posted
Concerning the 13 Senate Democrats who voted against Rice:
quote: It meant that the Democrats in Congress were determined to be brutally partisan ... at a time when our country is at war, and we need to show our enemies a unified and relentless determination to defeat them.
Instead, those thirteen votes had no effect except to encourage our enemies that if they just go on killing Americans long enough, there's a party in America that will vote against continuing the war.
Once the decision to go to war is made, then the actions of members of Congress must be undertaken with consideration of how our enemies will interpret them.
Congress has a responsibility to make sure that the war is waged properly; but meaningless opposition just to show off, when it will certainly prolong the war, is astonishingly selfish. Even if you think a war is wrong, when American lives are on the line, decent leaders do nothing to signal our enemies that we do not have the unity or resolution to win.
posted
I didn't see the thread. I do think that this line speaks to a deeper issue. When the deliberative arm of the government is asked not to think and speak because thinking and speaking would embolden those we consider terrorists, then something is wrong.
I think that there is a dignity in congress deliberating openly, and if Congress is too scared or the terrorists to deliberate openly, there is a sense in which the terrorists have already taken away one of our precious civic virtues.
This way of thinking doesn't just concern the terrorist, I think it speaks to a deeper craven trait that rears it's head in times of stress, and I think it's disturbing. This is anti-intellectualism and censorship at its most basic level.
I have a friend who thinks that Jim Crow could come back in less than a generation because he thinks that when white people get nervous, they'll "just follow orders" to the end. This friend also believes in Churchill's essay, but that's fodder for another thread. I laugh it off, but when I read thoughts with the sentiment above, I do get sad.
posted
I find it interesting that you equate blatantly partisan politics with freedom of conscience, when the two are almost invariably opposed.
Posts: 1996 | Registered: Feb 2004
| IP: Logged |
posted
Is it really blatant partisan politics? I watched the hearing, and I have full faith that those Democrats do believe Rice is not fit to be the face of foreign policy of this nation.
If Boxer was just voting with the party line, then I'd shut up.
posted
Is there a negatory missing from that last post, Irami? Because as it stands it would appear you agree with it, that they felt Rice is competent but voted against her just 'cuz.
But no, I don't agree that the 13 dems voted as they did with the intention of encouraging terrorist. It is just as partisan to say all things republican are anti-terrorist as it is to say all things anti-republican are pro-terrorist. All I know is that the average terrorist probably doesn't give a fig for blue or red.
Posts: 2010 | Registered: Apr 2003
| IP: Logged |
Do you think that they were negligent in voting against her, even if they did not intend to give comfort to the terrorists? How important is a unified front for the sake of a unified front? Not just in this issue, in everyday life, if it means denying thought and speech.
quote: But no, I don't agree that the 13 dems voted as they did with the intention of encouraging terrorist. It is just as partisan to say all things republican are anti-terrorist as it is to say all things anti-republican are pro-terrorist. All I know is that the average terrorist probably doesn't give a fig for blue or red.
I think you're reading alot more into the article than what was said. OSC didn't accuse them of voting with the intention of encouraging terrorism, he accused them of not taking into account how the terrorists might interpret their actions. There is a BIG DIFFERENCE. Nor was he (or anyone else with half a brain) equating any existing party with terrorism. And if you think that the enemies of the US don't care about American politics, you've got another think coming. I'm sure they follow American politics much more closely than the average American. These people are not stupid.
Posts: 1996 | Registered: Feb 2004
| IP: Logged |
posted
This makes me very angry, like the time those damned Americans soldiers sneaked into my friend Pancho Villa's camp and killed 200 of his very best burros. You Americans have always had a grudge against people of color and their burros.
Posts: 35 | Registered: Sep 2004
| IP: Logged |
quote:Instead, those thirteen votes had no effect except to encourage our enemies that if they just go on killing Americans long enough, there's a party in America that will vote against continuing the war
Seems to me he's directly saying that their votes both 1) were not votes of conscience and 2) dissent against the president's choice in secretary of state during time of war is doing nothing but aiding the enemy.
Not that they didn't take it into consideration.
Posts: 15770 | Registered: Dec 2001
| IP: Logged |
posted
The average terrorist is not the same thing as the enemy of the US. The average terrorist is a young fool whose idealism is being harnessed by some megalomaniac who thinks suicide is honorable for other people but not for himself.
So an "enemy of the US" might look at the dissenters and say "look, there are those who dissent" but they will also have to recognize, if they really are so savvy, that it was only 13%, which is down sharply from the divide at election time. But I don't know a lot more about the story. They either thought she was competent or didn't. If they didn't think she is competent, they must suspect she is an "Uncle Tom" appointee.
Posts: 2010 | Registered: Apr 2003
| IP: Logged |
posted
Senators can oppose appointments for reasons other than competence. Many people are morally suspect who are competent. Rice is a person who has already lied to the Senate at least once, in (unsworn) testimony.
Posts: 15770 | Registered: Dec 2001
| IP: Logged |
posted
Why was that offensive, Kayla? Because it's at least partially true. There have been numerous attacks on Rice because she's not "black enough," just as there have been about Thomas and Powell. Not to mention comics published in mainstream daily newspapers saying that if COndi could get laid, we wouldn't be going to war.
Maybe it's not the 13 Senators' reason, but it's certainly not out of line to speculate on such things, given how common they are.
posted
How about libel? I'm pretty certain that statement is a textbook definition, since the reasons many of these people opposed her nomination are on record, and have absolutely nothing to do with thinking Rice isn't "black" enough.
Posts: 4112 | Registered: May 2001
| IP: Logged |
quote:I have full faith that those Democrats do believe Rice is not fit to be the face of foreign policy of this nation.
If she's unfit and yet was nominated, they must have suspicions about Bush having nominated her. Why is it okay for them to call a shoe a shoe but when I call a shoe a shoe it's offensive, and apparently... was the libel directed at me?
If one of these senators is from your state and you voted for them, then I'll accept having offended you. But if you are wrapping yourself in the indignation of all the Democratic party, that brings us back to partisanship which is what I thought this was not about.
Posts: 2010 | Registered: Apr 2003
| IP: Logged |
posted
You're not calling a shoe a shoe, you're saying that there're two possibilities: they believe she's incompetent and voted against her because they think she's an "Uncle Tom" appointee, or they thought she was competent and voted against her because of political reasons.
They could think she can't be trusted because she's already lied to Congress (without thinking she's an Uncle Tom appointee at all), to use the rather trivial counterexample I already stated.
Posts: 15770 | Registered: Dec 2001
| IP: Logged |
posted
The original point in this thread is interesting to me. Card's ending statement, "It's time for us moderate Democrats to take the party back." always makes me titter. He should have ended with "...and give it to the Republicans."
His "Right Thinking" mantra, right of out "1984" is kind of old-school creepy. We haven't heard that dictum much outside of Limbaugh's show since 2002 or 2003. But now it is back! Don't let the enemy know we are a democracy! Don't let them know we have opinions that differ from those in power! Shhh...a terrorist is reading this post! Aiieee!!
Gads. I think what a terrorist leader should learn is that in a democracy, you shouldn't have to blow up a train or bomb a school to make your point. Condi Rice may have a lot of qualifications for the SoS job, but there are legitimate concerns on her behavior in her previous position. They need to be brought out. Why "during war" should a controversial president be given a pass on decisions he makes? Should simply voting once in 4 years be the only input those opposed to policies get to make? That if 51 out of 100 say "yes!" by golly the other 49 need to shut up? Good message for the terrorist...democracy only works when we aren't at war, so keep on bombing!
I failed to get the counter proposal from Mr. Card. Does the "unified front" of democracy mean sitting on our hands when we are called to vote?
Condi was a risky proposal. The lone voice of reason, silenced years ago, left the post of Secretary of State. While it was unlikely that Bush would propose someone with a similar educated world view to take the post but picking the most loyal person who was willing to lie for Bush and back up whatever his ideas were is probably not the best choice to be the public face representing our nation. Should have been more than 13.
posted
I'm sure that the terrorists are shaking in their shoes now that Super Condi has been appointed. Anyone else, and they might have a shot, but with Super Condi in the state department, well...I guess they're just going to have to call everything off and scurry back to their various mosques to cry in their hookahs.
quote:Don't let the enemy know we are a democracy!
Fil, that's what I'm talking about, and further, that we should some how be ashamed that are democracy yields genuinely dissenting opinions.
Mothertree,
quote:If she's unfit and yet was nominated, they must have suspicions about Bush having nominated her.
I don't know if that's true. Take Powell, for instance, he was nominated by Bush and my suspicions about Bush did not inform my suspicions about Rice.
Look, this speaks to my reservations about Rice. On this page, she pads the numbers concerning how many Iraqies are trained, and maybe OSC can call this a white lie to scare the terrorists, but when she is fudging to Congress about security matters, and fudging to me at home about those same matters, I do wonder how far her respect for congress and democracy goes.
posted
It's nice that Biden uses an anecdote from a conversation where he implied the information would be kept private (There's no one else in the room...) Dishonesty can serve the end of truth, though, sometimes apparently.
Posts: 2010 | Registered: Apr 2003
| IP: Logged |
posted
Are you serious? It would kill you just to admit that Rice was inflating the numbers and be done with it. She wasn't doing it in any reasonable margin of error. This wasn't an honest mistake. She had a security line that she was pushing and she did it without respecting the truth. There are some controversial claims that have been laid against her, but this isn't one of them. She got up there and fibbed. The question is whether we are going to count it as a big deal.
Posts: 5600 | Registered: Jul 2001
| IP: Logged |
posted
It doesn't kill me to say she "fibbed" as you put it. I'm saying she was doing her job as then-security director.
Posts: 2010 | Registered: Apr 2003
| IP: Logged |
posted
I'm not sure it was her job as NSA to tell felicitous fictions to Congress and the American people.
Posts: 5600 | Registered: Jul 2001
| IP: Logged |
posted
i cannot help thinking that by these peope being against disenters and trying to silence them tehse people are being more of a threat than the terrorist are. America is not some totalitarian regime out of 1984 where everyone has to think the same way or risk death. This isn't Iran or Saudi Arabia and resent people trying to turn the country into one of these by trying to turn the countyr into a theocrasy or eroding free speech. One group of people is not always in the right. There are other perspectives on the war that need to be looked at so they can be sure that they are fighting terrorism the right way. Silence those that disagree and it only weakens the nation... Gods, I wish I could write clearer, but I am so tired from this stupid job.
Posts: 9942 | Registered: Mar 2003
| IP: Logged |
posted
It could have been her job to not relay accurate information about the damage being done to our efforts by the insurgency (who was attempting to infiltrate the Iraqi security forces). While I don't think the members of congress have to think about that first in voting for confirmation, I do think it is the first consideration of a security director. I am astonished that Congress made her testify, in consideration of that. A security director's first duty is to the security of the country, and not the enlightenment of congress. It is not an ideally democratic situation, I'll grant.
Posts: 2010 | Registered: Apr 2003
| IP: Logged |
quote:A security director's first duty is to the security of the country, and not the enlightenment of congress. It is not an ideally democratic situation, I'll grant.
She was the security advisor. If we are a situation where the voting public can't be trusted with the truth, I think we are in a bad way. To rephrase, if we are in a situation where the voting public isn't allowed access to the truth, we aren't a democracy. I'm not nearly as worried about "judicial activism" as I am that the executive branch is allowed to tell fudge the truth with Congress or the public. If she didn't want to answer the question, I wouldn't have minded if she had said, "That's classified information." Sure, she would have been pressed with that answer, but if it was classified, and it was the truth, I would not have minded being told that is was classified.
quote: If she didn't want to answer the question, I wouldn't have minded if she had said, "That's classified information."
And there is actually a process for this, in fact. If she says it's classified, there are certain people in Congress who are theoretically supposed to be privy to even the most classified information in government, specifically for this reason. So she could go off with those two (? - I think it's two) Congresspeople, tell them the answer, tell them why it's classified, and let them come back and assure the panel that indeed the question was answered to their satisfaction.
Posts: 37449 | Registered: May 1999
| IP: Logged |
Note that some are either lies or a very incompetent memory and preparation for testimony. It is known that Rice is very intelligent and has a good memory.
Posts: 15770 | Registered: Dec 2001
| IP: Logged |
Printer-friendly view of this topic
![[Razz]](tongue.gif)
![[Blushing]](graemlins/blushing.gif)
![[Evil]](graemlins/evil.gif)
