Boxer Busted on Iraq Lie During Condi Confirmation Hearings

www.crushkerry.com (soon to be www.anklebitingpundits.com) ^ | 1/19/05 | www.crushkerry.com (soon to be www.anklebitingpundits.com)

[crushkerry]

The big news today was Michael Moore's favorite Senator Barbara Boxer taking aim at Condi Rice's credibility at today's confirmation hearings. You can go here to read the entire transcript of the exchange. Frankly, these confirmation hearings strike us as a colossal waste of time. Rather than actually question the nominee windbag Senators like Babs go on over the allotted time limit and ask one question. The rest of the time is spent filibustering and hearing themselves bloviate (see especially Biden, Joe).

What was perhaps most infuriating about Boxer's pissy little tirade was that she cited a movie by a hate America lefty called Fog of War as if it were gospel, and had the unmitigated gall to basically call Condi a liar on Iraq. This from a woman who defended Bill Clinton during the Lewinsky matter. True to here nature as nobody's fool, Condi shot back with a wonderful defense of the Iraq war that Boxer, one of the Senate's dimmest bulbs (and that's saying something), probably didn't understand because Condi used words over 2 syllables.

However, in her harangue against everything about President Bush and Iraq, Boxer made a statement that was patently false. Even worse, it's easy to prove as such. And we're not talking about a lie on a little thing either. This is something you have to see, and we're sure won't be reported in the mainstream press, but hey, that's why you have people like us, right?

After Condi had so brilliantly and passionately defended the Iraq war, and the reasoning for it that included cites to reasons other than WMD's, half-wit Boxer smugly made this astounding statement:

BOXER: Well, you should read what we voted on when we voted to support the war, which I did not, but most of my colleagues did. It was WMD, period. That was the reason and the causation for that, you know, particular vote.

In trying to make a point that Condi's own words proved she's a liar Boxer became the proverbial Polish firing squad. (Save the emails Poles, as you probably call it an Italian firing squad, or the Irish call it a "British firing squad). Her very specific words state flatly that the presence of WMD's was the sole reason given in the legislation authorizing the Iraq war.

The only problem for Boxer is that the internet exists, and we can go back and read, and link to, the actual text of the resolution. As you can see we just linked to it, but feel it is important to lay the text of the findings in the actual resolution, with the important parts highlighted. It reads as follows:

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,

Hmm, we might not be California Senators or math majors here at Crushkerry.com but we think Boxer should "read what they voted on", because going through the above we found at least 7 reasons (and we could say more, if one counts "enforcing the UN Security Council Resolutions as non-WMD reason, but we won't), separate and distinct from WMD's cited in the Resolution. Since Boxer (and judging from some of the comments in our stories and forums, left-wing Kos's Kool Aid Drinkers) are unable to read, we're going to make it simple and re-list them here, in case the missed them the first time:

1. Iraq's harboring of Al-Queda terrorists
2. Iraq's support for International Terrorism
3. Iraq's "brutal repression" of its citizens
4. Iraq's failure to repatriate or give information on non-Iraqi citizens detained and captured during Gulf War I, including an American serviceman;
5. Failing to properly return property wrongfully seized during the Kuwait invasion
6. The attempted assassination of former President Bush in 1993
7. America's national security interests in restoring peace and stability to the Persian Gulf

Maybe if Boxer actually went back and read the text of the legislation proposed on such an important issue (you will recall her patron Michael Moore complaining about just that in his fictional America-hating documentary Fahrenheit 9/11) she just might have voted for the war. Yeah right.

But if nothing else this episode shows the lies the far left moon bats are willing to float in order to smear the President and undermine the war effort. Hell, it used to be that Democrats would be smart enough not to lie about things so easily rebutted. But alas, their party is in a position where they can't even lie right anymore.

Oh, and one more thing Senator. Spare us your feigned concern for the troops. Your hatred of this President and the war is so transparent that it is damn near offensive for you to put on the false front of "supporting the troops". What you're doing with your lies is undermining their mission. Honest disagreement is one thing, but your foolishness and bile are certainly playing right into the hands of our enemies - foreign and domestic.

[.cnI redruM]

My personal theory on Boxer....

http://orsa.blogspot.com/2005/01/barbara-boxer-she-has-to-be-gop-plant.html

[TigersEye]

I also don't dispute that violating the airspace, and firing on ground targets, of a sovereign state is also grounds for war - and firing missles at the offending jets isn't an unreasonable response.

Unless of course you have just beaten said sovereign state in war and are actively engaged in enforcing a cease-fire. It is hardly unreasonable to impose sanctions on a nation that you have just subdued in war or to respond decisively to acts of hostility by the loser.

[vbmoneyspender]

Your entire argument is premised on your belief that Hussein was entitled to attack our people (after having entered into a truce where he agreed to not attack our people) even though they were only there to prevent the Kurds and Shiites from being further slaughtered by Hussein. Someone who could hold that belief is probably someone who could also find support for the Japanese attacking us at Pearl Harbor or bin Laden attacking us on 9/11

[Grampa Dave]

This graphic art was created by Phil Dragoo.

[OldFriend]

MSM sins of omission far outweigh their sins of commission.

[carolinacrazy]

Finally? Read my "How Soon We Forget the Reasons for Going to War" story at JackassDemocrats.com. Scroll down to the Colin Powell picture. If anyone pushed these reasons, it was Powell in front of the UN.

[TigersEye]

...the fact remains that the U.S. wasn't acting in accord with U.N. policy in this matter.

Good. There is no compelling reason that we should. UN policy isn't law for anybody.

[TigersEye]

As long as the U.S. remains a member of the organization, it's charter and binding resolutions of the Security Council ... are supreme law in the United States.

No, the Constitution is the supreme law of the U.S. unless you are arguing that we are not a sovereign nation which shoots the legs out from under your entire premise about violating the sanctity of a sovereign nation, ie. Iraq.

Where in the UN charter does it say that a member of the Security Council may not act without UN approval?

[JenniferCrawford]

Boxer is a cow. It did my heart good to watch Condi put her in her place.

[eyespysomething]

1-800-ABC-DEFG

Hooked on Phonics Worked for Me!

I'm still shocked she's admitting that they don't read what their voting on.

Where's the outrage over that?

[TigersEye]

The only question is whether this constitutional provision applies only to individual U.S. citizens or to the state itself.

That may be the only question you have.

Did the UN issue any resolution against imposing and enforcing a No-Fly Zone?

The question should be, by what mechanism is the prinicples of the Charter binding on the U.S., and its citizens, and what are the means of enforcement. And, I think I've answered that.

Yes you did.

It is not as if the U.N. would, or could, sanction the U.S. for violating Iraqi airspace, but those people who do (in violation of the treaty) then loose some of it's protections as alternate guidlines, such as Geneva, are applied to them - for they've become something different that peace loving, non-combatant states.

I guess that's the choice we made then.

Answered or not your entire argument is semantic because IOWs both the U.S. and Iraq had lost their standing with the UN. Iraq was certainly the first to violate their UN Charter obligations when they attacked Kuwait unprovoked.

[Saundra Duffy]

Boxer hypocrite bump

[TigersEye]

Having it be a U.S. only policy was bad ...

Only because you seem to think the UN has some validity in theory. Even in theory it is a ridiculous leftist vision of utopian dream state thinking.

I fault the U.N. for that, for not doing enough after the war.

Why fault the UN? From its inception it has been nothing but a feel-good idea with no basis of real authority. The UN cannot take responsibility for that which it has had no part in creating ie societies, economies, militaries IOWs nations. The sole obligation of any government is to its people which has never been more true than it is of the U.S.. Having taken on the task (no nation risked more, payed more or put more effort towards Gulf WI) the consequences of and the responsibility for the outcome, as victors, fell to the U.S..

We failed in some respects but creating and enforcing the No-Fly Zones, as you admit, was a positive action and an obligation to those people whose lives were endangered by not completely obliterating Saddam and his regime (you've made a lot of not doing unnecessary violence) and to sit back while a completely inept and corrupted consortium of do-nothing bureaucrats debated the philosophy of world governance would have been the height of irresponsibility on our part.

Your mother and sons analogy is wholly inadequate. To accurately reflect the situation one son (Saddam) would have first beaten a neighbors infant child nearly to death after a history of actually killing some of the neighbors kids and a couple of other siblings. The mother (UN) would be a quadruple amputee with multiple personalities and the second son (the U.S.) would have smacked the first son upside the head and forced him into a corner where he still had rocks to throw at other infants in the room. According to you son two would need to either wait until mom had a lucid moment and told him it was OK to keep watch on son one or leave the room and let quad. amp. multi-pers. mom take care of it. That's a lot closer to the reality of it.

[Veritas et equitas ad Votum]

I count the term "United Nations" 18 times in the bill authorizing force against Iraq.

[Victoria Delsoul]

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);

That's right. The main objective of the war in Iraq was to enforce the UN security council resolutions which for 12 years Saddam had blatantly defied – how many times ...16 – 17 times? Plus his use of weapons of mass destruction on his own people, and his strong desire to do us harm. Just the fact that he didn't comply with the UN resolutions should have been enough to go to war.