To the 32 who voted "aye"

Thirty six kids died in Iraq today. For a lie.

One of the people responsible for that lie came before you today.

Your actions told her lying is fine.

Sleep well.

I agree.

:thumbsup:

....was their actually someone more deserving of the promotion? Is there someone out there even better we could have appointed.

I know, we'll waste all our time on this bullshit chinese firedrill and then when something really important comes to the floor - no one will pay attention - they'll think "there they go again!"

I didn't think we could get worse than Ashcroft and we found Gonzalez. I'm sure if Bush was forced to appoint another person for Sec. of State it would have been worse than Rice.

Make sure they are in your thoughts the next time they're up for re-election...

these 32, i will never forget.

After all, that way they will have 85 seats and they can ram through any twisted bullshit legislation they please.

Would it be OK to run Democratic candidates against them in the primaries? This is, after all, what Repubs do when one of their own crosses the line.

I am thinking of Lieberman here - why not run a true Dem against him in the primaries?

No one here (well, at least not me) is suggesting voting them out, but I am suggesting that they behave more like the people whose party they represent.

After all, incumbants have the advantage.

Vote them out in the primaries, if you want. That's fine with me. But just remember that its better to have a Dem who votes with the Repubs one every so often (such as this vote) than a lock-step, Republican stooge who supports them 100% of the time.

However, I think that Walt_Starr mirrors my views on this particular instance when he states that THIS particular vote is the line in the sand.

I have few qualms when Dems and Repubs vote together on issues that affect the so-called common good - while I was no fan of the Welfare Reform Act I can understand (and accept) bi-partisan support of it. In the Rice case however, the facts are clear - she is a demonstrated liar, and is responsible (in part) for every person of any nationality that dies in Iraq.

This being a given, no Democratic Senator should excuse that - none. This is why I feel as strongly about it as I do.

And, given the next 2 years of this mis-administration, I would not be so sure of incumbency equaling re-election. I am betting that if Lieberman gets a real opponent in a primary that Joe-mentum may be history. :)

If Democratic office-holders knew that there were people waiting in the wings to unseat them if they went against their constituency, they might think long and hard before voting with the Repubs....

I hope there's a viable Dem out there to run against Lieberman....as far as I'm concerned, he's crossed the line and joined Zell.

Not these punks who bend over and spread their buttcheeks whenever Bush says boo...

...despite his vote.

I'd rather consider my vote for Carper based on real battles the senate will have like Gonzolez, Social Security and Fundie Judges who receive lifetime appointments.

The U.S. Senate voted 85-13 Wednesday to confirm Condoleezza Rice as Secretary of State. Here are the 13 senators who voted against her confirmation:

Barbara Boxer, D-Calif.
Robert Byrd, D-W.Va.
Edward Kennedy, D-Mass.
John Kerry, D-Mass.
Carl Levin, D-Mich.
James Jeffords, I-Vt.
Jack Reed, D-R.I
Mark Dayton, D-Minn.
Daniel Akaka, D-Hawaii
Evan Bayh, D-Ind.
Frank Lautenberg, D-N.J.
Tom Harkin, D-Iowa
Richard Durbin, D-Ill.

They're putting it on the line for a principle, for a vote that in the cold calculus of Washington ultimately "won't matter." It matters to me. I want everyone to remember these five. When Feingold and Feinstein and Inouye and Nelson and Leahy and Obama were playing it safe and "picking their fights carefully," these 13 said wrong is wrong and the dissenting party's job is to goddamn well dissent.

My Senator voted against the war, and has consistently spoken out against it over the past two years. He's worked to expose Halliburton, earning Cheney's famous remarks. Today, as ranking minority member on the Judiciary he shepherded through a unanimous no vote on Gonzales. Does he really deserve more scorn than say, Bayh, who's been quite supportive of bushco on many issues?

then that's what we all said way back when they all voted for the "Iraq War Resolution", I'm in awe. How far we have fallen.

I've got to go.

n/t

Walt Starr said it best about his own new Senator Obama. The line has been drawn in the sand. Rhetoric vs action.

The total "ayes" was 85. The 53 Republicans and 32 Democrats are equally responsible for ratifying and perpetuating the lies of the murderous Bu$h regime.

Sleep well, indeed.

Can we send it as a group?? It is beautiful. Is there anyway we can send this to the Republicans too??? Why let them off the hook??

If anyone else is willing to sign on to it, I will send it to all 32.

Perhaps a thread should be started about it.

Sending something as a group, I mean.

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

that facts would be wasted on you.

But can you justify killing many thousands more people for revenge? This punitive action won't bring anybody back.

It will sound really close to what you wrote...

and NONE of the administration made that claim at the time -- why didn't we leave 30 days after he was captured?

... and killing 100,000 innocent Iraqi civilians (so far) is the BEST RESPONSE THE WORLDS ONE REMAINING SUPERPOWER CAN COME UP WITH.

Go to hell you fucking idiot.

That's disingenuous garbage.

or his minions.

So it's OK if Rice, Goering, Gonzales, Speer, Rumsfeld, Hess, or Himmler lies.

ESPECIALLY if it is in the service of defeating the Enbemies of the State like the Jews, errr, Liberals.

(sorry, sometimes I get my various Totalitarian Incarnations mixed up with one another)

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

The Allies were already at war with Germany when the systematic physical destruction of the Jewish people commenced. I would say that constitutes taking action.

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

A number of Jews perished as a result of discriminatory measures in the Third Reich. However, I am referring to the systematic murder of the Jewish race, which did not begin until the mobilization against the Soviet Union, and the operative plan for genocide wasn't resolved upon until the Wannsee Conference. We obviously should have stopped Hitler before he annexed Poland, as soon as his true imperial ambitions became clear, but it would have been extremely difficult to justify unleashing total war based solely on discriminatory measures, due to the fact that practices by the Allies originally inspired them.

So then, are you suggesting that we are justified in invading and occupying a country, for poison gassing that occurred more than a decade prior? You cannot intervene retroactively; the time when it would have even been possible has long since passed.

Anyway, if this was indeed Bush's agenda, it would have been nice if he had mentioned it when he said in the debates that he wasn't into "nation-building" and thought that interventionist foreign policy was "arrogant".

It would have also been nice if he had permitted the inspectors to complete their mission. But then, everybody would have known the truth, wouldn't they?

Your post is a total non sequitur.

Please elaborate.

and the impulse to answer you with sarcasm. I've decided to take another approach. Do you really believe that Saddam is one of the worst dictators in hx? He's not. He's a loathsome dime a dozen dictator. And for quite a while he was OUR loathsome little dictator. When he gassed the Kurds, the Congress refused to pass a statement condemning his action. When he killed the Shiites after the first Gulf War, we stood by silently.

Why not find out the truth about our history with Saddam? What do you have to lose?

I wish I'd said it. :)

... that Saddam was so horrible, what should be the punishment for the people who PUT HIM IN POWER IN THE FIRST PLACE?

Yeah, that's what I thought.

so how does it make us any better.

Welcome to DU! Enjoy your stay! (All 40 minutes of it.)

:hi:
dbt

:) :)

And yes that is FRENCH!

... attaches itself to each of the sellouts who voted to confirm the woman whose lies helped to dig their graves.

:nuke:

I am so disappointed in Ron Wyden, I can hardly stand it. He's become a real appeaser for the Repubs. I'm surprised he doesn't fall over when he walks, his spine has become so wobbly.

Ron WYDEN voted for Rice???
Unfucking REAL! That's so sad...he's one of my Senators- I've volunteered for him! He's a great man and a great liberal...oh man...

We're getting upset over an appointee that wouldn't have made a difference to whomever Bush appointed. Heck, I always thought Ashcroft was a horrible choice and yet Bush amazes us by finding even worse out there.

Instead of getting upset those who voted to appoint Rice, let's worry about stuff that we can actually make a long term difference with. Rice's nomination won't change a thing - we got our day on the floor to call her a liar now time to move on to more important battles

It is the inabilty of the Dems to produce a spine when it mattered most.

You are, of course, correct in your statements. I brought up the 36 as a metaphor for future Bush decisions, for if we do not make the stand now that 36 will be 46 tomorrow.

What the confirmation of Rice does is allows Bush to get even more brazen the next time. As I said in a post yesterday, he is building the beast, and today we did nothing to stop him.

We must make our voices heard - every time. It must be one voice - loud, strong and unanimous. It is, I fear, our only hope.

NT!

BushCo enablers . . . any notion that they are part of the opposition is now officially nonsense . . .

They're not useless. I disagree totally with their votes. But saying their opposition is "officially nonsense" because of this one vote is obviously overblown rhetoric. I guarantee you Schumer and Clinton each will come around to saying or doing something anti-Bush enough in the coming months to make you proud again.

We don't know that they traded nothing for their votes. We don't know what their political strategies are. I'm pissed at their votes (since as a Texan I have no actual senators to be disappointed in--only senators who confirm my suspicions on a regular basis). But there will be other fights. The Rice vote was unwinnable. If they're saving their shots to defeat the Social Security fraudulence, it'll be worth it.

it's vote after vote after vote . . . starting with the Patriot Act through giving Bush authorization to invade Iraq and extending right up through the recent budget vote . . . just once I'd like to seen the Democrats -- AS A PARTY -- oppose BushCo . . . on anything . . . just once . . .

everything else Bush has done and you have the nerve to bash him. Shame on you.

And, for about the millionth time, I AM NOT BASHING.

I am saying to everyone who voted "aye' that this was a time to stand on principle.

They did not do it in this case.

Do you not think that all of us, as responsible citizens, should not raise a hue and cry to our elected Representatives that this "aye" vote now gives Bush carte blanche to push the envelope even further?

He will, of course, because by not making a stand now we will get branded as obstructionists when he brings the next piece of swill in front of the Senate.

Again, let me say I commend Feingold for previous actions, and condemn him for this.

Why do you give him a pass? Would it not make sense to write him and ask him why, after a history of progressive and enlightened votes, did he make sure a terrible error in judgment? Would he not want to hear from you on that?