Thursday, January 20, 2005

Barbara Boxer vs Condoleezza Rice

As a follow-up to my previous post, I wanted to point out that Senator Barbara Boxer's scurrilous attack against Condoleezza Rice has attracted lots of critical attention. Unfortunately, much of the media hasn't bothered to check the Senator's charges, although as I noted earlier CNNi did mention her use of questionable "facts." Others are doing it, too, including Patterico's Pontifications. As quoted at Patterico, Boxer said to 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.

The Senator also 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.

Interesting she had the brass to charge that "it was WMD, period." Anyone who was alive and paying attention at the time knows better. Patterico provides a link to the text of the resolution, which lays out numerous reasons in addition to WMD. I doubt that Boxer gave even a passing thought to the possibility that anyone would check her facts, or maybe she just didn't care.

One thing is certain: Condoleezza Rice came out of that little skirmish looking much more professional, mature, and trustworthy than the junior Senator from California.


Blogger Esther said...

Tom, Barbara Boxer was so bizarre, so attacking...I have to wonder... do you think she's being groomed for something much bigger in the party? Maybe for Vice President? Do you think she did that trying to make a name for herself? The mind reels.

4:33 PM, January 20, 2005  
Blogger Francesca said...

Soor, I'm very happy to see Boxer challenge Rice on so many topics and I'm not bothered at all by her charge that WMD was the motivation for the war in Iraq. Certainly in the public realm, that is the message with which we were beat over the head.
If you are going to challenge Boxer's stretching of the truth, it's disingenuous not to examine Rice's replies here and during the 9/11 Commission hearings.
I find it very refreshing to hear a difference of opinion. Too bad Rice isn't being advanced to Secretary of State for her ability to respectfully disagree with the president.

10:47 AM, January 21, 2005  
Blogger Tom Carter said...

Francesca, thanks for the comment!
I don't argue that Rice shouldn't have been challenged, maybe even attacked. That's all a legitimate part of the process. But I don't like the way Boxer did it. If you try hard enough, you can find some reason to call anyone a liar, if that's the purpose you start out with. And Boxer's comment that "it was WMD, period" would be a telling stroke against Rice, if it were true. But it simply isn't.
You say it's "too bad Rice isn't being advanced to Secretary of State for her ability to respectfully disagree with the president." That just isn't realistic. No President, or CEO for that matter, selects his staff that way. They select people of substance who share their views and respect their authority, and at the same time good leaders respect people who have the strength and moral courage to disagree with them, in the right way at the right time. From what I've seen, Rice has an abundance of that kind of moral courage.

11:28 AM, January 21, 2005  

Post a Comment

<< Home