Thought-Factory.net Philosophical Conversations Public Opinion philosophy.com Junk for code
parliament house.gif
RECENT ENTRIES
SEARCH
ARCHIVES
Commentary
Media
Think Tanks
Oz Blogs
Economic Blogs
Foreign Policy Blogs
International Blogs
Media Blogs
South Australian Weblogs
Economic Resources
Environment Links
Political Resources
Cartoons
South Australian Links
Other
www.thought-factory.net
"...public opinion deserves to be respected as well as despised" G.W.F. Hegel, 'Philosophy of Right'

US: Condoleezza Rice's confirmation hearings « Previous | |Next »
January 21, 2005

CartoonMoir33.jpg
This is a transcript of Sen. Barbara Boxer's remarks and Condoleezza Rice's response at Rice's confirmation hearing. Reading it indicates that the Democrats' bulldog role was assigned to Senator Barbara Boxer.

Remember it was Rice herself who evoked the spectre of the mushroom over the US even though the evidence was weak. Though she now acknowledges that Saddam Hussein had no weapons of mass destruction, Rice's justification for the invasion of Iraq are weak. Try this one:

Saddam Hussein was a threat, yes, because he was trying to acquire weapons of mass destruction. And, yes, we thought that he was -- that he had stockpiles, which he did not have. We had problems with the intelligence. We are all, as a collective polity of the United States, trying to deal with ways to get better intelligence.

Trying to acquire? How does 'trying' constitute a significant threat to the national interest of the US as a superpower? It's a joke as trying to acquire relies on Saddam Hussein being evil to carry all the weight.This is comic-style thinking.

Rice continues on her merry smoke and mirrors way:

But it wasn't just weapons of mass destruction. He was also a place -- his territory was a place where terrorists were welcomed, where he paid suicide bombers to bomb Israel, where he had used Scuds against Israel in the past, and so we knew what his intentions were in the region, where he had attacked his neighbors before and, in fact, tried to annex Kuwait, where we'd gone to war against him twice in the past.
We invaded Iraq to protect Israel!

Gee, I cannot recall that one being mentioned before. How then does a civil war in Iraq, which gives rise to Sunni and Shi'te fundamentalism, protect Israel? That is the US strategic aim is it not--to protect Israel as the dominate regional power?

Nor would Rice acknowledge that Iraq is a mess partly because of the policies of the Bush Administration. Who is she trying to con? Iraq is a basket case.

| Posted by Gary Sauer-Thompson at 10:47 AM | | Comments (6)
Comments

Comments

and this one is good too

".. we'd gone to war against him twice in the past."

We invaded to protect our consistency. They hate our consistencies.

wbb,
dunno why she doesn't come clean with Congress and state it bluntly.

We are an empire. We want a new military footprint in the US. We want to shape the Middle East so that it is supportive of US regional interests.

Would that realism be so difficult to state in today's Washington?

Barbara Boxer made herself look like an complete ass, and I hope she continues to do so. Everyone will see the the Democratic party is in ruins, and come to their senses. The American people already have, who's the president? Condoleezza Rice justified herself and you people only try to make her seem like a moron, when you don't have the whole transcript, or even some of it without your worthless opinion.

Julia,
I linked to that part of the transcript that was in the public arena at the time.It is just below the cartoon so maybe you missed it.

You do not address the post's criticism of Rice: intentions do not constitute a threat to the national security of the US. You actually need weapons and delivery mechanism to make that intention an actuality. There were no weapons of mass destruction.

So we are dealing with fictions, or if you prefer, a noble lie.

Calling my opinion worthless just avoids engaging with the criticism of Rice's thin justification for continuing to occupy Iraq.

Rice's remarks are consistent with the methods of the Bush faction: revisionism. She revises history - even recent history - and recontextualizes events to suit her arguments. It's intellectually bankrupt, insulting, and highly effective. Facts do what she wants them to, regardless of truth. She isn't a moron, but she is very destructive just the same.

Greg,

What is of greater concern than the revisionism of the Bush administration is their failure to devised a coherent strategy toward the Sunnis.They do not seem to understand that such a strategy is needed.The Sunni's are effectively going to be sidelined in the new democratic Iraq run by Shi'ites.

Rice gave little indication of how foreign policy in Bush's second term will be any different from the first term. She talked about the shadow of the future dictating US actions.

How does that answer these two questions:

re Iraq is: —is the US staying, or is plotting to cut and run? Rice gave litle indication whether or not the US would hang the Iraqis out to dry.

Will the US or Israel attack Iran? The rumors say keeping saying yes.

Bush talks a lot about freedom and little about democracy.(Is freedom a code word for democracy for Bush?) So what is the shadow that casts a dark, disturbing gaze at the present; disturbing it even intimidating and determiining it? Is the gaze coming from that outpost of tyranny--Iran?