Asymmetrical Information

The problem with Rice's "chutzpah" is that Boxer was correct in calling Rice a liar. She has repeatedly lied about national security matters. She lied when she said no one imagined using aircraft as missiles, when in fact, an FBI memo written prior to 9/11 said just that. She lied about the number of Iraqi troops which have been trained. The fact of the matter is that she is too much of a Bush sycophant to be trusted to render an honest opinion. It's one thing to tell someone to back off if they are falsely attacking you, but to do so in an effort to deflect legitimate criticism speaks volumes about her lack of character.

Umm... I assume that if Clarence Thomas gets nominated to the top spot, you'll remind everyone about his "whining" about a high-tech lynching. (First one that came to mind. I'm sure there are many, many others).

Furthermore, Goode is right. Rice has lied in the service of the Administration. Boxer should have stepped up to Rice's response. She should've said, "It's your prior statements that impugn your integrity, not me." If that's your point, Jane, I agree.

All I can say here concerning the two women is this:

Pot. Kettle. Black.

Barbara Boxer is a hypocrite of the first rank, so her accusing Rice of being a liar is just a case of Pot and Kettle.

My point, Tim, is that it's a bit rich to publicly call you a liar, and then protest that you're being "attacked" when the person you've so accused says she isn't. If you really don't see that, then I weep for the political fortunes of hte Democrats in years to come.

Whether Rice lied or not is irrelevant to the point that Jane is making: Boxer left herself wide open to such an attack and then complains on national TV about the fact that her interlocutor (Rice) exploited that vulnerability.

Assume Rice never lied and was beyond reproach. The same situation could have occurred then; it is clear that her honesty is irrelevant to Boxer's stupidity.

I'm having a real hard time with the effort to equate Rice defending herself in a question/answer session and the liberal special interest/media assault on Clarence Thomas.

Anita Hill and her witness friends were caught under oath in a complete fabrication. News organizations coordinated the attack on Thomas with a consortium of liberal special interest groups which organized met for the purpose of digging up something which could torpedo his nomination. The explicit reason for the attack? Thomas was black. High tech lynching was exactly what was attempted.

Boxer complaining about Rice's response is whining. Thomas responding to the coordinated slander campaign against him involving virtually every major news organization in the country was righteous indignation.

What I want to know is how Condi kept herself from calling her opponent "Senator Boxer-Shorts."

Jane:

"[I}t's a bit rich to publicly call you a liar, and then protest that you're being "attacked" when the person you've so accused says she isn't."

I don't think that fully captures what happened; I think questioning whether someone is "impugning" your integrity carries a wiff of censorious virtue in it along with any denial of truth to the accusation. But roughly speaking, I agree. Boxer should have "owned" (a usage I hate) her statement, and been prepared for any response from Rice without resorting to complaints about hurt feelings. In that sense, as I said above, I agree.

When you say, as Boxer did (roughly), 'On date A, you said X. On date B, you said Y. X and Y are inconsistent -- what gives?' the reasonable answers are: "I never said X"; "I never said Y"; "X and Y aren't inconsistent, and here's why"; "Y was intended as a correction to X because I learned new information between dates A and B"; or, of course, "I lied". Rice didn't give any of these possible reasonable answers. Instead, she gave an evasive and dishonest answer -- treating Boxer's questions as personal insults that she had no obligation to respond to.

Even if Rice was offended by the implications or the wording of Boxer's questions, she had an obligation to answer them. She failed to meet that obligation, and got huffy to draw attention awayfrom what she was doing. It looked weak, and confirmed that she had no satisfying answer to Boxer's questions.

Anita Hill and her witness friends were caught under oath in a complete fabrication.

Um. No they weren't. The truth or falsity of the allegations was never established one way or the other. It's not something that really can be proven to be a lie or the truth. It's a he said/she said.

Then there's this gem from Stan:
The explicit reason for the attack? Thomas was black. High tech lynching was exactly what was attempted.

Look up "explicit", stan. You won't find anyone, Democratic senator, Anita Hill, NOW who explicitly stated that the reason for opposing Thomas was that he was black. Whether some or all of the attackers were motivated by race is open for debate, but I doubt you can find an explict statement to that effect from any of Thomas's foes in the Senate or at NOW.

Goodness, folks, RTFQ. Boxer said Condi cared more about the war than the truth. That's not a refutable assertion; it's an opinion. Condi said "you're wrong". What was she supposed to say, "you're right?" Getting mad at your opponents because they won't fulfill your childish dreams of utter capitulation to your basest accusations may be emotionally satisfying, but it impresses no one except those who already agree with you.

"Assume Rice never lied and was beyond reproach. The same situation could have occurred then; it is clear that her honesty is irrelevant to Boxer's stupidity."

Rice's truthfullness, or lack thereof is clearly relevant to this discussion. If Rice's is not truthful, then her attack on Boxer is unwarranted and is in fact, quite sleazy. It's one thing to rightously defend yourself and go on the counter-offensive, but when the charge made against you is correct, and IMHO it is, then your counter attack reeks of dishonesty and raises concerns about your fitness for office.

Perhaps if Mrs. Boxer has had her feelings hurt, she might think about confronting someone clearly, more intelligent than she is. Hang in there Jane, I smell Boxer wannabe's.

I just read the article, and I think it's important to note that the idea of Boxer being a "victim," having her feelings hurt, and calling Condi Rice "mean" were all introduced by either the Washington Times or the poster.

Boxer certainly did confront Rice, and Rice fought her right back, and here we have Boxer saying she was out-of-line to respond that way. She went so far as to use the word "attack." This is not news. It's actually SOP for how much of the discourse between Bush Administration officials and critics has been conducted over the last few years, only we've forgotten what it was like because there have been so few opportunities since 2002 for Democrats to hold the Bushies accountable in Congress. Everyone spins the other person as unreasonable.

I think that people should be careful before mistaking the color commentary about that silly whiny woman for what actually happened.

I think Ms Boxer's complaint is that Ms Rice violated the etiquette of confirmation hearings, particularly thise in which there is no realistic opportunity for the opposition to defeat the nomonee. The nominee is supposed to sit quietly while the opposition administers a ritual tongue-lashing, not respond in-kind. How rude!

I'd also like to note that you're mocking Boxer for complaining that her feelings were hurt -- I don't see a quote in the linked article where she does. She says that Rice attacked her, which she did -- you can say that it was a justified attack, but addressing the conduct of the questioner rather than the substance of the question is an attack -- and says that it was a debating technique to distract from the substance. Boxer neither raises her own feelings, nor refers to herself as a victim (unless you're talking about quotes outside the linked article).

All the mockery about Boxer's whining is a trifle baseless, isn't it?

Incidentally, I note that Boxer's attackers are doing exactly what she accused Condi of . . . attacking the questioner instead of answering the "question".

All the mockery about Boxer's whining is a trifle baseless, isn't it?

Ding ding ding! I bet it's fun, though.

Goodness, folks, RTFQ. Boxer said Condi cared more about the war than the truth. That's not a refutable assertion; it's an opinion. Condi said "you're wrong". What was she supposed to say, "you're right?"

Boxer also gave examples (certainly not an exhaustive list) of things Rice said that turned out to be untrue. Rice was supposed to say "I believed the untrue things I said when I said them, and this is why it was reasonable for me to do so." If she wanted to add "And saying I cared more about the war than the truth was rude," that's fine. It's not resenting the conclusion Boxer drew that was the problem with what Rice said, it was failing to answer the substance of Boxer's statement.

That may be your problem with Condi's testimony, and you are welcome to express your frustration. But it in no way explains why Ms Boxer said she was "attacked".

But it in no way explains why Ms Boxer said she was "attacked".

Goodness, I would think it was clear that she was describing Condi's statements as rhetorical attacks instead of responses.

Won't someone bring those straws closer so Jane won't have to grasp quite so far?

Just for everyone's logical edification:

Rice "attacked" Boxer = Zealots of Masada "attacked" the Romans

Also, re:

Look up "explicit", stan. You won't find anyone, Democratic senator, Anita Hill, NOW who explicitly stated that the reason for opposing Thomas was that he was black. Whether some or all of the attackers were motivated by race is open for debate, but I doubt you can find an explict statement to that effect from any of Thomas's foes in the Senate or at NOW.

Stan must have confused the Thomas hearings with the memos affecting the Estrada debate in the Judiciary Committee.

Because claiming that the questioning was improper, as Rice did, is an attack on the questioner. You may say that it was justified -- that Boxer's rudeness was so great that Rice was justified in confronting her for it -- and I'd agree with you. Nonetheless, as I pointed out and as Boxer noted as well, Rice didn't confront Boxer for her rudeness and answer the substance of Boxer's statement, she confronted Boxer for her rudeness as means of avoiding the substance of Boxer's statement.

If this post comes down to "Boxer was horrendously out of line to call Rice's words an 'attack', when Rice's words were merely a contentious questioning of the propriety of Boxer's characterization," I think we're firmly in the realm of making mountains out of molehills.

Brittain33-

No fair. You clearly type much faster than I do.

Brittain: And Boxer's questions were intended merely as cheap gotcha-attempts rather than as serious questions as to her ability to be Secretary of State (which is, after all, all about lying to foreigners, isn't it?).

Lizard: Substance is not something that Sen. Boxer has ever even seen, let alone possessed in a question.

Look at Sen. Boxer's opening remarks to Rice; she takes the "wonderful opportunity/tsunami" quote entirely out of context and uses it as a slam on Rice related in some incomprehensible way to the child sex trade. And "you didn't talk enough about casualties in your statement on Iraq!".

I mean, I don't see how anyone can actually read Boxer's statement and questions as any sort of serious inquiry into Rice's capacity to perform her job, or as anything but grandstanding. And the problem is supposed to be that Rice didn't treat her as if she was in fact serious and asking really seriosu questions about her honesty?

(One who is asking serious questions about a point of honesty does not do so in the middle of a very long diatribe and then smirk at the target's lack of detailed response to every allegation at the end of the diatribe - at least not in live conversation, which, you see, unlike the internet, doesn't allow scrolling and immediate recall. If Boxer wanted answers of the sorts proposed by her proponents, she should have asked for them. In short, simple questions that Rice could immediately address. See the point I'm making here?)

Boxer is pretty funny, but she has a ways to go before matching the senior Senator from Massachusetts, who recently complained to Gonzalez, in the AG nominee's confirmation hearing, that as a human being he was offended by torture techniques which simulated drowning.

Is there a cover charge to get a seat in the gallery for nomination hearings? They'll be headlining all week; don't forget to tip your waitress or bartender!!!

Rice was in the middle of a confirmation hearing, so it's not like she could point out that Sen. Boxer flat out lied about WMDs being the only reason Congress voted to grant war authority to Bush, as the text of the resolution contradicts that claim. Nor can Rice note that Boxer did not care whether Saddam had WMDs, because Boxer voted against the resolution anyway. Nor can Rice discuss the extent to which the bad intelligence supplied by the CIA --upon which she relied -- is the result in part of failed Congressional oversight. The nature of the forum limited her options to respond. Anyone who wants to know what Rice's responses would have been in a different forum can read her testimony before the 9/11 Commission, which refutes some of the spurious claims mentioned above.

Sigivald-

So, the problem is that the substantive part of Boxer's statement wasn't "serious", because the wording was too hostile for Rice to deal with? And that Rice can't be expected to think on her feet to address her own public conduct over the last few years -- after all, it's not as if she were expecting to be questioned, or had had a chance to prepare.

Dude, being Secretary of State is going to involve dealing with people who won't be nice to Dr. Rice -- if a little hostility shuts down her ability to think about things, she's going to have some real problems out there.

To quote Jane Galt: RTFQ.

This seems simple enough. Asymmetrical Information is reporting on a story in the Washington Times, which story alleges that Boxer was licking her wounds on national TV: Boxer impugned Rice's integrity, opening herself up for an attack from Rice, and Rice exploited that vulnerability. One would think that questions about whether Boxer was right to impugn Rice's integrity are irrelevant to this discussion; it is, after all, a matter of fact, and not judgment, that this exchange between the two occurred.

Lizardbreath, a nomination hearing is not a serious intellectual exercise; it is simply a media-political whoring session. In that context, Rice handled her interaction with the Senator from Cali perfectly, and Boxer is now yelping at network t.v. cameras because that is what Senators (possibly the most useless life form on the planet) do. Blah. Blah. Blah. Yadda. Yadda. Yadda. Etc. Etc. Etc. Repeat.

Asymmetrical Information is reporting on a story in the Washington Times, which story alleges that Boxer was licking her wounds on national TV:

Alleges, as noted above, without basis.

Clearly, one's ideological preconceptions shape one's perception of an event. When I watched the hearing, I saw Boxer clean Rice's clock -- Rice didn't have anything to say but "The way you asked that question was really nasty." It looked weak, and certainly didn't go anywhere toward convincing me that Boxer was wrong to call Rice a liar. Boxer wasn't licking her wounds, she was pointing out Rice's weakness and dishonesty.

I recognize that your perceptions almost certainly differ.

Boxer is pretty funny, but she has a ways to go before matching the senior Senator from Massachusetts, who recently complained to Gonzalez, in the AG nominee's confirmation hearing, that as a human being he was offended by torture techniques which simulated drowning.

Neither of these things are as funny as the idiot in chief saying we need better human intelligence. So much material....

Boxer should have stepped up to Rice's response

I don't think they make ladders that tall.

Say what you want about any President, but at least they are ultimately judged, by history if nothing else, by visible outcomes. There's a reason, after all, that they all (the current one included) appear to age about three years for each one in the job. Senators, on the other hand, exercise power largely without scrutiny, only get a job review every six years, can never be said to be accountable, and can hang around forever. It is a job that nearly guarantees to bring out the worst in a human being.

Sorry, Herman, but you clearly don't recognize a technical term when you see it. "Human Intelligence" is better known as HUMINT, just as "Signals Intelligence" is known as SIGINT and "Communications Intelligence" is known as COMMINT. These terms have been around for AT LEAST 40 years. HUMINT consists of old-fashioned spying, whether from real spies or from military attaches reporting on publically available information. The decision was made in the last decade or tow to replace HUMINT with photo intelligence from spysats, and we've been paying the price in Iraq for that decision.

Sorry, Herman, but you clearly don't recognize a technical term when you see it. "Human Intelligence" is better known as HUMINT, just as "Signals Intelligence" is known as SIGINT and "Communications Intelligence" is known as COMMINT. These terms have been around for AT LEAST 40 years. HUMINT

Sorry Rex, but I do recognize it. It was a JOKE. Lighten up!

Boxer is a fool of the highest quality. Rice is a loyalist in the Soviet style. We should not be happy about either of these folks being in positions of power.

Goldwater is turning restlessly in his grave.

Boxer has been behaving kind of strangely recently. While I generally have no problem with the way she votes, I think she's been acting a little too high strung recently. First, contesting the certification of the Ohio electors and now the battle with Rice. Maybe she needs a vacation.

"Looks to me like Ms. Boxer just called Ms. Rice a liar--and then had the chutzpah to get huffy when Ms Rice told her to back the hell off.

Exactly who says Boxer's getting huffy? Oh yeah, the Washington Times. I bet they[ve got the real inside source on Boxer's emotional state. No wonder Pearson pays you the big bucks.

Seeing her interviewed by my local station by Willie Brown, she was definitely not whining about being kicked around by Rice, for the same reason as Muhammed Ali didn't complain about being beaten up by Henry Cooper.

Alternatively, Boxer might be drawing attention to the fact that when Condi's convenient loss of memory about her "Smoking Gun, Mushroom Cloud" justification was questioned, she responded with a particularly weak defence by turning on Boxer. It looked weak, but no wonder coming from a weak NSA who will be a weak SoS. Naturally, the WashTimes can't report "Rice humiliatingly shown to be spoofing git by Boxer", so they spin it that Boxer's whining. Stupid tactic, and stupid of youse to fall for it.

Poor little BaBa Boxer!!! WAAAAAAAA! Somebody hoit her little feewings. How wude!

BaBa has a long way to go before she reaches my own pinnacle of senatorial ridiculousness. For one thing she needs to gain a lot of weight so she looks like a big fat balloon. Then she needs to learn to sound pompous instead of snipy/whiny. Those are just suggestions for starters. I'll approach her on the Senate floor with more pointers.

Given that Rice was GOING to be confirmed, Baxter's comment was not going to get any better response than it actually did get; it's a "When did you stop beating your wife" kind of comment, and umbrage is the PROPER response because any other is going to bite the answerer in the butt. (Or perhaps a more apropos comparison is the "What mistakes have you made in office/Iraq, Mr. Bush?" kind of question - did they REALLY expect an answer more substantive than the ones they got, and if so, WHO are the big idiots?)

Not only is indignation proper under the circumstances, done well enough it can also be profoundly disarming (not in the "charming" sense)to the person getting in your face, and as such an Effective Tool of State.

I was deposed several times a few years back (no, I wasn't ruling a small and volatile island nation or anything). My company's counsel were scrupulously careful not to instruct me or my coworkers about the substance of our depositions, but they did give us the sage advice to answer only the question that was asked, and then shut the heck up - make the other side ask for more information if they wanted it. As I listened to my wee little brain trying to answer the questions, keeping my lips tightly zipped until I'd had a chance to consider what I'd actually let out, I heard SO much stuff in there that, while perfectly innocent in itself, could have led to lines of questioning that would have greatly assisted me in digging myself and my company into steep-sided holes. It was a case of our insurers' wanting to welch on a legit claim - they would've grasped at just about anything. It was my job to avoid giving them anything to grasp at, all the time recalling that I was under oath. So it goes. I'm not half as smart as Rice, but at least I withheld any ammo while abiding by my oath to tell the truth, whole and nothing but.

Bottom line:

Condi came out on top in the exchange.
Boxer looked like a fool.

It appears that Boxer has been designated as bomb thrower of the moment for the minority party. As such I suppose she has to act this way, but it really does not play well. She seemed shrill and unhinged in the hearing, and it got a lot of air time, and now she's bitter because the CW came down against her pretty firmly. All the knuckleheads posting here who think the point is that Boxer spoke truth to Condi's lying power completely missed the point. Boxer style nasty political opposition to people like Rice is a losing strategy... please continue to indulge your juveile selves with it. You'll be a 20% party befroe you know it.

My favorite Barbara Boxer moment was when she defeated Matt Fong, who is of Chinese descent, in a Senate race, then played the song "Kung Fu Fighting" right after her victory speech. Classy.

Moral of the story for white women:
starting a fight, on TV, with a black woman, is never a good plan.
Even if you win the fight, you look like a jerk.
And if you lose, you look like a jerk who picks fights and loses. (Maybe you thought you would win just because you're white? Yuck....)

My favorite Barbara Boxer moment was when she defeated Matt Fong, who is of Chinese descent, in a Senate race, then played the song "Kung Fu Fighting" right after her victory speech. Classy.

This never actually happened. Nice try, though.

"All the knuckleheads posting here who think the point is that Boxer spoke truth to Condi's lying power completely missed the point. Boxer style nasty political opposition to people like Rice is a losing strategy... please continue to indulge your juveile selves with it. You'll be a 20% party befroe you know it."

It is ludicrous to think that this little episode will either have a lasting positive or negative impact on the fortunes of the Democratic party. In fact, little that any one individual does unless its the president or House speaker, for example reasonates with the public at large. You also have to consider the source for this item. It's the Cult Times of Washington, a paper of little readership and less influence. There's no evidence that Boxer was whining about her feelings. She was simply stating that she was attacked, which she was. Whether the attack was justified is another matter, but it was an attack, typical of the way this administration deals with critics. Don't address the substance, and turn the tables.

It seems abundantly clear to me that crybaby Boxer is running in '08 for POTUS (as the Howard Dean in a skirt candidate with a California bankroll) trying desperately to appear to be a viable alternative to Hilary and in reality coming off as totally pathetic.

"It appears that Boxer has been designated as bomb thrower of the moment for the minority party. As such I suppose she has to act this way, but it really does not play well."

That was the impression I got listening to the hearings (part of them). It does not play well, unless you can get the witness flustered and they say something regretable. Condi did not.

I believe the party asked Boxer to play this role because she is a woman. The only thing worse than her playing bomb-thrower would have been to have an old white guy do it.

Barbara Boxer has the requisite self-awareness to be posting to the comments section of Semi-Daily Journal, Maxspeak, or Political Animal.

Think of Boxer is standing in for Chirac or Mugabe or Mahmoud Abbas --"You claimed the US wanted to work with the UN, but then you went out ahead of the UN and actually delivered help to tsunami victims WITHOUT AUTHORIZATION. How can a person of good faith such as I believe you now and negotiate with you and your country after your record of lying?"

I like Rice getting the "liar" accusation out front and center. The detail and substance of the actual example is slippery. But the conclusion is to claim a moral advantage in negotiations. And as I do not want a SecState to surrender such to the likes of Mugabe. So I am pleased to see Rice stand up to Boxer. "If you think I am a liar then there is no point in attempting to answer your questions -- or continue this discussion. You're telling me no explanation or elaboration regarding the fragments of fact you cite will convince you, anyway. So before I waste my breath I need your assurance you are willing to consider my answer to your question honestly. We will converse as honorable equals, or not at all."

Pouncer, an interesting point about Mugabe. What has the Bush administration done to stand up to him, again?

Am I the only guy who finds Condi very attractive in some inexplicable way?

So I am pleased to see Rice stand up to Boxer. "If you think I am a liar then there is no point in attempting to answer your questions -- or continue this discussion. You're telling me no explanation or elaboration regarding the fragments of fact you cite will convince you, anyway. So before I waste my breath I need your assurance you are willing to consider my answer to your question honestly. We will converse as honorable equals, or not at all."

The problem with the above are:

a) Rice took an oath to answer the questions and has a duty to answer all of them truthfully. A nominee has not right to refuse to answer questions because she doesn't think she will be believed by the questioning senator. This hearing is about Rice's fitness for a top job, not about Boxers. Boxers "hearing" was held last November.

b) Rice and Boxer are NOT equals in this scenario. Boxer is a member of a body that gets to determine whether or not Rice will have a job. Rice at the moment is basically a job applicant and Boxer, the boss, or at least part of the entity that will give the ok to take the job.

RainingKetchup wrote:

Rice took an oath to answer the questions and has a duty to answer all of them truthfully. A nominee has not right to refuse to answer questions because she doesn't think she will be believed by the questioning senator.

Really? Please provide the text of the oath that Condaleeza Rice took.

Callaghan, almost certainly not. Scroll down to the bottom here for a thumbnail gallery which used to be presented much higher up:

http://www.freerepublic.com/~granitestateconserva/

Having met Dr. Rice in several social situations I must say that she is a very bright woman who is very impressive in person. I enjoyed the time I spent with her. I have a great deal of respect for her and all she has accomplished. That being said I think Jane has the wrong idea here.

I don't get the impression that Sen. Boxer is whining. I get the impression that she attacked Dr. Rice at a confirmation hearing, which is appropriate behavior and Dr. Rice evaded the question by name calling. Dr. Rice knew what she was getting into when she decided she wanted to be SoS. If she didn't want to answer questions like this at the confirmation hearing she could have just stayed NSA. I am actually a bit surprised at Jane for suggestion that Boxer complaining about Dr. Rice's inadiquate response is somehow far worse (and worthy of a lenthy post) than Dr. Rice actually avoiding the question.

In addition, I am surprised to see the Washington Times cited as the source. The Washington Times is, I feel, no more reliable than Jane as a news source (no offense, but this is not a news source, this is opinion and spin). After having reviewed the CNN transcript I find that I do not feel Boxer is whining, but simply pointing out Dr. Rice's techniques for avoiding the question.

Thanks for the Condi link, Brittain33. Love the pics of her at the piano.

Bottom line for me is that Boxer asserted that Rice lied, citing statements that have by no means proven to be lies, and asserting that Rice made statements that she never made. Then she got all upset when Rice pointed out that you can't just call someone a liar and hope to have everyone automatically believe you, even if you are a Senator. And, is it me? Or is Boxer about two standard deviations below normal on the IQ spectrum? Same for Patty Murray. How do these morons get into office in the first place?

I don’t want to come off as some sort of gender feminist looking to find discrimination and sexism where none exists or was intended, but does it strike anyone else as inappropriate that:

a) so many pundits in the MSM as well as bloggers seem free to refer to the presumptive SecState as “Condi” when none of them would have referred to her predecessor as “Colin” and

b) in the course of discussing her qualifications and points of view, someone inevitably brings up her attractiveness?

I have no doubt that many of the men (and it seems to almost always be men) who do this don’t mean anything negative by it and I’m sure that whether they think she ought to be our next SecState or not, they agree it should be based solely on her qualifications – but referring to someone you don’t know by their first name can often be seen as a way of demeaning them* and talking about their attractiveness during a discussion about their qualifications can be seen as a sign that you’re not taking a woman seriously.

Sorry for the rant.

* During a class I took on the death penalty in college, we read cases in the south in which it was brought up that black witnesses and/or defendants were more likely to be referred to by their first names while white ones were addressed in the more respectful “Mr.” or “Mrs.” Or “Miss.”

Then she got all upset when Rice pointed out that you can't just call someone a liar and hope to have everyone automatically believe you, even if you are a Senator.

TRANSLATION: If you're a liar and are called out on it just explain that it's unfair to have to respond to the charge of telling lies.

Kate wrote:

I don't get the impression that Sen. Boxer is whining. I get the impression that she attacked Dr. Rice at a confirmation hearing, which is appropriate behavior and Dr. Rice evaded the question by name calling. Dr. Rice knew what she was getting into when she decided she wanted to be SoS. If she didn't want to answer questions like this at the confirmation hearing she could have just stayed NSA. I am actually a bit surprised at Jane for suggestion that Boxer complaining about Dr. Rice's inadiquate response is somehow far worse (and worthy of a lenthy post) than Dr. Rice actually avoiding the question.

I don’t think it is surprising particularly since you stated that you considered it be to “appropriate behavior” to attack a nominee at a confirmation hearing. Seems to me then that it is perfectly acceptable for the nominee to fire back when the latter persists in the attack and ignores your actual answers. In this case, Dr Rice seems to have been more successful than Senator Boxer and the latter’s subsequent comments. For Senator Boxer to complain that about it is yes, whining.

Oh and BTW – if anyone actually reads the transcript that was provided by the NYT (click on my name for the link), you’ll see that Dr. Rice actually did address the specific points that were brought up in Senator Boxer’s rather rambling opening remarks as well as her follow-up comments. What happened latter after Dr. Rice had addressed Senator Boxer’s actual questions as well as refuting the misstatements that Boxer made was the Boxer made that statement that was picked up by the Washington Times’ story impugning Dr. Rice’s integrity. That’s when Dr. Rice fired back.

Ok, I guess I'm just in the dark here, but where in the following:

"I personally believe — this is my personal view — that your loyalty to the mission you were given, to sell this war, overwhelmed your respect for the truth,"

is there a question? Boxer admits that it is a personal view (== opinion). So, rice "attacking" this statement is not a answer to a question. Additionally, I do not see how:

Miss Rice responded that she "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," Miss Rice said.

is an attack? At best, it's exactly what Boxer characterized it as - a "good debating technique", or a defensive feint. But, Rice cannot be accused of dodging a question which was not asked.

In any case, the assertion of Rice's lack of honesty is related to the following three quotes:

"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."

"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."

"The intelligence assessment was that he was reconstituting his nuclear program; that, left unchecked, he would have a nuclear weapon by the end of the year."

The assertion, of course, is that these quotes cannot be reconciled. But, there is ample room for these three statements to exist truthfully, just as there is ample room for these statements to exist in falsehood.

The first and second, and the second and third, are reconcilable due to the distinction between could and would. The first statement and the third statement are less easily reconciled, but are capable of being so, considering the meaning of "next year" and "by the end of the year." those two statements DO NOT map to the same periods.

Of course this is stretching... a better explanation (and one more consistent with Rice's intended meaning) would be that Rice misspoke in the third statement and intended to say "could". I'm only shooting for lingusitic analysis... but the point is that, when impuning someone's reputation, you'd better have more than arguable evidence.

Boonton: Translation of your reply: "It doesn't matter that Boxer never actually pointed out a lie, because Rice is just a liar."

Raining: If Boxer wanted Rice to actually answer her questions, as I said in my previous comment, she should have simply asked them. One at a time, and then waited for a response after each one. Since Boxer piled them together with a muddle of insinuation and a large buffer of grandstanding on both sides, I fail to see how Rice is obligated to, on live TV, wade through it in reverse, pick out the "questions" from the chaff and distortions, and then answer them.

I'm (notionally) surprised she didn't reply "Have you no shame, Senator?". I would have been sorely tempted to, in her place. Of course, there's a reason I'm not a candidate for SecState...

I'm (notionally) surprised she didn't reply "Have you no shame, Senator?". I would have been sorely tempted to, in her place. Of course, there's a reason I'm not a candidate for SecState...

You are being too generous. There's probably a lot more than one!

Or, in addition to getting indignant, she could have added, "I will be happy to discuss any specific accusation of dishonesty you want" and proceed to actually do so. I don't buy "You implied that I'm a liar therefore I don't have to respond to any charges that I lied"

Sigvald wrote:

Raining: If Boxer wanted Rice to actually answer her questions, as I said in my previous comment, she should have simply asked them. One at a time, and then waited for a response after each one. Since Boxer piled them together with a muddle of insinuation and a large buffer of grandstanding on both sides, I fail to see how Rice is obligated to, on live TV, wade through it in reverse, pick out the "questions" from the chaff and distortions, and then answer them.

You’re quite correct; reading the NYT transcript I linked to it’s amazing how much of the exchange was Boxer eating up her time with a rambling opening statement and that Dr. Rice was able to respond as well as she could. Boxer’s seems a technique more suited for mugging for the cameras and the Tin Foil hat crowd than that of a serious Senator who was interested in getting information or responses from a nominee.

Boonton:

What would have been the point of Rice's being "happy to discuss any specific accusation of dishonesty"? Would it have changed the outcome of the hearings? Would it have bolstered the case for war in Iraq? Would it have changed Boxer's mind? Would it have changed the perceptions of anybody watching, listening, or reading that either (a) Boxer's immediate agenda was to call Rice a liar or (b) Rice's immediate agenda was to evade Boxer, depending on your starting point?

Sheesh, for MONTHS we listened to the MSM, Kerry, and every halfwit commentator in every walk of life (including the dinner table at times) demand that Bush talk through and, by implication, apologize for his "mistakes" in his first term. He refused repeatedly and was accused repeatedly of being either too dumb to recognize his mistakes or too stubborn to admit them, when in fact he was simply stonewalling for the absolutely valid reason that he had NOTHING to gain from saying ONE WORD to cede the point that there were mistakes. Rice was in the same situation: saying, "Give me an example and I'll respond," would only have fueled Boxer's fire (and the fevered imaginations of Rice's detractors) to no purpose. Nothing to gain. Possibly a good deal to lose. She responded exactly as I would hope a SoS would respond if her opposite number abroad were trying to pin the US to the wall about some diplomatically unpopular (but necessary) action - which in no way means that I believe Boxer is correct, just that I believe Rice's response was perfectly calculated to the nth place.

"she attacked Dr. Rice at a confirmation hearing, which is appropriate behavior"

No comment needed.

Sheesh, for MONTHS we listened to the MSM, Kerry, and every halfwit commentator in every walk of life (including the dinner table at times) demand that Bush talk through and, by implication, apologize for his "mistakes" in his first term. He refused repeatedly and was accused repeatedly of being either too dumb to recognize his mistakes or too stubborn to admit them, when in fact he was simply stonewalling for the absolutely valid reason that he had NOTHING to gain from saying ONE WORD to cede the point that there were mistakes.

He had nothing to gain from admitting there were mistakes (and also lies) because to do so would hurt him politically or because it was an not true? The former might be true but it's not very interesting to me since Bush hasn't put me on a payroll or consultants contract to advise him on how to keep his numbers up. If you're arguing from that POV I hope you're at least getting paid for being a shill.

Boonton:

In a campaign for reelection, Bush had, clearly, nothing to gain from admitting his putative mistakes. This statement doesn't rely on my POV - it's politics, man (I assume "man" - sorry if wrong). If he had said, for instance, "Well, I admit in retrospect I might have focused too much on WMD stockpiles in making the decision to go into Iraq, but that was the information we all had at the time," what would it have profited him in his campaign? Would any Democrat, impressed by his honesty and willingness to air such things publicly, have crossed the aisle to vote for him? Any undecided voter have decided to vote for him (same reason)? Any Republican have been so warmed by his candidness that s/he would rush out to go organize on his behalf? Or would the result instead have been a massive "A-HA!!!" echoing from the mountains to the prairies, etc.?

The man was running on a platform of STEADFASTNESS. For him to expose his personal ruminations and hindsight on his prior decisions would have shot his credibility as a man who says what he means and does what he says - which, regardless of what you or I may personally believe about him, is precisely the perception he wanted people to have, and precisely the perception a majority of voters apparently did have. His opponents were handing him their rhetorical gun and saying, "Here, put this up to your temple... Now squeeze! Honest, it's not loaded. It'll be exciting, that's all." Why on earth would they expect him to do so? This is why I referred to people who really seemed to expect him to "own up" to a bunch of missteps "halfwits": you'd have to be a complete fool (or pathological about public confession) to do such a thing during your own campaign, unless caught absolutely red-handed with no deniability.

I know a lot of D's truly did and do believe Bush IS that complete fool; because of this belief, I see no reason to correct my assessment of their own reasoning abilities. When they stop misunderestimating Bush and his strategery, I'll credit them the rest of their wits.

I WISH I were getting paid, instead of just ignoring the dishes and the laundry.

I am confused. Are the following lies:

"We have known for many years that Saddam Hussein is seing and developing weapons of mass destruction."
Sen. Ted Kennedy (D, MA), Sept. 27, 2002.

"There is unmistakable evidence that Saddam Hussein is working aggressively to develop nuclear weapons and will likely have nuclear weapons within the next five years . We also should remember we have alway s underestimated the progress Saddam has made in development of weapons of mass destruction."
Sen. Jay Rockerfeller (D, WV), Oct 10, 2002

"If Saddam rejects peace and we have to use force, our purpose is clear. We want to seriously diminish the threat posed by Iraq's weapons of mass destruction program."
President Clinton, Feb. 17, 1998.

Help me out - I am confused.

Y'know, I'd hoped Bush's re-election would've snapped the Dems out of it. Not yet, apparently.
I'm still hearing the same pre-election Bush-bashing talking points re-iterated ad nauseum from op-ed pages to blog comment sections.
It's STILL not working, guys.
You wanna stop losing elections, you gotta come up with some new material.
Sorry!
:-)

Mcwop,

Those statements all are untrue except perhaps for Clinton's 98 statement. Now whether they are lies or not depends upon whether the person saying them knew them to be untrue at the time.

Dr. Rice was just confirmed as our new SecState 85-13.

http://story.news.yahoo.com/news?tmpl=story2&u=/ap/20050126/ap_on_go_co/senate_rice

McClain,

I'm confused, does the fact that Bush was re-elected suddenly make lies he told not-lies? When did 1984 cease being a work of fiction? When Clinton was relected I don't recall his critics saying 'OK, he's honest afterall'...

Boonton - the statements are accurate:

Sources

Dear 'Boonton,'
I don't care what Clinton or his tiresome dectractors did. They're history.
If Bush had really lied as mendaciously as y'all claim, he would've lost. What - you think 3 million American voters just didn't hear you? Because you didn't shout loud enought?
1984 was a long time ago - and I'm old enough to remember it.
Back in 84, your ilk hated Reagan.
Reagan was gonna repeal abortion and kill us all in a nuclear shootout with the Soviets.
Didn't happen, did it?
Stop living in the past.

Oh, and by the way:
One party nominates a smart, black, female candidate for Secretary of State.
The other party, represented by an old, white, former KKK member from West Virginia, tries (and fails) to stop her.
Uh...I'm sorry: WHICH party is the "progressive" one?
;-)

1984 was a long time ago - and I'm old enough to remember it. Back in 84, your ilk hated Reagan.

Someone please clue McClain to do a brief Amazon search on the works of George Orwell.

Boonton:

Will you please detail the specific lies of Bush so I can look 'em up? (This is somewhat akin to the efforts of Bush opponents to get Bush to participate in his own political demise by detailing his "mistakes" - I fully intend to use whatever you give me against your position, if I can! ;-p ) If they all consist of statements similar to those made by EVERYbody else about Hussein's WMD capabilities and possessions, result of (apparently) faulty intelligence (but what ever happened to those convoys of Russian trucks headed to Syria? Honest question - I haven't heard about them in well over a year), then they can't be conclusively called "lies." Hussein sure had the whole world convinced, by his behavior, that he had something BAD to hide. Even Kerry, in campaign-speak, said he would've gone into Iraq - just that he would've prosecuted the war differently.

McClain's main point is the thing to come away with: "Bush lied" is a statement of (fiercely held but not well supported) opinion, not fact, unless you can convincingly demonstrate otherwise, and the entire media-industrial complex, as Jane puts it, tried HARD to be convincing on this point last year. "1984" is not especially relevant to the question. "1984" bespeaks lies that change from day to day; what has Bush said in the past that he's now asking the American people to believe he never said? Again, if it's only the question of WMD stockpiles, no one in the administration denies that they (and the rest of the intelligence community) believed they were there. (My husband, seated figuratively to my left, says even he thinks the administration is constrained diplomatically and by need to protect intelligence sources from revealing what they really believe to be true about WMDs under Hussein - ref. said truck convoys.)

You were grasping at Orwell, yes, I know, but you might as well have been citing the David Bowie song from 'Diamond Dogs' for all the relevance it had.
Or is your TV spying on you?

Comments are Closed.