Sen. Boxer Screws Up, Again
Like many, I listened yesterday to Hugh Hewitt’s excerpts of Sen. Barbara Boxer’s grandstanding at the expense of Dr. Condoleezza Rice. It didn’t sound right to me when Boxer said:
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.
Somebody did read what they voted on, and it turns out that it wasn’t “WMD, period.” Here is the text of the resolution; you can read it yourself. There are at least 7 separate justifications for the war set forth in the resolution.
Here’s the really funny part. Sen. Boxer actually had the nerve to say to Dr. Rice:
I personally believe — this is my personal view — that your loyalty to the mission you were given, to sell this war, overwhelmed your respect for the truth. And I don’t say it lightly, and I’m going to go into the documents that show your statements and the facts at the time.
Ironic, huh?
My message to Sen. Boxer is this:
I personally believe — this is my personal view — that your loyalty to the mission you were given by your staff, to embarrass Condoleezza Rice, overwhelmed your respect for the truth. Which, let’s face it, didn’t really exist to begin with.
And I don’t say it lightly.
You should hear what she’s saying this morning. I had to turn her off because I got tired of waiting for a question….
Comment by caltechgirl — 1/19/2005 @ 7:09 am
Thirty million Californians, and we send this one?
Comment by Kevin Murphy — 1/19/2005 @ 8:34 am
Hey, don’t blame me! I voted for Jones. Rumor has it that three or four other guys did, too.
Comment by Xrlq — 1/19/2005 @ 8:41 am
Yeah, Bill and his wife.
Comment by The Angry Clam — 1/19/2005 @ 8:42 am
Rice Confirmation Mini-Roundup
Like most of you, I have better things to do with my day than watch the Secretary of State confirmation hearings (such as my job, or alphabetizing my socks). Still, the news clips shown last night on the various cable news outlets all seemed to show …
Trackback by Confederate Yankee — 1/19/2005 @ 8:51 am
I’m one Californian who remembers Babs Boxer’s involvement in the House post office check kiting scam in the early 90s. She has incredible nerve questioning ANYONE’s integrity! She is one scary politician…but what’s even scarier is that people actually voted for her.
Comment by Ann — 1/19/2005 @ 9:12 am
Patterico, Feb 4, 2004:
WMD AND JUSTIFICATIONS
“Steve at Begging to Differ has an interesting post on the theory that WMD were not the main justification for the Iraq war. Steve went searching for proof that this theory was valid, and concluded that it is not.
Memo to conservatives: give this up! Yes, other arguments were advanced. No, they were not the main reason we went to war. Failure to find WMD is a real issue. Stop pretending otherwise.”
Comment by m.croche — 1/19/2005 @ 9:21 am
M. Croche,
Saddam did not provide doumentation to prove that he destroyed WMDs HE ADMITTED HAVING at the end of Gulf War 1.
That Saddam had WMDs was never at issue: he admitted it openly. What he did (or failed to do) with the weapons he admitted having was the justification for the war.
Can you follow that?
Comment by Confederate Yankee — 1/19/2005 @ 9:33 am
American conservatism - Taking us to war and occupation because dictators can’t prove to our satisfaction that they do not have weapons of mass destruction.
Comment by Cody — 1/19/2005 @ 11:10 am
Wait, wait, this is funnier:
The Seven Inarguable Non-WMD Invasion Justifications
“1. Iraq’s harboring of Al-Queda terrorists”
DEMONSTRABLY UNTRUE
“2. Iraq’s support for International Terrorism”
WHICH IS WHY THE WAR ENDED TERRORISM, RIGHT?
“3. Iraq’s “brutal repression” of its citizens”
THAT WAS NOTHING COMPARED TO WHAT WE CAN DO!
“4. Iraq’s failure to repatriate or give information on non-Iraqi citizens detained and captured during Gulf War I, including an American serviceman;”
THAT’S WORTH AT LEAST ANOTHER THOUSAND LIVES!
“5. Failing to properly return property wrongfully seized during the Kuwait invasion”
FAILURE TO RETURN PROPERTY! MAKE THAT TWO THOUSAND LIVES.
“6. The attempted assassination of former President Bush in 1993″
KILL THEM ALL!!
“7. America’s national security interests in restoring peace and stability to the Persian Gulf.”
THE SUN’LL COME OUT….TOMORROW!!
Comment by Cody — 1/19/2005 @ 11:19 am
“American conservatism - Taking us to war and occupation because dictators can’t prove to our satisfaction that they do not have weapons of mass destruction.”
Cody you’ve pointed out a true paradox indeed. You’re absolutely right, there was nothing inherently “conservative” about the Iraq war. It was a rather liberal endeavor, in fact, in the true sense of the word.
Which has always made it perplexing to me that so many self-proclaimed “liberals” were so dead-set against it.
Comment by Blixa — 1/19/2005 @ 11:43 am
Blixa, liberals believe in spreading democracy peacefully. It may take a little longer but it works and it saves a lot of lives. Lying to get into a war so you could show up daddy is not a liberal value.
Comment by Kirill Nils Senior — 1/19/2005 @ 12:00 pm
Kirill, are you really, sincerely asserting that liberals believed in “spreading democracy peacefully”… to Iraq? By what, uh, conceivable mechanism? Or is it just that liberals talk about spreading democracy peacefully. Is that the same thing?
Also, explain this “works” thing. How/when has it “worked”? I feel kind of silly asking these questions in response to such a post; please disregard & forgive, if your post (as the “daddy” sentence seems to indicate) was just puerile and unserious snark to let off steam.
Comment by Blixa — 1/19/2005 @ 12:06 pm
Serious, non-peurile snark to let off steam. Eastern Europe is a good example. Reagan didn’t do it. Years of secretly listening to VOA, reading samizdat some of which was sent in from pro-democracy voices, professor exchanges, etc. The Soviet Union came apart from the inside and it was thanks to the self-destructive economics of the place and voices of democracy exposing people to the truth. East Germany, Hungary, Poland, et alii, all succumbed to the same.
Comment by Kirill Nils Senior — 1/19/2005 @ 12:14 pm
Patterico:
Your “Here” link to the original text of the resolution no longer works (I assuming it once worked.)
Kirrill, I’ve had that - um - discussion with friends of mine in Amsterdam. Their position was that talk, aid and diplomacy has historically worked. We explored that position looking for examples.
Yugoslavia? USSR? Cuba? Germany? Japan? Rwanda? Sudan? ‘91 Iraq?
I’m unsure whether the current effort is going to work, but I am relatively certain that diplomacy solidifies and supports existing regimes and does not encourage dramatic change.
Comment by John Lynch — 1/19/2005 @ 12:16 pm
Kirill: And “liberals” were out in front as the ones in favor of all that, right? Moreover, Afghanistan (what was the “liberal” position on US actions vis-a-vis Afghanistan, I wonder?) had nothing to do with anything regarding the eventual fate of the Soviet Union.
To return to clarify my original comment, I’m certainly not saying that a liberal position would shun peaceful democratic promotion, where possible. However, that is something of a non sequitur since there was no such possibility, by any stretch of the imagination, in Iraq. The U.S. invaded Iraq and ousted its autocratic ruling regime. Obviously, honorable people may differ on whether that ought to have been done. But opposing it was not recognizably “liberal” per se. That is all I am saying here.
Comment by Blixa — 1/19/2005 @ 12:30 pm
I am a specialist in Soviet Affairs and live here in Kiev. Having spoken to many a former leader from the old Soviet Union, I can tell you that Reagan’s bluster, at first, solidified support for the regime here. The people rarely believed their leaders here especially after hearing for years that America wanted war with them and seeing no evidence of it. All of a sudden in comes this belligerent actor into the White House putting new missiles into Germany and the people said, “Wait a minute. They’ve been telling us the truth.” The extreme military expenditure by the US helped speed up the economic decline of the USSR if only because it spooked the political leaders into spending more of what their bankrupt system didn’t have. The military leaders were more afraid of Carter, however, because they had no idea what he was up to since he didn’t give them anything to go on prior to assuming the White House. Amazing that, eh? With Reagan they were more comfortable because, while a bit more blustery, he continued the same rhetoric that had been going on since the Second World War.
In Iran, now, support has solidified for the mullahs, no matter how terrible they actually are, because of the US threat against that country. A few years ago, there was talk in intelligence and academic circles specializing in this region that we could see an end to that regime due to internal dissent and dissatisfaction by the end of this decade. Now, they are saying it will take quite a bit longer because the people are afraid.
Comment by Kirill Nils Senior — 1/19/2005 @ 12:31 pm
Kirill,
Your post and mine passed each other in the internet ether.
My Dutch friends believed that the eastern block collapse was due to money. Massive amounts of spending on our part; while failures of the centrally planned economy on their part limited their ability to match our spending.
Industries failed, military became disillusioned, foreign satellite client states under supported; collapse followed.
I guess if we have the long-haul patience and massive tens of trillions and an adversary of that standing again, we can use the technique again.
However, while the lessons learned are important, the argument leads nowhere. What started the war is rearview decision-making at this point. The findings on the ground: mass murder and burials; the deprivations through state corruption; the gathering of Islamic fundamentalists from many places; each of these provide justification to finish. The possible positive changes in the region remain worthy as well.
Comment by John Lynch — 1/19/2005 @ 12:31 pm
Blixa, the war in Afghanistan helped hurt the USSR economically but until people realized glasnost was for real, it didn’t have a public effect. Once people realized they were free to protest, it certainly had an impact. The point is, though, that the system had been in collapse since the end of Khruschev due to more repression in the immediate ascendance of Brezhnev (eased up quite a bit in the mid/late-70s, though.
The idea that the war was about liberating people certainly would seem to suggest it should have liberal support, especially given the actions in the former Yugoslavia and the calls for help in Sudan, to cite two examples. However, the war was not sold on that ground and the lies of WMDs and a threat to US security turned people against it…especially as there was too much information out there that Iraq had no ties to terrorism.
Comment by Kirill Nils Senior — 1/19/2005 @ 12:37 pm
I guess the point is that I can think of no example that diplomacy, aid, and well-wishing has changed a regime or government from a repressive one to a diplomatic one.
I can however think of several examples where military force, or the imminent threat thereof, removed a government and left a more modern democratic, law driven, market driven one in its place.
I can think of other examples of change from within, also supported by force, caused such change.
Comment by John Lynch — 1/19/2005 @ 12:41 pm
m.croche,
Your quotation does not negate anything I am saying. I believe (as many conservatives do not) that WMD was the *main* reason we went to war. It is the main reason I reluctantly felt war was the right decision. But it most certainly is not the only justification offered in the resolution. Boxer is just wrong, and should apologize to Rice.
John Lynch,
I have fixed the link to the resolution.
Comment by Patterico — 1/19/2005 @ 12:41 pm
Kirill, you’re telling me that Ronald Reagan’s stance shored up internal support for the Soviet leadership. That’s very interesting but doesn’t really address the topic of
-whether it’s recognizably “liberal” to oppose ousting autocrats by force when/where necessary
-whether something called “spreading democracy peacefully” (which you assert is the only thing liberals can support) can be said to reliably “work”
Comment by Blixa — 1/19/2005 @ 12:42 pm
John, I disagree with the reasonings behind the war. However, if in the end, after running a cost-benefit anaysis, I find that it was a good idea after all, I will publish a post saying I was wrong and apologize to all the conservatives I have called idiots these years (at least on the grounds that I have been against this war; economics and politics are a different matter).
Comment by Kirill Nils Senior — 1/19/2005 @ 12:44 pm
“Blixa, the war in Afghanistan helped hurt the USSR economically but until people realized glasnost was for real, it didn’t have a public effect. Once people realized they were free to protest, it certainly had an impact.”
Ok so then we still seek a pattern of historical examples of “spreading democracy peacefully” actually “working”. Whatever democracy we successfully spread to Eastern Europe was not (solely) by “peaceful” means, by your own admission here, since e.g. Afghanistan had an impact.
“The idea that the war was about liberating people certainly would seem to suggest it should have liberal support”
Right. Which is my point.
“However, the war was not sold on that ground”
If it had been, would self-proclaimed “liberals” have been more forthcoming in their support? Evidently not. “Just” liberating people wasn’t enough to get the votes, which is why they had to “lie about WMD”. But that’s another topic, that could be discussed at great length and is being discussed, in millions of places on the internets.
All I’m saying here is that nothing about opposition to the endeavor was recognizably “liberal”. The fact that liberating people wasn’t enough of an argument - and in particular wasn’t enough of an argument to the self-proclaimed “liberals” - is indeed an illustration of this.
Comment by Blixa — 1/19/2005 @ 12:50 pm
I don’t know if it’s liberal or conservative to defend one’s country. If there’s a credible threat, I think everyone would agree to ousting an autocrat, even France and Germany. The problem now, in the wake of the war in Iraq, the bar for what is a credible threat has been set awfully high since skepticism will greet any such talk of a threat.
Comment by Kirill Nils Senior — 1/19/2005 @ 1:00 pm
That would be very gracious - if it should occur. The measurable results of this conflict are still long from being determined. My idiot ranking will take many more positive hits before there are any meaningful reductions when it comes to this war.
Politics and Economics are another matter…
Comment by John Lynch — 1/19/2005 @ 1:04 pm
Oooh! You told her! No where’d I put those nuclear weapons …
Comment by praktike — 1/19/2005 @ 1:04 pm
Spreading democracy peacefully was working. The situation in Afghanistan was one of those things that helped speed things up but it was already falling apart from within prior to that, as I noted. Again, it might have been a long process but it was going in that direction. Gorbachev came to power, through Andropov, with the express intent that he would open up the system to allow more personal expression and some market ideas. It is this, by the way, that had a very strong impact on the Chinese leadership, i.e., they saw they could not continue as before.
Comment by Kirill Nils Senior — 1/19/2005 @ 1:05 pm
Ok but is it liberal to say No war unless there’s a credible threat, and Liberation ain’t a good enough reason for me?
Self-evidently, no it is not.
By the way, that’s okay and all. It’s a perfectly respectable position to hold. It’s just not anything remotely resembling “liberal”.
Comment by Blixa — 1/19/2005 @ 1:05 pm
John, as long as I keep visiting conservative sites, I am sure I will take plenty more hits as well.
Comment by Kirill Nils Senior — 1/19/2005 @ 1:07 pm
If the U.S. had applied only and exclusively “peaceful” means to containing the USSR from the ’50s to the ’80s, would the chain of events still have led to Gorbachev as premier?
Moreover: even speaking of the peaceful means the U.S. did use which you alluded to, were U.S. “liberals” - generally speaking - enthusiastic about them?
(Answers: no and no.)
Comment by Blixa — 1/19/2005 @ 1:09 pm
Blixa, I don’t know. Liberal isn’t a gene, something intrinsic that I can refer to, nor is there a manual. Hell, I took plenty of grief fom my liberal friends when I mentioned that possibly this whole venture was a bid to ensure the oil in Iraq didn’t go to China at our economic expense…in which case, I could have supported it with the stipulation that we would start spending massive amounts of money on researching alternative energy sources, upgrading public transport and taxing personal transport more heavily to end our dependence and look to the future. Again, if it had been sold as a war for oil and had been supported by measures that would minimize the need for such things again in the future, I would have been behind it. That’s certainly not in the liberal orthodoxy wherever it may be written.
Comment by Kirill Nils Senior — 1/19/2005 @ 1:16 pm
Blixa, depends on how you define liberal. There were the wild-eyed, acid-dropping, free love hippies who thought the Soviet Union had it all right just because they were so anti-American. They were called liberals but it was nothing I recognized in my political sense. There are also people like me who never took drugs, are married with kid(s) and love their family, and have always been pretty grounded in reality knowing, for example, that the Soviet Union was a nowhere system and thought we should encourage democracy there. According to the terms of the day, I am a liberal as well, however. So, how is it defined? Narrow political stances? Broad political terms? Personal lifestyles?
On which note, I am seven hours ahead of EST and am being called to bed. Night all!
Comment by Kirill Nils Senior — 1/19/2005 @ 1:23 pm
“Liberal isn’t a gene, something intrinsic that I can refer to, nor is there a manual.”
True. Instead, it’s a word, and there’s a definition of it. “Liberation obviously ain’t a good enough reason” doesn’t fall within it.
Comment by Blixa — 1/19/2005 @ 1:24 pm
Kirill, yes you do sound liberal in your stance re: USSR. Just not in your stance re: Iraq. That’s perfectly ok to be liberal on some things and not on others. Right?
All I’m saying (again) is that the anti-war position re: Iraq was not recognizably liberal.
Maybe I need to clarify: Are you, in fact, disputing this, or not?
Comment by Blixa — 1/19/2005 @ 1:27 pm
Here! Here! I heartily agre!
Comment by Rod Stanton — 1/19/2005 @ 2:18 pm
Hubert Humphrey was a liberal. Free loving acid heads were never considered liberals and in fact many songs ridiculing liberals were sung in the 60’s. Invading Iraq was neither liberal nor conservative. It was a tripped out mistake by an administration whose competence falls far far short of its hubris.
Comment by fireinthesun — 1/19/2005 @ 2:27 pm
You all sound a little definite in your opinions.
Democrats took us into WWII as did JFK to Vietnam. You all are silly for using the big wars as examples of where force was used to remove a threat. Especially trying to prove liberals won’t support it.
Additionally, Liberals would take out a dictator forcefully. There is no question. (http://www.usatoday.com/news/world/iraq/2004-04-28-poll-cover_x.htm) But there has to be a net benefit to such a policy over a non-military strategy. I.E. Its better to go to war than naught. For example, if you were looking at whether to help the Iraqi people evade the evil dicatator, is it better to remove Saddam forcefully and foment a civil war and make it a magnet for terrorists. Or through resolutions that work disarm him and let the emargo foment a revolution? All evidence points that the UN resolutions were working their magic.
2/3rds of Iraqis now believe that they are worse off for our intervention. Further proving the war is a disaster by nearly any standard.
Liberals just want honest reasons, sound plans, and carefully wieghed decisions before waging war. In short they want us to be smart, honest, and resolute in the face of tyrrany.
I wish I could say the same for this president and his cronies.
Comment by Liberal_ire — 1/19/2005 @ 3:05 pm
I read the resolution. You’re right it’s not all about the WMD. If you look at the reasons stated that are mostly likely to convince someone they should sacrifice American lives, it’s WMD and ties to Al Qaida (sic).
The resoultion is segemented into 12 “Whereas” paragraphs (reasons for going to war). While the words “weapons of mass destruction” occur in only 4 of the 12, mention of “bioligical” or “chemical” or “nuclear” or “weapons” occur in most of the others. Since it is not unreasonable to claim that the Bush Administration (including Rice) used “nuclear” weapons (and “biological”, etc.) interchangably with “weapons of mass destruction”, I will count all references such as these as references to “WMD”. Here’s the count:
1. General preface: We need to enforce UN resolutions
2. WMD
3. WMD
4. WMD
5. WMD
6. WMD
7. Saddam is a brutal dictator
8. WMD
9. Attempted assasination of GWH Bush + “No Fly Zone” infractions
10. Al Qaeda connections
11. Other terrorist connections
12. WMD
One more note: If you read the resolution, it screams “weapons of mass destruction” the Al Qaeda references are small and near the end. Not where they make the most impact, near the beginning.
Comment by Vince — 1/19/2005 @ 3:54 pm
Babs Knows Beans About Rice
Between this, this, this and this, and given the unavailability of this for people who work here, I’m beginning to think that this may not be such a bad idea after all.
Trackback by damnum absque injuria — 1/19/2005 @ 3:59 pm
Adding to the resolution tally (there are actually 23 “Whereas” clauses) - I missed these in reading the resolution online:
13. WMD
14. WMD
15. Procedural point: Pres has authority
16. Saddam is a brutal dictator
17. We should make Iraq a democracy
18. Procedural point: UN resolutions should be enforced
19. WMD
20. Terrorist connections
21. Terrorist connections
22. Procedural point: Pres has authority
23. We all want peace
So I would say the “terrorist connections” comes in a distant 2nd as far as main thrust of the resolution. Boxer was incorrect in stating the resolution was “WMD period.”
Comment by Vince — 1/19/2005 @ 4:12 pm
Boxer reached new lows today as she demonstrated exactly why dhimmitude is a status that the donks earn for. Butressing this are the many posts of trolls that indicate that the Vatican liberated the world, oops, I mean peace loving liberals freed the serfs, I mean the commies just gave up peacefully bowing to reason.
Yeah right. Somehow I suspect they folded when their bluff was finally called by Ronnie, rather than due to the preaching of types like Carter and Ford.
Comment by TJ jACKSON — 1/19/2005 @ 6:37 pm
The justification for the Iraq war was, imo, that Iraq fell perfectly into the Bush Doctrine as being a “significant threat”. The Doctrine also implies that if you look like a threat, you might get hammered, but not necessarily, nor the necessity of all threats being hammered at once. The argument concerning whether Iraq was an “imminent” threat is irrelevant.
The application to Iraq is meant, therefore, as a strong statement of intent with consequences applicable as a message to all would be sadomasochists and their leaders.
Iraq fell perfectly into the schema due to its historical refusal to comply with Resolutions of the U.N. which specifically referred to wmd’s, among other things. [Keeping in mind the history which led to the first Gulf War.]
Even the U.N. has yet to define what “serious consequences” are, promised by Iraq’s failure to comply with res. 1441. What they now are amounts to The Mother of All Inspections.
Also of note is Saddam’s direct support of Palestinian terrorists, and the fact that UBL could have easily blackmailed Saddam to obtain any weapons Iraq had or could develop, if such a force would have even been necessary.
This is not really that difficult to understand. We are at war with sadomasochists who want to kill us. No realistic alternative to the Bush Doctrine as implemented has ever been proposed. Having meetings, eternal defect finding, and appeals to disasterization and conspiracy theorist mentalities will not magically make the sadomasochists disappear.
Critics need to get a plan.
Comment by J. Peden — 1/19/2005 @ 11:57 pm
GREG DJEREJIAN IS EVIL
Why is Greg Djerejian evil? Because Greg Djerejian regularly produces excellent commentary like the kind found in this post, and thereby makes me feel ridiculous for not having blogrolled him much earlier: Listening to (or, rather, reading the transcri…
Trackback by Pejmanesque — 1/20/2005 @ 4:39 pm
Boxer vs. Rice
Much has already been written about Boxer’s feeble criticisms and outright misstatements, including here and here and here and here. That Senator Boxer could make so many factual errors while accusing Rice of lying is ironic to say the least. There i…
Trackback by Dougie Pundit — 1/21/2005 @ 12:58 pm
Confederate Yank, Saddam did provide plenty of documentation. Remember this?
http://www.globalsecurity.org/wmd/library/news/iraq/2002/iraq-021207-3d5ecbeb.htm
Comment by Anonymous — 1/22/2005 @ 1:01 pm
Anonymous,
Those of us who actually followed this controversy at the time remember that even Hans Blix said the documents you reference didn’t provide the necessary proof.
Comment by Patterico — 1/22/2005 @ 1:35 pm