Condi won the image war against Boxer

<snip>

So it was that Bush's house negro,Condoleeza Rice, was (and continues to be) questioned about her fitness to be Secretary of State. Oh, the right wing media was atwitter at Barbara Boxer's attempt to put some perspective on the greater glorification of Condi, but instead of dealing with any of Boxer's allegations (although this morning, CNN did get Joe Biden's back on the whole number of really, truly trained Iraqi security forces), all the "news" channels played endlessly was Condi's posturing at the end of Boxer's remarks: "Senator, we can have this discussion in any way that you would like. But I really hope that you will refrain from impugning my integrity." Oh, yeah, go, Condi, don't take that smack from some liberal bitch from California (where Condi used to be, you know, Provost of Stanford). As usual, the media acted as if because Rice said it, it must be so. Boxer didn't back down, but Rice won the image war. Never answering a question, never admitting a mistake, rewriting history, and saying that she has integrity: Condi followed the Bush adminstration script to the letter.

Of course, since every Democrat on the committee opened his or her remarks with some variation on "Of course, you're going to be confirmed," much like in the Alberto Gonzales "hearing," the uselessness of the questioning was just this side of pathetic. With confirmation-denial off the table, why in the world would Rice bother fully answering a question? It's like a cop telling a dope dealer, "You're gonna walk out of here today, but tell us who your supplier is."

In his interview with the Washington Post, President Bush said he wasn't going to hold anyone accountable for all the "mistakes" leading to the Iraq war and Abu Ghraib and all that other seemingly criminal crap: "We had an accountability moment, and that's called the 2004 elections." While Ted Kennedy called "bullshit" on that remark the same day it was published, he could have relied on the most absurd moment of all the interviews, when a reporter from USA Today said to Bush, no shit, "You're obviously a student of history." Dude, even when Bush was a student, he wasn't a student of jackshit.

Bush oughta go to the American history textbooks, and maybe just the lil' ol' Constitution he's gonna swear to uphold tomorrow. The Legislative branch is equal to the Executive, according to, well, the document that created those branches. In other words, bitch, you don't get to decide when the "accountability moment" is gonna happen or who or how anyone's held accountable. Sure, Bush himself has a pass until at least 2006, but what about others? What about now?

Senate Democrats on the various committees could simply do this: they could say "No" to Alberto Gonzales, whose written responses to Senate Judiciary Committee members were essentially, "Fuck you" and "Go fuck yourself" and "Shut up, bitches and confirm me," or, more precisely and more frighteningly, that the CIA has free rein to sodomize "detainees" as they see fit. What if the Democrats said, "You know what, Condi, you were fucker-upper in charge, and we don't want you confirmed." The Democrats in the Senate could hold the line that if Bush isn't going to hold anyone accountable, they will. No one's sendin' Condi or Al to jail. It's a simple equation: you need our non-filibustering tacit approval, and if your fuck-ups led to torture and massive losses of life and limb, then, no, the American people don't need your services.

http://rudepundit.blogspot.com/

:argh:

There was once a vibrant press keeping a watchful eye on this nation's democracy and its citizens. We are now saddled with a pack of Bushmoonies.

I cease to care what the media whores say.

...but the three posters above me are kicking it a lot.

Please, please read that post and link again and realise just what it is saying.

Please.

I beg you.

It's not what you first thought.

just venting. the original poster is right on with his observation and analysis.

"win" anything..but has gotten grilled by the best!

Here's a little sample from Senator Chaffee..snipped from http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_topic&forum=132&topic_id=1510471

cestpaspossible (165 posts) Wed Jan-19-05 09:38 PM
Response to Reply #1

6. transcript


SENATOR LINCOLN CHAFEE: It seems to be a hypocritical approach to our foreign policy in some ways, in particular how we deal with some of those democracies such as Russia, Senator Biden said, uneven or undemocratic or some of the Turkmenistan, Uzbekistan, Tajikistan, even Musharraf, President Musharraf, and then on the other hand have a completely different view of, say, Iran, as Senator Biden was saying. It seems to magnify our differences on one hand and on the other hand, we magnify our similarities. In particular after having just come back from South America and meeting with President Chavez. Here he has gone before his people, high, high turnout. Just had a referendum, and as one of the people from our embassy said, they cleaned their clocks and kicked their butts. It seems to me to say derogatory things about him may be disrespectful to him, but also to the Venezuelan people. How do you react to that?

CONDOLEEZZA RICE: Well, I have nothing but good things to say about the Venezuelan people. They are a remarkable people, and if you notice, Senator Chafee, I was not making derogatory comments, I was simply recognizing that there are unhelpful and unconstructive trends going on in Venezuelan policies. This is not personal.

SENATOR LINCOLN CHAFEE: And there aren’t in Tajikistan, Uzbekistan --

CONDOLEEZZA RICE: And we --

SENATOR LINCOLN CHAFEE: -- and Russia and --

CONDOLEEZZA RICE: And we speak out about those.

SENATOR LINCOLN CHAFEE: Pakistan?

CONDOLEEZZA RICE: We speak out about those as well, but some of this is a matter of trend lines and where countries have been, and where they are now going.

SENATOR LINCOLN CHAFEE: Are their governments unconstructive?

CONDOLEEZZA RICE: Well, the Russian government is not unconstructive in a lot of areas. It's quite constructive in many areas. It's been more constructive on Iran in recent years. It is constructive on -- to a certain extent in trying to deal with the kind of Nunn-Lugar issues that we have talked about. It's been constructive in Afghanistan. It's constructive on a number of areas, but that doesn't excuse what is happening inside Russia where the concentration of power in the Kremlin, to the detriment of other institutions, is a real problem. And we will continue to speak to the Russians. I think we do have to remember that it is also not the Soviet Union. The Russians have come quite a long way from where the Soviet Union was, and we need to always keep that in mind when we judge current policies, but where they're going is simply not very good. It is something to be deeply concerned about, and we will speak out. Countries are going to move at different speeds on this democracy test. I don't think there's any doubt about that. But what we have to do is that we have to keep the agenda -- keep this item on the agenda. We have to continue to press countries about it. We have to support democratic forces and civil society forces wherever we can. I would just note that Ukraine, I visited in 2001, not long after I had become National Security Adviser, and I frankly when this happened in Ukraine was pretty stunned by how effective civil society was and how effective the Ukrainian people were in making their voices known. Some of that is because we and the E.U. and others have spent time developing civil society, developing political opposition, working with people, not to have a specific candidate in any of these countries, but to have a political process that's open. And we have to do more of that. We're going to spend some $43 million this year, I believe that's the number, on Russian institutions, trying to help the development of civil society there. We need to do more of that kind of thing, because while we put it on an agenda, while we confront the governments that are engaged in non-democratic activities, we also have to help the development of civil society in opposition.

SENATOR LINCOLN CHAFEE: You and Senator Boxer were having a little bit of a debate over credibility, and to me, it seems as though trust is built with consistency. Is it possible for you to say something positive about the Chavez administration?

CONDOLEEZZA RICE: It's pretty hard, Senator, to find something positive. Let me say this.

SENATOR LINCOLN CHAFEE: I don’t understand that, after Tajikistan --

CONDOLEEZZA RICE: Let me say this.

SENATOR LINCOLN CHAFEE: -- Pakistan, Russia. It seems as though, as I say, magnifying our differences to some countries and magnifying our similarities with others. And as I said, I think trust is built with consistency, and I don't see consistency in some of your comments.

CONDOLEEZZA RICE: The state of behavior in the western hemisphere, the sate of affairs in the western hemisphere, is such that we have had democratic revolutions in all of these places, and we don't want to see them go back. We have some places where the democratic revolution is still to take place. We just have to understand that there are differences in that regard. But I have said, we hope that the government of Venezuela will continue to recognize what has been a mutually beneficial relationship on energy and that we can continue to pursue that. We certainly hope that we can continue to pursue counter-drug activities in the Andean region, and Venezuela participates in that. But I have to say that for the most part, the activities of the Venezuelan government in the last couple of years have been pretty unconstructive.

SENATOR LINCOLN CHAFEE: Well, thank you very much. I'll go back to what I said earlier. It seems disrespectful to the Venezuelan people. They have spoken.

Nobody cares what fascistwing heads have to say!

she's now Secretary of State. You think she cared what a bunch of senators think about her? She doesn't. She put up with them for a day and a half. Scted like she cared what they said and thought, and now she's secretary of state, and they're not.

sos but that doesn't mean shit! she'll just reach higher levels of incompetence.

Rice is as big a liar as Colin Powell. She didn't win anything, she was propped up and handed the job for junior's sake. Who's kidding who?

it probably looked like partisan bickering incited by Barbara Boxer. Of course no one here thinks that because it's not true. Another way to look at it is, the vote was 15-2 or something, so why did John Kerry and Barbara Boxer have a problem with the poor little black girl when no one else did? I agree with you, bush won the image war again.

I luv'd it. Condi was sullen and puffy after Boxer got through.

Rice looked like someone who just failed a polygraph exam.

Sure, she got to her herself speak (or, rather, screech), but did she get anything meaningful out of Condi? No, of course not. Personally, I was far more impressed with Barack Obama, who actually asked thoughtful questions. Frankly, I was waiting for Boxer to start pounding the table and shouting -- "No, YOU'RE out of order. This entire COURT is OUT OF ORDER!!!" What a shameless performance. Al Pacino has nothing on her.

DU is a prime, prime example.