-
Hey, guest user. Hope you're enjoying NeoGAF! Have you considered registering for an account? Come join us and add your take to the daily discourse.
holy shit, barbara boxer is absolutely destroying condaleezza rice
- Thread starter Incognito
- Start date
- Status
heavy liquid
Member
Heard this, too. I'm glad someone is busting her balls. It's just too bad that it won't matter.
Do The Mario
Unconfirmed Member
Yeah I had a look at some transcripts, they also showed fair bit of footage on Australian news. She was flip flopping like crazy almost sounded as bad as bush in a few of her answers.
Smart lady but I dont think she is very good at thinking on and run, and public speaking in general.
Smart lady but I dont think she is very good at thinking on and run, and public speaking in general.
Boxer has the IQ of a grapefruit. WMD was not the only reason that we passed H.J.Res.114, a resolution to authorize the use of United States Armed Forces against Iraq.
Read it, (I'm pretty sure she didn't) H.J. Res. 114 , there are several reasons given, WMD being one.
I get tired of her dissembling prattle.
Read it, (I'm pretty sure she didn't) H.J. Res. 114 , there are several reasons given, WMD being one.
I get tired of her dissembling prattle.
Do The Mario
Unconfirmed Member
sonicfan said:
What does that make bushies IQ?
A Grape?
sonicfan said:
Unless I'm mis-reading this it seems to me that much of this is related to Iraq's supposed stockpile of WMD's... them supposedly not cooperating with the UN Search team on disclosure of those devices are what many of the UN SC resolutions were about. Interesting opening paragraph that.
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,
radioheadrule83
Banned
If there's one thing I've always believed, it's that there were plenty of reasons you could use for invading Iraq. And I think it should have been done in the early 90s rather than now to save the region the displeasure of two major campaigns. It would have been back when the majority of the world supported it too. But we let a potential Iraqi uprising down.
If the UN wasn't so impotent and crippled by the veto then UNSCR1441 would have been acted on too, and the US wouldn't have had to draft up their own rationale. Ironic that the US is the world's biggest user of the Veto, especially where Isreal Palestine is concerned, and the Veto was what took the legs of their moral high ground over Iraq.
The whole thing has been a fucking mess. While I personally backed the idea of 'liberating' Iraq, and was quite vocally pro-war with people when the idea was first being thrown around - and I still think it was justifiable over the regime's history alone, as well as under UNSCR1441..... but do I think the politicians had the same justifications as me? No. I think their motives and timing were suspect. The abuses, the way the people and the media have been handled -- nothing has gone in their favor really. The lack of a leash on the few idiots out there has endangered the many trying to make a good job of it. I still hope for the best to come out of it. That all of this, somehow, in a way unseen to us now - helps the region. But I really don't know.
Iran next? I'm all for the Mullahs being torn down but fuck that noise. I'll be among those saying "not in my name" next time.
If the UN wasn't so impotent and crippled by the veto then UNSCR1441 would have been acted on too, and the US wouldn't have had to draft up their own rationale. Ironic that the US is the world's biggest user of the Veto, especially where Isreal Palestine is concerned, and the Veto was what took the legs of their moral high ground over Iraq.
The whole thing has been a fucking mess. While I personally backed the idea of 'liberating' Iraq, and was quite vocally pro-war with people when the idea was first being thrown around - and I still think it was justifiable over the regime's history alone, as well as under UNSCR1441..... but do I think the politicians had the same justifications as me? No. I think their motives and timing were suspect. The abuses, the way the people and the media have been handled -- nothing has gone in their favor really. The lack of a leash on the few idiots out there has endangered the many trying to make a good job of it. I still hope for the best to come out of it. That all of this, somehow, in a way unseen to us now - helps the region. But I really don't know.
Iran next? I'm all for the Mullahs being torn down but fuck that noise. I'll be among those saying "not in my name" next time.
radioheadrule83
Banned
If the man didn't have weapons ambitions, why did he hinder progress on inspections for 11 years? Why did he only bend at the sound of several hundred thousand troops at his doorstep? And even then he was non-conciliatory.
The whole UN council acknowledged they were a WMD threat, that's what UNSCR1441 was, and he wouldn't abate that fear.
No wonder people suspected the worst IMO.
Not to mention his regime was raping the people of Oil for Food money, in addendum to his history of their wonderful maltreatment in any case.
The whole UN council acknowledged they were a WMD threat, that's what UNSCR1441 was, and he wouldn't abate that fear.
No wonder people suspected the worst IMO.
Not to mention his regime was raping the people of Oil for Food money, in addendum to his history of their wonderful maltreatment in any case.
Fragamemnon
Member
Iran wouldn't invade-they would just fight a proxy war through Shite militias, destabilizing the country and the regime.
You have to have a LOT of political cover and a LOT of power to actually invade a country in the modern era. Iran doesn't have much of either, and the US looks like it's only got mileage in the ol' Goodwill Of Other Nations tank for one.
You have to have a LOT of political cover and a LOT of power to actually invade a country in the modern era. Iran doesn't have much of either, and the US looks like it's only got mileage in the ol' Goodwill Of Other Nations tank for one.
sonicfan is right; you can criticize the Resolution itself (very easily), but to say that "THIS ISN'T WHAT WE SIGNED" is either ignorant or dishonest, and it won't help Boxer's cause.
And yeah, radioheadrule, I wish we'd finished the job in the early 90s instead of abandoning the place and letting Hussein put down any resistance. That's a simplistic view, I know, but it makes more sense to me than the mess we're in now after letting that pot simmer for a decade.
And yeah, radioheadrule, I wish we'd finished the job in the early 90s instead of abandoning the place and letting Hussein put down any resistance. That's a simplistic view, I know, but it makes more sense to me than the mess we're in now after letting that pot simmer for a decade.
impirius said:
That is my point, you can argue all day how good our intel was, but to say the ONLY REASON we invaded was to get rid of WMDs, is not honest.
But I would argue that it will help Boxer's cause because this is what her base wants her to say, and gets them all fired up.
sonicfan said:
Oh really? Let's go down the list of half-baked, and cynical reasons why we went into Iraq:
WMDs
Oops, our bad.
Human rights violations
If the U.S. were truly concerned about this, we would've taken care of China long ago, and there are much larger bastions of human rights abuses than Iraq.
Saddam had ties to Al-Qaeda
Discredited. While Saddam did "reward" families of suicide bombers in Israel, him doing this was Israel's issue. Nothing about these specific acts constituted a threat to the United States. Also, while Al-Qaeda had bases in Iraq, it is very, very important to note that Saddam didn't control large portions of his own country. That kind of guilt by association implicates the U.S. in working with Al-Qaeda. After all, they were secretly operating on our shores for a few years before they struck.
Saddam was a "Weapon of Mass Destruction"
Complete emotional appeal, but let's address it: Saddam was a tyrant, often compared to a "Poor Man's Stalin." However, the way he treated his people was nothing new to the region, nigh the world. His ambitions, too, were nothing unique. But what he wanted to do - in a perfect world where the entire western world wasn't logging his every move has no bearing on reality. The guy had plans to someday build weapons, not actual weapons. Most of his arsenal was destroyed, spent, or both.
Violations of UN Resolution(s) XXXX
As I said earlier in this thread, Saddam's deceptions were for his own, regional purposes. Like many who've taken Despotism 101, he followed the standard, Machiavellian school of thought that it's better to be feared. As long as countries like Iran thought he was capably armed, they would never consider doing anything. We essentially called his bluff, but also lost a significant amount of credibility in the process. We could have just as easily found out if we let the inspections continue.
In 30 years, we'll have a stable Mideast
Fly that Neocon flag a little higher. "Might makes right!" is the core value of that belief system: that we should not lead by example, but force democracy on everyone through military prowess, damn the consequences, because in the end it'll all work out. It's drastic, it's dangerous, and is based on "hope" and "faith," and doesn't factor in human behavior at all. The Neocon philosophy is the ultimate example of "Hey, it looks great on paper. Let's do this."
None of the "reasons", spelled out or implied, are valid. The United States fucked up in every possible sense and definition of the term. Amazingly, no one has been fired. In fact, some people are being promoted. Like Condi.
We will have a stable middle east when it runs out of oil and not before. There are no other natural resources there. Its population, importance, religious and political problems are entirely an artifice of energy concerns. You will note that nobody lives in the fuckin' Rockies either, post gold rush. In 30 years we might be able to move to some hydrogen-based economy and leave the motherfuckers to rot - then they can be the third world's problem, since they'll be oil-based for longer. They will stop hating America and start hating China, or North Africa.
Israel ain't helping either, mind you.
And quit arguing with Sonic, since he already thinks you hate his freedom. Freedom-haterz.
Israel ain't helping either, mind you.
And quit arguing with Sonic, since he already thinks you hate his freedom. Freedom-haterz.
Tommie Hu$tle
Member
For the record I don't take people like Sonic seriously who want to jack off the prattle that there was some line in the sand that Iraq crossed. You know what you believe that bullshit then why don't you come out here and live it. I have 0 respect for anyone who says that "we" needed to do this when they are perfectly willing to let others do their heavy lifting.
That being said I think Barbara Boxer came off like a fucking tard. You know what we all fucking know the administration is full of shit. Instead of focusing of the fuck ups why don't you focus of the fixings. We all know how the fuck we got here dumbass, why don't you do something incredible and have some fucking foresight and ask how the fuck do we get out and not have something like this happen again. Or maybe ask Rice how she is personally going to change to insure that the President is not given wrong information.
That being said I think Barbara Boxer came off like a fucking tard. You know what we all fucking know the administration is full of shit. Instead of focusing of the fuck ups why don't you focus of the fixings. We all know how the fuck we got here dumbass, why don't you do something incredible and have some fucking foresight and ask how the fuck do we get out and not have something like this happen again. Or maybe ask Rice how she is personally going to change to insure that the President is not given wrong information.
Tommie Hu$tle said:
The problem I see is the current administration doesn't even admit to any wrongdoing... then points to the election as a ratification of what they did was right.... don't get me wrong I love this country for various reason, but give me a f'n break most voters don't have a f'n clue about national or international goings on....
And you do? :/DarienA said:
Threads like these are an interesting resource for euphemisms, btw. Notice how the posters above describe war (i.e., actual, intentional, widespread armed conflict): 'finishing the job', 'taking care of China', etc.
It has been argued that this is in keeping with the essential humanity of the 'American people' - that they have to be deceived, or deceive themselves, to be able to endorse such repulsive measures. I don't subscribe to that view.
Is this the point in the film where I'm supposed to start crying?Belfast said:
I remember you too, 'Belfast'. I remember you for only one thing.
It was the middle of summer. I was pissing about in IRC. You were explaining to me that, although you were an undergraduate at The University of Florida, you deserved a place at Princeton/Harvard/Yale.
And the reason why you didn't apply to those institutions? Finance. Oh, and: 'I wouldn't like it over there'.
That's why I remember you.
I don't know about deserving a place at one of those institutions, but I could've gotten in most likely. I went through the IB program in high school which nigh guarantees entry to any university you want to go to. Many of my classmates went to schools like these, but just as many go to the school I go to now. Why? Because its in-state for us, low cost, we get state scholarship money, and I remain close enough to my family to actually visit them once in awhile. I'm getting a fine education here and I've never been wooed by the supposed advantages of an Ivy League school. I really, honestly don't care about going to one, especially with the added problems of housing, travel, and tuition expenses. I merely meant that I *could* have been accepted should I have applied. Anyway, that was 3 years ago, it doesn't matter now.
Hey, if your boy Bush could score a 1206 (I scored 1410) on the SATs and get into an Ivy League, then I should obviously have no problem, right? Then again, who am I kidding? He didn't get in for his smarts.
Hey, if your boy Bush could score a 1206 (I scored 1410) on the SATs and get into an Ivy League, then I should obviously have no problem, right? Then again, who am I kidding? He didn't get in for his smarts.
Tommie Hu$tle said:
I agree with your first paragraph, but I think you're incorrect in suggesting that "we" know the administration is full of shit, at least if you're referring to the national population. The results of the presidential election show that people don't, or worse, that they don't care if they do know Bush isn't being honest about the situation. Asking how we get out would or other such questions would just be ignored or deflected by Rice, just like how she declined to say when, in any real terms, the troops would be able to come home. Granted that's something of a pointless question to ask, but Rice's answer outlining, to loosely paraphrase, "when the mission is completed" only suggests that we'll continue to see absolute ignorance of any wrongdoing or passing it off to others (it was the U.N.'s faulty intelligence...etc).
The questioning had less to do with getting any real answers out of Rice than for senators in the Foreign Relations Committee to either take a stand or to lay back and pass their approval on Rice.
Minotauro said:
Yep...others would apparantely just bend over and take it up the ass with a two by four. And people call the French pussies...
As for the reasons for the Iraqi war, the reasons signed off on may well have been numerous. The reason sold to America and the entire world for this war was that Iraq had WMD's, and lots of 'em. (and oh yeah, Saddam's also a bad guy!!). And that's a fact.
- Status
Similar threads
- Locked