View Full Version : Senator Boxer toughs it out with Condi Rice
24th January 2005, 16:51
Here's a lady who speaks clearly and I have time for irrespective if she is right or wrong. She argues well and honestly as far as I can detect but ya never know with politicians. Senator Boxer in U.S. Secretary of State nominee's hearings ([Only registered and activated users can see links]). She and Sen. Kerry were the two votes against Rice's confirmation.
Colin Powell stood on a front line in Vietnam and knew the Hell of war. He argued ceaselessly against or to limit American involvement in Iraq to save U.S. military lives and reduce political risks. He was obliged to present cooked-up WMD evidence at the UN Security Council: it turned out to be false even fake. He tried to give an independent opinion before the neo-cons. I hope Condi doesn't turn out to be someone's poodle or puppet...for the U.S. military's sake...
26th January 2005, 02:54
Bonjour Eagle Eye,
The Iraqi WMD evidence was real and verified. It obliged the US to "tone down" this matter ASAP because the WMD evidence was Israeli provided. The repercussions became unbearable to the US.
Iraqi WMD were mostly biological/chemical. With their history record of launches gainst Saudi Arabia and Israel in Gulf War I, the issue had to be addressed and camouflaged.
Don't forget the work products of Canadian engineer, the late Gerald Bull. Some of his delivery vehicles and projectiles are still in the unknown list.
Secretary of State Rice is being groomed as a counter to Senator Hillary Clinton. It doesn't take much grooming to go after Hillary. The only thing Hillary has is Wall Street money. It's getting interesting.
26th January 2005, 03:13
Chemical WMDs was verifiable (WMD technology with delivery systems). Saddam's big mistake was to have used them in the first place against Kurds and Iran (plus to accept German and French credits to arm himself with NBC technology and stockpiles); and then to shroud their use in a psychological threat against his own people (and then the world) despite getting rid of all/most of them in the early '90s during UN inspections. This was the core and verifiable pretext and precedent-in-one. My two cents...
Then, the real scandal was that this chemical WMD threat was transformed/confused by a 'magic wand' into the 45-minute nuclear attack threat with wafer-thin credibility and sham in the end...
The outcome was best surmised by Blair's statement to British troops in Iraq when he said "..the search for Weapons of Mass Distraction..". Even the Beeb reporter commented: "He said it..":a bit of a slip up.
Does anyone have access to the entire transcript of the Senate hearings including Senator Boxer's role ? Interesting perspectives and revealing exchanges here...
26th January 2005, 04:36
The Iraqi WMD evidence was real and verified. It obliged the US to "tone down" this matter ASAP because the WMD evidence was Israeli provided. The repercussions became unbearable to the US.Bob, I don't get it. Pdt Bush himself even recently admitted that the search for WMD in Iraq was discontinued because nothing had been found and nothing would be found.
26th January 2005, 04:39
Re: [Only registered and activated users can see links]
Bonjour Eagle Eye,
I believe the above links to the first part of the hearings. The 2nd part is at the same site if not linked.
3rd February 2005, 12:56
Bob, I don't get it. Pdt Bush himself even recently admitted that the search for WMD in Iraq was discontinued because nothing had been found and nothing would be found.As Bob hinted at, the truth and its implications were/are quite formidable. "Nothing had been found and nothing would be found" does not mean that there was and is nothing. Those "WMD" are absolutely in Syria/Lebanon (buried most likely in Ba'al Bek area, which also has some other interesting things going on there like massive drugs production). Let us recall that at some point Bush said that Osama Bin Laden is not a priority anymore (after earlier saying 'Dead or Alive', etc.)
The US Secretary of State did not get 'fooled into' displaying some false documents in the UN; he insisted upon doing so (his agenda as he clearly admits regarding the war in Iraq was to have a UN-sanctioned multinational force rather than the US in 'defiance' of 'the world'). Please be mindful of the fact that Powell has political plans of his own, and the fact is that a 'moderate Republican' who was a General, and got 'fooled' by those 'bible-thumpers' has a very popular standing in the US (particularly when the presidential election comes up again in 4 years - wouldn't it be interesting to see a Condi-Collin run at the presidency and vice presidency...).
France and Germany most likely had the same (true) intelligence (not that BS Powell tried to play with in the UN), if not more and better. The fact that they avoided expending personnel and capital on the Iraq situation, does not and did not preclude them from participating in various contracts available there (in Iraq), due to the US military ousting the power structure.
Russia is now getting close to Syria again ('forgiving' a massive military debt, for example) and calculating re-arming/upgrading Syria's military. This is clearly to counter-balance the US's seemingly growing involvement in the entire mid-east, and US manipulation of oil-republics in (eastern) Russia.
Political considerations/manipulations have no relations to facts (except how to 'disappear' the ones that can't be 'spun' properly).
The truth in these matters will become evident either inevitably, or because of expedient utility, then will be promptly ignored by the majority of the public, as usual.
In any case, as should be obvious, countries operate either out of national interests (rarely) or, depending upon the country and its politicians, out of personal avarice at the behest of their 'backers' (financial and otherwise).
3rd February 2005, 16:24
The truth in these matters will become evident either inevitably, or because of expedient utility, then will be promptly ignored by the majority of the public, as usual.By some accounts, segments if not the majority of the American people still think there are WMDs in Iraq irrespective of the recent findings by the CIA to the contrary...
In any case, as should be obvious, countries operate either out of national interests (rarely)...surely, you mean 'most of the time' rather than 'rarely'...
Those "WMD" are absolutely in Syria/Lebanon (buried most likely in Ba'al Bek area, which also has some other interesting things going on there like massive drugs production...The Beka valley in the Lebanon also had/has a reputation for poppy growing and opium production.
Finally, here's the 'rush' transcript of the U.S. Senate's hearings on the nominee to the State Department:
Condoleezza Rice's nomination hearings ([Only registered and activated users can see links])
4th February 2005, 04:53
By some accounts, segments if not the majority of the American people still think there are WMDs in Iraq irrespective of the recent findings by the CIA to the contrary...The key phrase is IN Iraq, rather than acquired/produced by Iraq. The WMD was removed prior to the US attack. Of course the CIA reports there are no WMD in Iraq (because there aren't any now).
surely, you mean 'most of the time' rather than 'rarely'...The Beka valley in the Lebanon also had/has a reputation for poppy growing and opium production.Notice how the Beka valley had a reputation, but it is not 'newsworthy' now. I wouldn't be suprised, EagleEye, if your knowledge of this fact comes mainly (if not exclusively) from your experience in Lebanon (rather than the mass media). Another example, Israel uncovered underground military complexes during the 1982 Operation Peace For Galilee (in Lebanon), basically impenetrable by air power, containing enough equipment, arms and supplies for at least 1 million troops, as well as business records linking the PLO to 'international terrorism movements' (such as the Irish Republican Army, interestingly enough) and various forms of international corruption (when all anyone seems to have heard about that war was Sabra and Shatila).
Finally, in terms of national interests, I do mean 'rarely' (does a country operate out of this motive). I define 'national interests' as what is clearly to a country's long-term general benefit (to the country and its citizens), rather than narrow interests (monetary or personal) of its leader(s). They are generally not interchangeable, and generally the 'monetary/personal' interests are 'sold' to the public as "What's good for the country".
And to get back 'on thread', interestingly enough, Condi Rice, when she was an executive with Chevron (oil), had an oil tanker named after her (but they changed the name when it became known, after she had 'gone political').
4th February 2005, 05:37
In a very interesting slip of the tongue, Condi once referred to Bush as her husband rather than her boss. Makes ya wonder ;)
4th February 2005, 08:23
(Attn: Patrick: Has missed your post last week. I try to answer all my "mail". Please excuse. B.W.)
Speaking of tankers, the entire mosaic has a clear pattern. Two years after the USS Cole was attacked, the French super tanker Limburg (owned by Euronav) was attacked and 1 crew member murdered.
The attack on the Limburg related to planned attacks on the US Ambassador to Sana's life, the embassies of the US, Germany, France, UK and Cuba in Sana, Yeman.
Thus, the security industry is a growth field. A lot of wannabes get attracted to the security industry but if not knowing the military skills from experience, the world treats them like mom with 10 kids in Ghana.
4th February 2005, 09:09
in a very interesting slip of the tongue, Condi once refered to Bush as her husband rather than her boss. Makes ya wonder ;)...and still available with her cute ass....Ok, guys, start typing yer love "Dear Condi,..." letters and give her the tongue for me...
Powered by vBulletin® Version 4.2.0 Copyright © 2013 vBulletin Solutions, Inc. All rights reserved.