An easy card to play considering how well the boys back up their Dem bashing

---

Quote:

---

Wonder Boy said:

Quote:

---

Matter-eater Man said:

Quote:

---

Wonder Boy said:

In other words, like Dick Durbin and Howard Dean before her, she's backpedaling from stronger remarks she made prior to the interview you quoted.

Ive seen her make stronger remarks on PBS news and elsewhere, prior to the interview you quote.

---

Those quotes were from the same interview the RNC used for their surrender ad. The quote they took out of context is towards the end. I think such an ugly negative portayal really demands that the burden of proof lay at those making it.

---

I fail to see how Boxer was misrepresented. Sen Boxer herself misrepresented the Bush administration as not having a plan.

In her earlier comments, she basically said: The Bush administration says we have 200,000 trained Iraqis. So we should be able to pull out immediately after the election, and if the Bush administration is telling the truth, they should be able to defend their country themselves from this point.

Not everything in the opening news segments is posted online, but that's the gist of it.

But even that statement by Boxer, or the quoted comments in the Fox interview of Boxer you keep referring to, constantly refers to the need to withdraw, (1) for Bush to produce some timetable for withdrawal, and (2) Boxer and other Democrats then backpedal and say "Well, we're not demanding a timetable..."
Well, which is it, they are or they aren't?

It's a total, bogus liberal smear campaign, with no substance, except to say no matter what Bush does, it's wrong.

Here's a link to a Republican site that deconstructs the flaws in Sen Boxer's arguments, even the more mild and retracted comments she made in the FOX interview.

HERE

And here is an example of Sen. Boxer's style of operating that really sends my contempt for the woman into overdrive.

From January of this year, at Condoleeza Rice's confirmation heaing as Secretary of State:

transcript HERE

Quote:

---

[[PBS news reporter ]KWAME HOLMAN: Condoleezza Rice came before the Senate Foreign Relations Committee this morning prepared to answer questions on a wide range of foreign policy issues: The U.S. Involvement in Iraq and Middle East peace; the nuclear capabilities of Iran and North Korea; aids in Africa; the massacre in Darfur; and relief for victims of the tsunamis.

However, Rice opened her testimony by pledging to institute a fundamental change in the direction of American foreign policy, different from the directions it took over the past four years.

CONDOLEEZZA RICE: Sept. 11, 2001, was a defining moment for our nation and for the world. Under the vision and leadership of President Bush, our nation has risen to meet the challenges of our time, fighting tyranny and terror and securing the blessings of freedom and prosperity for a new generation.

The work that America and our allies have undertaken and the sacrifices we have made have been difficult and necessary and right. Now is the time to build on these achievements to make the world safer, and to make the world more free. We must use American diplomacy to help create a balance of power in the world that favors freedom. The time for diplomacy is now.

KWAME HOLMAN: As expected, questions about Iraq dominated the hearing, most of them about U.S. Involvement once elections are held. However, it was California Democrat Barbara Boxer who challenged Rice over the reasons for going to war in the first place, and it led to this exchange.

SEN. BARBARA BOXER: On July 30, 2003, you were asked by PBS NewsHour's Gwen Ifill if you continued to stand by the claims you made about Saddam's nuclear program in the days and months leading up to the war. In what appears to be an effort to downplay the nuclear weapons scare tactics you used before the war, your answer was, and I quote, "It was a case that said he was trying to reconstitute. He's trying to acquire nuclear weapons. Nobody ever said that it was going to be the next year." So that's what you said to the American people on television-- "Nobody ever said it was going to be the next year."

Well, that wasn't true, because nine months before you said this to the American people, what had George Bush said, President Bush, at his speech at the Cincinnati Museum Center? "If the Iraqi regime is able to produce, buy or steal an amount of highly enriched uranium a little larger than a single softball, it could have a nuclear weapon in less than a year." So here you are, contradicting, first contradicting the president and then contradicting yourself. So it's hard to even ask you a question about this, because you are on the record basically taking two sides of an issue.

CONDOLEEZZA RICE: Senator, I have to say that I have never, ever lost respect for the truth in the service of anything. 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. It was the total picture, Senator, not just weapons of mass destruction, that caused us to decide that, post-Sept. 11, it was finally time to deal with Saddam Hussein.

SEN. BARBARA BOXER: Well, you should read what we voted on when we voted to support the war, which I did not, but most of my colleagues did. It was WMD, period. That was the reason and the causation for that, you know, particular vote. But again, I just feel you quote President Bush when it suits you but you contradicted him when he said, "Yes, Saddam could have a nuclear weapon in less than a year." You go on television nine months later and said, "nobody ever said it was..."

CONDOLEEZZA RICE: Senator, that was just a question of pointing out to people that there was an uncertainty. That no one was saying that he would have to have a weapon within a year for it to be worth it to go to war.

SEN. BARBARA BOXER: Well, if you can't admit to this mistake, I hope that you'll rethink it.

CONDOLEEZZA RICE: Senator, we can have this discussion in any way that you would like. But I really hope that you will refrain from impugning my integrity. Thank you very much.

SEN. BARBARA BOXER: I'm not. I'm just quoting what you said.

---

Although she's clearly not "just quoting" Rice, is she ?
Anyone can plainly see in the quoted remarks that the alleged "contradiction" that Boxer quotes of Rice is not a contradiction at all.
Rice agreed with, and was consistent with, President Bush's quote, who said that Saddam Hussein could be able to produce a nuclear weapon within one year.
Not that he absolutely could. But that Hussein was seeking it.
And that the Bush administration took preventive action to avoid that potential.
The same potential that was not forseen in North Korea. But happened sooner than expected.
The same potential that was not forseen in Libya. but happened sooner than expected.
The same potential that was not forseen in Iran. But now may happen sooner than expected.

And Sen. Boxer just snottily repeated her false allegation over and over, for the TV cameras, and for her liberal voters who despise Bush and are eager to hear any new allegations against Bush's staff, no matter how groundless, and spread them across the media as absolute fact.

---