Comments

You have commented 339 times on Rantburg.

Your Name

Your e-mail (optional)

Website (optional)

	My Original Nic Pic-a-Nic Sorry. Comments have been closed on this article.
Foto

Submit your comments on this article

Home Front: Politix

Nine hours of bitching and whining over Rice

2005-01-25

EFB
Condoleezza Rice is no longer on a fast track to Senate confirmation as secretary of state, but the slowdown appears to be temporary as Democratic foes of the war in Iraq line up to have their say.
Like real temporary

Nine hours have been set aside Tuesday for ~~bitching, whining and howling~~ debate, divided equally between ~~Idiots~~ Democrats and Republicans. On Wednesday, a brief series of statements is expected - and then the vote to put her in charge of U.S. diplomacy. "We are talking about the safety and security of this country, so I very much and very quickly want to move with Secretary Rice," Senate Republican leader Bill Frist of Tennessee said. He said he was ~~extremely pissed off~~ disappointed by the delay and was confident the Senate would confirm her on Wednesday. Two Democratic opponents of the war, Sens. Robert C. Byrd of West Virginia and Barbara Boxer of California, have booked an hour each to speak, with eight other Democrats due to weigh in with briefer speeches.
My God, an hour of Byrd and Boxer ranting? Better keep sharp objects away today. Does the Senate have one of those stage hooks used to yank people off the stage?
Last week, White House chief of staff Andrew Card said the Democrats' decision to have a day or more of debate on the nomination amounted to "petty politics."
That pretty much sums it up.
Senate Democratic leader Harry Reid of Nevada denied Republicans' suggestions that Democrats were playing politics with Rice's nomination.
He also promised a visit from Santa Claus and the Easter Bunny!

At first I was against this, but I am betting that after two hours of Byrd/Boxer late night comedy and John Stuart will have enough material for the rest of the season. Also will expose the Democrats for what they truly are: petty whining sore losers. I will be looking for two things today: Will Frist keep the Dems on the time table they are allotted and the final vote tally. The final vote will be a key to who can be dealt with (up for election in 2006) and who is a partisan hack. Over at DU they are all giddy that maybe Rice will get torpedoed today by Byrd/Boxer. The fact that an ex-Klansman is holding up the nomination of a Black Female is lost on them.

Posted by:Cyber Sarge

#23
#22 (CrazyFool): Clarke had been tipped off by the Easter Bunny and Santa Claus

I think he was tipped off by the National Security Agency.
.

Posted by: Mike Sylwester 2005-01-25 10:36:51 PM

#22 Your right mike. Clarke had been tipped off by the Easter Bunny and Santa Claus......

Posted by: CrazyFool 2005-01-25 10:26:06 PM

#21 riiigghhttt MS.

Posted by: Frank G 2005-01-25 10:13:40 PM

#20
Re #19 (Denver): Clarke has argued that the Clinton administration thwarted al-Qaida's plot to set off bombs at Los Angeles airport on the eve of the millennium because intelligence reports of an impending terrorist attack were discussed

I have never believed that story about the border guard perceiving that the driver seemed nervous as he drove through the border control. I have always thought that our government knew about the plans and the operation and was waiting for him when he approached the border. There we had a legal right to search his car, and we did and we found the evidence we were looking for. The yarn we tell about the alert border guard is a cover for some other intelligence means and methods.
.

Posted by: Mike Sylwester 2005-01-25 9:55:32 PM

#19 Clarke is a self aggrandizer and liar. He personally took credit in the apprehension of the terrorist on the Washington border when in fact it was the border guard herself who should have been credited. She has stated that there were no warnings or alerts issued beforehand, contrary to Clarke's sworn testimony.

Clarke also placed blame on others (FBI) for letting the Bin Laden family members fly away when other aircraft were grounded during his 911 testimony. Then, with the cameras off during Senate testimony three months later, he admitted being the one who had in fact authorized the Bin Laden flight.

But what really iced it for Clarke was on the morning of the Rice testimony before the 9/11 Commission, Clarke was interviewed by one of the MSM morning shows at the location of his choice. Interestingly, he selected a location within viewing range of Ground Zero.

Why this guy has not been put in cuffs is a mystery to me. Why people give him any credence is even more puzzling.

Rice kept him on because she knew the country needed continuity during the transition from Clinton to Bush administrations.

Posted by: Mrs. Mark Dayton 2005-01-25 9:46:14 PM

#18 the Clinton administration thwarted al-Qaida's plot to set off bombs at Los Angeles airport on the eve of the millennium because intelligence reports of an impending terrorist attack were discussed at several meetings of Cabinet secretaries.

The next time something really good happens because it was discussed in a meeting will be the first. Face it, LAX was a lucky shot based on an agent's intuition. She did a great job... but do you think she ever saw so much as a TPS report from a Cabinet Secretary?

Posted by: eLarson 2005-01-25 6:48:38 PM

#17 Sounds like Democratic foreplay--nine hours of bitching and whining.

Posted by: John Q. Citizen 2005-01-25 6:15:29 PM

#16 "Clarke has argued that the Clinton administration thwarted al-Qaida's plot to set off bombs at Los Angeles airport on the eve of the millennium" Pure BULLSHIT! There was NO border patrol alert and NO directions from "Shit for Brains" Clarke. And the only "shaking" going on was in Billy Bob's pants. Denver please reread the comiision report and Dr. Rice's OPEN testimony and you will conclude two things: One Clarke is the BIGGEST asshole ever appointed and that Clinton/Albright/Gore/Clarke/Clark were ALL asleep and oblivous to the Islamists therat.

Posted by: Cyber Sarge 2005-01-25 4:14:14 PM

#15 Pretty words Denver, and like I said, I can see some of your views. But the problems ran much deeper and for much longer. She made some mistakes
no doubt. Maybe if Clinton would have taken out Osama when he had a chance it could have been stopped. To many if's and's and butts.
Hard lesson to learn.

Posted by: tex 2005-01-25 3:08:59 PM

#14 From the 9/11 commision findings:

In his book, testimony, and several TV interviews, Clarke has argued that the Clinton administration thwarted al-Qaida's plot to set off bombs at Los Angeles airport on the eve of the millennium because intelligence reports of an impending terrorist attack were discussed at several meetings of Cabinet secretaries. Knowing they'd have to come back and tell the president what they were doing to prevent an attack, these officials went back to their departments and "shook the trees" for information. When Bush came to power, Rice retained Clarke and his counterterrorism crew, but she demoted their standing; terrorism was now discussed (and, even then, rarely) at meetings of deputy secretaries, who lacked the same clout and didn't feel the same pressure.

Rice's central point this morning, especially in her opening statement, was that nobody could have stopped the 9/11 attacks. The problem, she argued, was cultural (a democratic aversion to domestic intelligence gathering) and structural (the bureaucratic schisms between the FBI and the CIA, among others). But this is the analysis of a political scientist, not a policymaker. Culture and bureaucracies form the backdrop against which officials perceive threats, devise options, and make choices. It is good that Rice, a political scientist by training, recognized that this backdrop can place blinders and constraints on decision-makers. But her job as a high-ranking decision-maker is to strip away the blinders and maneuver around the constraints. This is especially so given that she is the one decision-maker who is supposed to coordinate the views of the various agencies and present them as a coherent picture to the president of the United States. Her testimony today provides disturbing evidence that she failed at this taskâfailed even to understand that it was part of her job description.

Posted by: Denver 2005-01-25 2:51:00 PM

#13 Re #8, I quit reading Slate last year when I realized that it was sounding more and more like a Sunday magazine for the New York Times.

Posted by: Tom 2005-01-25 2:50:55 PM

#12 Terrorism was something that before 9/11, I believe, she took very lightly.

Before 9/11/2001, everybody took terrorism lightly. The difference is, the person occupying the White House at that time actually did something of substance in response.

Posted by: Bomb-a-rama 2005-01-25 2:44:23 PM

#11 Pros and Cons on that statement Denver.
It was a failure of the entire National Security System. From every president, senator, congress-man, or woman, FBI and CIA director, Advisor, and so on and so on ... since terrorism was first analyzed after the 1972 Olympics. Our entire government let the American people down. To pin 9/11 on her shoulders is ridiculous.

Posted by: tex 2005-01-25 2:41:37 PM

#10 Denver, did it ever occur to you that the planning and set-up for 9/11 was well underway before Bush even took office? Do you recall the first World Trade Center bombing and the other similar attacks during the Clinton anministration? Why should Rice have been held responsible?

Posted by: Tom 2005-01-25 2:37:54 PM

#9 ..but she should have been held responsible for the biggest national security failure in the US.

Tony Lake wasn't held responsible for the first WTC, so what makes this any different? Just because more people died and two buildings were brought down?

Get real.

Posted by: Bomb-a-rama 2005-01-25 2:37:04 PM

#8 Here is a follow-up article:

http://slate.msn.com/id/2098499

Like I posted - she will make a VERY good Secretary of State but she was put in a job that she had no idea what she was supposed to be doing. She thought that her job was to be a cheerleader for the president. Terrorism was something that before 9/11, I believe, she took very lightly.

Posted by: Denver 2005-01-25 2:35:04 PM

#7 Yes, 9/11. The biggest national security failure EVER and the president's National Security Advisor should have been held responsible.

Posted by: Denver 2005-01-25 2:25:46 PM

#6 "she should have been held responsible for the biggest national security failure in the US."

Denver - you wouldnt be talking about 9/11 would you ?

Posted by: tex 2005-01-25 2:14:21 PM

#5 Condoleezza Rice is the worst National Security Advisor ever and rather than fire her, she is being promoted to cover up her failures. She will be a good Secretary of State but she should have been held responsible for the biggest national security failure in the US.

Posted by: Denver 2005-01-25 2:09:29 PM

#4 Here's a good quick summary of Robert Byrd and the Klan:
http://www.jewishworldreview.com/michelle/malkin030801.asp

Excerpt: "The ex-Klansman vowed never to fight 'with a Negro by my side. Rather I should die a thousand times, and see Old Glory trampled in the dirt never to rise again, than to see this beloved land of ours become degraded by race mongrels, a throwback to the blackest specimen from the wilds.'"

Posted by: Tom 2005-01-25 1:58:07 PM

#3 Byrd was a member of the Ku Klux Klan for a period of time in the early 1940s. In a 1946 letter, he wrote, "The Klan is needed today as never before and I am anxious to see its rebirth here in West Virginia." However, when running for Congress in 1952, he announced, "After about a year, I became disinterested, quit paying my dues, and dropped my membership in the organization. During the nine years that have followed, I have never been interested in the Klan."

Talk about a flip flopper - I was for the clan before I was against it.

All above from the nationmaster.com online Encyclopedia

Posted by: tex 2005-01-25 1:30:39 PM

#2 DB, good point.

(1)If the point of this is to bitch about the war, why don't Byrd/Boxer go the straightforward route and introduce a resolution requiring the withdrawal of US troops from Iraq?

(2) I had heard about Boxer, but it wasn't until I saw her asking Condi questions that I understood just how stupid Boxer is. I've seen shrubbery with a higher IQ.

Posted by: Matt 2005-01-25 1:15:51 PM

#1 Who says he's an EX- Klansman?

Posted by: Deacon Blues 2005-01-25 12:00:59 PM

00:00