CONDI vs. BOXER (the actual transcript)

Crosswalk ^ | 1.28.2004

[KMC1]

The complete transcript of Boxer vs. Rice from today's hearings are posted here. It is quite lengthy thus why I am linking to it directly. But it is well worth the read of the entire thing.

[Hillarys Gate Cult]

Looking at Boxer, Kennedy, Kerry, Michael Moore, and all, it's no wonder some people in the rest of the world think Americans are stupid and arrogant.

[Just Lori]

I used to be a rat too and agree with you completely, but don't bother sending it. Boxer doesn't care. Now, let that get you angry enough to do something about defeating rats.



ANGRY?? MOI??? I live in Washington State. You have no IDEA what ANGRY is! The rats have stolen an election here, but we are NOT letting them get away with it!

[Mo1]

FYI Ping

[cajun scpo]

Everything Condi Rice and President Bush said is perfectly logical when taken in the proper context. Senator Boxer must have been getting her talking points and quotes from “Media Matters’. They are notorious for taking quotes out of context.

http://archives.cnn.com/2002/ALLPOLITICS/09/08/iraq.debate/
From CNN: Here is how Rice used ‘mushroom cloud’ on Sep. 8, 2002.

Sources say Iraqi defectors who used to work for Iraq's nuclear weapons "industry" tell administration officials Iraq's top priority is acquiring nuclear arms.

Rice acknowledged that "there will always be some uncertainty" in determining how close Iraq may be to obtaining a nuclear weapon but said, "We don't want the smoking gun to be a mushroom cloud."

So when Condi Rice was correct on PBS and Senator Boxer was wrong [as usual] in her statement today:

BOXER: On July 30th, 2003, you were asked by PBS NewsHour's Gwen Ifill if you continued to stand by the claims you made about Saddam's nuclear program in the days and months leading up to the war.

In what appears to be an effort to downplay the nuclear-weapons scare tactics you used before the war, your answer was, and I quote, "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." So that's what you said to the American people on television -- "Nobody ever said it was going to be the next year."

Well, that wasn't true,...... [yes it was].

http://www.whitehouse.gov/news/releases/2002/10/20021007-8.html

Here is how President Bush used “in a year” in Cincinnati on Oct. 7, 2002. Said we don’t know, but can’t trust Saddam and why. He said “IF” ………

Many people have asked how close Saddam Hussein is to developing a nuclear weapon. Well, we don't know exactly, and that's the problem. Before the Gulf War, the best intelligence indicated that Iraq was eight to ten years away from developing a nuclear weapon. After the war, international inspectors learned that the regime has been much closer -- the regime in Iraq would likely have possessed a nuclear weapon no later than 1993. The inspectors discovered that Iraq had an advanced nuclear weapons development program, had a design for a workable nuclear weapon, and was pursuing several different methods of enriching uranium for a bomb.

Before being barred from Iraq in 1998, the International Atomic Energy Agency dismantled extensive nuclear weapons-related facilities, including three uranium enrichment sites. That same year, information from a high-ranking Iraqi nuclear engineer who had defected revealed that despite his public promises, Saddam Hussein had ordered his nuclear program to continue.

The evidence indicates that Iraq is reconstituting its nuclear weapons program. Saddam Hussein has held numerous meetings with Iraqi nuclear scientists, a group he calls his "nuclear mujahideen" -- his nuclear holy warriors. Satellite photographs reveal that Iraq is rebuilding facilities at sites that have been part of its nuclear program in the past. Iraq has attempted to purchase high-strength aluminum tubes and other equipment needed for gas centrifuges, which are used to enrich uranium for nuclear weapons.

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. And if we allow that to happen, a terrible line would be crossed. Saddam Hussein would be in a position to blackmail anyone who opposes his aggression. He would be in a position to dominate the Middle East. He would be in a position to threaten America. And Saddam Hussein would be in a position to pass nuclear technology to terrorists.

Some citizens wonder, after 11 years of living with this problem, why do we need to confront it now? And there's a reason. We've experienced the horror of September the 11th. We have seen that those who hate America are willing to crash airplanes into buildings full of innocent people. Our enemies would be no less willing, in fact, they would be eager, to use biological or chemical, or a nuclear weapon.

And ‘Brickhead’ blows it again on the Joint Resolution to authorize using force against Iraq.

SEN. 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.

http://news.findlaw.com/hdocs/docs/iraq/hjiraqres100902.html

From H. J. RES 114. 10 Oct 2002. Sure seems to be more than WMD in the resolution. Maybe if Boxer had read it, she would have voted for it.

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 end its support for international terrorism;

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 ……… [did not have to be DIRECT threat today to USA]

Whereas Iraq persists in violating resolution of the United Nations Security Council by continuing to engage in brutal repression of its civilian population [those 300,000 in graves] 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 [CDR Scott Speicher], and by failing to return property wrongfully seized by Iraq from Kuwait;

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 [Northern & Southern Watch] engaged in enforcing the resolutions of the United Nations Security Council;

Whereas Iraq continues to aid and harbor other international terrorist organizations [Hammas], including organizations that threaten the lives and safety of United States citizens;

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 ………… repression of its civilian population [300,000 graves] in violation of United Nations Security Council Resolution 688 (1991), ……….

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;

[RightOnTheLeftCoast]

Dear Sen. Boxer,

If ever I should wonder why I'm a former Democrat, your performance today at Dr. Rice's confirmation hearings should serve to remind me. Hectoring, shallow, disrespectful, nasty, poorly-informed, partisan and ill-mannered hardly describe your comportment. I am embarrassed for you, and by you.

[signature]

[DaughterOfAnIwoJimaVet]

That one left a mark.

[Eva]

Didn't you hear? They're doing a makeover of the Democrat party, they don't want to be donkeys anymore. They're going to be junk yard dogs, boxers to be specific.

[Just Lori]

Yep! Yep! Yep! I KNEW you were special!

[MJY1288]

I recorded the whole hearing on my DVD recorder. I knew it would be a keeper :-)

[John Lenin]

Remember when being a democrat meant hating the government ? Now the RATS ARE the government and we see what a mess they made. The hypocrisy of the liberal/demoRAT movement is astounding, they went from the party that stuck up for the opressed to the party who sees opression and censorship as the way to their goals.

[smoothsailing]

I Protest!

My first dog was a boxer, and a fine lady she was.

I get your joke, but any dog of any breed is far superior to the fool from California.

[goldstategop]

Having read the exchange, it reminds me that Senator Boxer and the Democrats don't get it about the Iraq War. They think we went in to find weapons of mass destruction. The truth is we went in principally to remove a dangerous regime that might employ WMD against our country and our allies at some point in the future. Everything about Saddam Hussein and his conduct gave our leaders reason to believe that he harbored hostile designs against America. Actually, in the past two years, the picture of the Sunni terrorist insurgency has revealed the people killing our troops would have done even worse had they remained in power. Sure, the killing goes on in Iraq but our enemies are out of power and not in a position to employ the resources of a state against us. So back to Sen. Boxer's diatribe: in view of all that happened, do I consider the war to have been worth it? Yes! We are definitely more secure today. That's not to say we don't face new dangers - but they are ones that are completely mangeable. In short the difference between Sen. Boxer and the magnificent response of Dr. Rice and most Americans like myself, comes down to this one point: Sen. Boxer and her fellow Democrats were prepared to live with a continuing and deadly threat to America. We Republicans were not. So when it comes to national security, that's exactly why the American people are not prepared to entrust the Democrats with power again.

[Once-Ler]

The rats have stolen an election here, but we are NOT letting them get away with it!

I feel for you. The rats cheat here too. I wish you the best of luck getting a new election but I think you've got an up hill climb with your State Supreme Court.

[Just Lori]

Maybe so, but we have the truth on our side!

[Mo1]

I gotta get me one of them DVD recorder ... the CD's are easier to store for safe keeping :0)

[Valin]

Bump and bookmark

[ALOHA RONNIE]

.

Today was all about the 2008 Presidential Election.

BOXER =

HILLARY Attack Dog against HILLARY's 2008 Opponent

BOXER/HILLARY =

On the side of HO CHI MINH, and against us, during the Vietnam War

The Enemy is now Within...
and always has been.

.

[Libertina]

She said Boxer looked like a baglady with frumpy hair and Condi saw no reason to put up with that.
ROTFLOL I like your wife!

[Shortstop7]

Perfect! Gawd, I hate that beastly woman.