I want to marry Barbara Boxer!

[Elfdart]

Watching her repeatedly bitchslap Kindasleazy Rice for her tsunami of lies about Iraq was a joy to behold.

You can see the whole thing on C-Span or C-Span's website in all of Boxer's glory. Or just check this transcript:

http://sfgate.com/cgi-bin/article.cgi?f ... EBOXER.DTL


She's also kinda hot for an older woman. I hope she runs for President in 2008. She'd get my vote!

[MKSheppard]

Actually no.



Warner in '08!

[Elfdart]

But I don't want to marry him. Besides, after Clinton I don't know how enthusiastic anyone is for another southern governor. Then again, with Warner's skin, there probably aren't so many bimbos waiting to erupt.

[SPOOFE]

The problem is that Barbara's wrong. Bush cited a half-dozen other reasons for going to war in Iraq, including the fact that Saddam has been constantly firing at American and British planes patrolling the UN-sanctioned No-Fly zone (a violation of his surrender agreement) and the multifarious human rights abuses that went on in Iraq.

Ms. Rice isn't rewriting history. Ms. Boxer is.

The reason everybody only talked about the WMD's is because that was the only cause for which there wasn't proof. It was the only weak target, and the beleagured Democrats, more intent on securing power than securing the world, homed in on it and have done all they can to make people forget all the REAL reasons for taking Saddam down.

[Illuminatus Primus]

The problem is that Barbara's wrong. Bush cited a half-dozen other reasons for going to war in Iraq, including the fact that Saddam has been constantly firing at American and British planes patrolling the UN-sanctioned No-Fly zone (a violation of his surrender agreement) and the multifarious human rights abuses that went on in Iraq.

Ms. Rice isn't rewriting history. Ms. Boxer is.

What a bunch of horseshit. We invented (not the UN) the No-Fly Zones as some artifical burning hoop for Saddam to jump through. I'm sorry, but shooting at planes violating his airspace to the intensity done is hardly a causus belli for invasion and regime change. This was the case when we opened hostilities in '98.

That's just post facto nitpicking horseshit. And you damn well know it.

The reason everybody only talked about the WMD's is because that was the only cause for which there wasn't proof. It was the only weak target, and the beleagured Democrats, more intent on securing power than securing the world, homed in on it and have done all they can to make people forget all the REAL reasons for taking Saddam down.

What a dishonest lying fest. Preytell, why did we not invade in '98 for WMD and inspection violations or the nonstop shooting at planes, or '92 for killing off the Marsh Arabs. The position of the Administration was clearly articulated. 9/11 changed the security situation and made it imperative to invade Iraq to remove WMD that could end up with terrorists and destroy terrorist support infrastructure. Unfortunately there was almost none of either there. The other things were "look at all the other nice stuff we can do" with it. And rightly so. All those reasons are double standard bullshit considering the people we have propped up and had relationships with before and after. If you are right about those justifications, that Jorge is inconsistent. Those criteria are much better for Iran or the Sudan.

[Elfdart]

The other reasons are just proof that like all other bad liars, Bush and his fellow war whores can't keep their stories straight and keep changing them. When one bullshit excuse is shot down, they whip out another that was passed through bovine bowels. Be a sport and list these half dozen reasons. It'll be fun.

[Col. Crackpot]

Kindasleezy Rice? Wow, Elfdart! Thats your best work since Shit Boat Liars! Also, how great is it that because of years of Republican diligince, the Democrats are begining to hate the greatest President their party put forth since FDR?

[BoredShirtless]

Hey Crackpot, assume for a minute not everyone comes from the US; what does FDR stand for?

[Col. Crackpot]

Hey Crackpot, assume for a minute not everyone comes from the US; what does FDR stand for?

Franklin Delano Rosevelt
he was elected President in the depths of the great depression and served through World War II. He was the only President to be elected 4 times.

[Stofsk]

Hey Crackpot, assume for a minute not everyone comes from the US; what does FDR stand for?

Franklin Delano Rosevelt
he was elected President in the depths of the great depression and served through World War II. He was the only President to be elected 4 times.

Why was that? I thought two terms were it. Was it the war? Or something?

[Montcalm]

Hey Crackpot, assume for a minute not everyone comes from the US; what does FDR stand for?

Franklin Delano Rosevelt
he was elected President in the depths of the great depression and served through World War II. He was the only President to be elected 4 times.

Why was that? I thought two terms were it. Was it the war? Or something?

Mayb 2 terms is what the US has now,before that i'd guess it was 3 4 or as long as the prez was alive or popular

[GrandMasterTerwynn]

Franklin Delano Rosevelt
he was elected President in the depths of the great depression and served through World War II. He was the only President to be elected 4 times.

Why was that? I thought two terms were it. Was it the war? Or something?

Mayb 2 terms is what the US has now,before that i'd guess it was 3 4 or as long as the prez was alive or popular

Yes, it had always been traditional for a President of the United States to serve just two terms, because the first president, George Washington, set the precedent for doing so (he refused to seek a third term, though he would've won the election handily.) It was generally adhered to, though Teddy Roosevelt attempted to run for a third term four years after leaving office. (While he didn't win, he was the most successful third party candidate of the twentieth century.) However, all this changed when his relative, Franklin Delano Roosevelt won an unprecedented third term, due to the growing hostility of the conflict later called WW2. He won a fourth term near the end of the war, but he died just ten weeks into that term.

In 1951, the 22nd Amendment to the United States constitution was ratified, officially limiting presidents to being elected to just two terms of office.

[Jew]

I've been listening to the confirmation hearings on the radio. I used to think the hearings were forums for the Senators to ask the nominee questions and listen to the answers. Now I know the truth: the hearings are conducted so the Senators can berate the nominee endlessly, ask leading questions, and interrupt the nominee when she tries to answer.

I'm not saying I necessarily agree with Ms. Rice's policy decisions, but that hearing is a joke.

For example: I just heard one Senator say "I'm going to vote for you" and then proceed to spend 15 minutes railing against the sins of the Bush administration. What a waste of time! The hearing is about determining whether or not to vote for Ms. Rice, it's not a time to give speeches about why you hate the Neoconservatives.

Ah well, I guess that's the Senate for you. They have a tradition of open debate where you don't have to stay on topic. Not like the House of Representatives, where they put strict time limits on debate.

[Joe]

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.

The resolution that was voted on by Congress to authorize the Iraq War:

Joint Resolution
To authorize the use of United States Armed Forces against Iraq.

Whereas in 1990 in response to Iraq's war of aggression against and illegal occupation of Kuwait, the United States forged a coalition of nations to liberate Kuwait and its people in order to defend the national security of the United States and enforce United Nations Security Council resolutions relating to Iraq;

Whereas after the liberation of Kuwait in 1991, Iraq entered into a United Nations sponsored cease-fire agreement pursuant to which Iraq unequivocally agreed, among other things, to eliminate its nuclear, biological, and chemical weapons programs and the means to deliver and develop them, and to end its support for international terrorism;

Whereas the efforts of international weapons inspectors, United States intelligence agencies, and Iraqi defectors led to the discovery that Iraq had large stockpiles of chemical weapons and a large scale biological weapons program, and that Iraq had an advanced nuclear weapons development program that was much closer to producing a nuclear weapon than intelligence reporting had previously indicated; Whereas Iraq, in direct and flagrant violation of the cease-fire, attempted to thwart the efforts of weapons inspectors to identify and destroy Iraq's weapons of mass destruction stockpiles and development capabilities, which finally resulted in the withdrawal of inspectors from Iraq on October 31, 1998;

Whereas in Public Law 105-235 (August 14, 1998), Congress concluded that Iraq's continuing weapons of mass destruction programs threatened vital United States interests and international peace and security, declared Iraq to be in `material and unacceptable breach of its international obligations' and urged the President `to take appropriate action, in accordance with the Constitution and relevant laws of the United States, to bring Iraq into compliance with its international obligations';

Whereas Iraq both poses a continuing threat to the national security of the United States and international peace and security in the Persian Gulf region and remains in material and unacceptable breach of its international obligations by, among other things, continuing to possess and develop a significant chemical and biological weapons capability, actively seeking a nuclear weapons capability, and supporting and harboring terrorist organizations;

Whereas Iraq persists in violating resolution of the United Nations Security Council by continuing to engage in brutal repression of its civilian population thereby threatening international peace and security in the region, by refusing to release, repatriate, or account for non-Iraqi citizens wrongfully detained by Iraq, including an American serviceman, and by failing to return property wrongfully seized by Iraq from Kuwait;

Whereas the current Iraqi regime has demonstrated its capability and willingness to use weapons of mass destruction against other nations and its own people;

Whereas the current Iraqi regime has demonstrated its continuing hostility toward, and willingness to attack, the United States, including by attempting in 1993 to assassinate former President Bush and by firing on many thousands of occasions on United States and Coalition Armed Forces engaged in enforcing the resolutions of the United Nations Security Council;

Whereas members of al Qaida, an organization bearing responsibility for attacks on the United States, its citizens, and interests, including the attacks that occurred on September 11, 2001, are known to be in Iraq;

Whereas Iraq continues to aid and harbor other international terrorist organizations, including organizations that threaten the lives and safety of United States citizens;

Whereas the attacks on the United States of September 11, 2001, underscored the gravity of the threat posed by the acquisition of weapons of mass destruction by international terrorist organizations;

Whereas Iraq's demonstrated capability and willingness to use weapons of mass destruction, the risk that the current Iraqi regime will either employ those weapons to launch a surprise attack against the United States or its Armed Forces or provide them to international terrorists who would do so, and the extreme magnitude of harm that would result to the United States and its citizens from such an attack, combine to justify action by the United States to defend itself;

Whereas United Nations Security Council Resolution 678 (1990) authorizes the use of all necessary means to enforce United Nations Security Council Resolution 660 (1990) and subsequent relevant resolutions and to compel Iraq to cease certain activities that threaten international peace and security, including the development of weapons of mass destruction and refusal or obstruction of United Nations weapons inspections in violation of United Nations Security Council Resolution 687 (1991), repression of its civilian population in violation of United Nations Security Council Resolution 688 (1991), and threatening its neighbors or United Nations operations in Iraq in violation of United Nations Security Council Resolution 949 (1994);

Whereas in the Authorization for Use of Military Force Against Iraq Resolution (Public Law 102-1), Congress has authorized the President `to use United States Armed Forces pursuant to United Nations Security Council Resolution 678 (1990) in order to achieve implementation of Security Council Resolution 660, 661, 662, 664, 665, 666, 667, 669, 670, 674, and 677';

Whereas in December 1991, Congress expressed its sense that it `supports the use of all necessary means to achieve the goals of United Nations Security Council Resolution 687 as being consistent with the Authorization of Use of Military Force Against Iraq Resolution (Public Law 102-1),' that Iraq's repression of its civilian population violates United Nations Security Council Resolution 688 and `constitutes a continuing threat to the peace, security, and stability of the Persian Gulf region,' and that Congress, `supports the use of all necessary means to achieve the goals of United Nations Security Council Resolution 688';

Whereas the Iraq Liberation Act of 1998 (Public Law 105-338) expressed the sense of Congress that it should be the policy of the United States to support efforts to remove from power the current Iraqi regime and promote the emergence of a democratic government to replace that regime;

Whereas on September 12, 2002, President Bush committed the United States to `work with the United Nations Security Council to meet our common challenge' posed by Iraq and to `work for the necessary resolutions,' while also making clear that `the Security Council resolutions will be enforced, and the just demands of peace and security will be met, or action will be unavoidable';

Whereas the United States is determined to prosecute the war on terrorism and Iraq's ongoing support for international terrorist groups combined with its development of weapons of mass destruction in direct violation of its obligations under the 1991 cease-fire and other United Nations Security Council resolutions make clear that it is in the national security interests of the United States and in furtherance of the war on terrorism that all relevant United Nations Security Council resolutions be enforced, including through the use of force if necessary;

Whereas Congress has taken steps to pursue vigorously the war on terrorism through the provision of authorities and funding requested by the President to take the necessary actions against international terrorists and terrorist organizations, including those nations, organizations, or persons who planned, authorized, committed, or aided the terrorist attacks that occurred on September 11, 2001, or harbored such persons or organizations;

Whereas the President and Congress are determined to continue to take all appropriate actions against international terrorists and terrorist organizations, including those nations, organizations, or persons who planned, authorized, committed, or aided the terrorist attacks that occurred on September 11, 2001, or harbored such persons or organizations;

Whereas the President has authority under the Constitution to take action in order to deter and prevent acts of international terrorism against the United States, as Congress recognized in the joint resolution on Authorization for Use of Military Force (Public Law 107-40); and

Whereas it is in the national security interests of the United States to restore international peace and security to the Persian Gulf region: Now, therefore, be it

Resolved by the Senate and House of Representatives of the United States of America in Congress assembled,

Yup, no other reason than WMD cited in there...

[Col. Crackpot]

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.

The resolution that was voted on by Congress to authorize the Iraq War:

Joint Resolution <snip>

Yup, no other reason than WMD cited in there...

Joe, this would be so much easier if you would kindly stop putting things into context, and holding people accountable to their actions.

[m112880]

they do mantain wmds a lot but they also list other reasons for taking suddom out.

[Stravo]

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.

The resolution that was voted on by Congress to authorize the Iraq War:

Joint Resolution <snip>

Yup, no other reason than WMD cited in there...

Joe, this would be so much easier if you would kindly stop putting things into context, and holding people accountable to their actions.

Yep, because Bush's address to Congress dealt with so many other issues other than WMD's, yellow cake and weapons stockpiles, because Colin Powell at the UN spent sooo much time on other issues and not model airplanes that could be used to spray gas, or mobile chemical labs....yes WMD's were just one aspect of it all.

[Col. Crackpot]

Yep, because Bush's address to Congress dealt with so many other issues other than WMD's, yellow cake and weapons stockpiles, because Colin Powell at the UN spent sooo much time on other issues and not model airplanes that could be used to spray gas, or mobile chemical labs....yes WMD's were just one aspect of it all.

Fine, focus on the WMD issue. Focus on Colin Powell's UN testimony... things that were disputed and laughed at as soon as they were spoken. Yet Boxer still voted for this abortion of a war. Hypocrite.

[Glocksman]

Yep, because Bush's address to Congress dealt with so many other issues other than WMD's, yellow cake and weapons stockpiles, because Colin Powell at the UN spent sooo much time on other issues and not model airplanes that could be used to spray gas, or mobile chemical labs....yes WMD's were just one aspect of it all.

Fine, focus on the WMD issue. Focus on Colin Powell's UN testimony... things that were disputed and laughed at as soon as they were spoken. Yet Boxer still voted for this abortion of a war. Hypocrite.

Has Boxer admitted she made a mistake voting for the war?
If she has, she's not a hypocrite.
If she hasn't, then she either needs to do so or shut her piehole on the subject.

Of course this is Barbara Boxer we're talking about here.
She's not exactly the brightest bulb in the Senate.

[Coyote]

There were many, many reasons to go to war, many of them justified... but regardless of the shopping list available, the Administration harped on WMDs primarily for the media.

That's why I think this is the right war but the wrong leadership-- astute leadership would not have painted themselves into such a corner.

As for why we didn't strike earlier, despite the violations? Different Administration, different priorities and ways of reaching them. Or not reaching them, as the case may be. Remember, the WMD issue and inspector access was very much alive in the Clinton Administration, and it was he who made "regime change" in Iraq the stated goal of US foreign policy.

[Joe]

Joe, this would be so much easier if you would kindly stop putting things into context, and holding people accountable to their actions.

I know, but dammit it wouldn't be right to pass up a good opportunity to take a Democratic Senatorial Blowhard down a notch.

Of course this is Barbara Boxer we're talking about here.
She's not exactly the brightest bulb in the Senate.

I've always thought so, too. Dianne Feinstein is the more intelligent of the two scary leftists from California.

[Elfdart]

Kindasleezy Rice? Wow, Elfdart! Thats your best work since Shit Boat Liars! Also, how great is it that because of years of Republican diligince, the Democrats are begining to hate the greatest President their party put forth since FDR?

Clinton was the best Republican president this country had since Lincoln.

[Elfdart]

Of course this is Barbara Boxer we're talking about here. She's not exactly the brightest bulb in the Senate.

She was bright enough to bust "Dr" Kindasleazy Rice.

[Col. Crackpot]

Kindasleezy Rice? Wow, Elfdart! Thats your best work since Shit Boat Liars! Also, how great is it that because of years of Republican diligince, the Democrats are begining to hate the greatest President their party put forth since FDR?

Clinton was the best Republican president this country had since Lincoln.

-Michael Moore, 2000

[Elfdart]

Actually, it was Ruth Coniff in 1996.