I Really Don't Care If Most Democrats Voted for Rice

[DoveTurnedHawk]

If you've been reading liberal blogs and websites over the past couple of days, you've undoubtedly noticed quite a bit of outrage and hand wringing over Condoleeza Rice's Senate Foreign Relations Committee hearings for her nomination to the cabinet position of Secretary of State.

I certainly understand that we live in an increasingly polarized society, and I lay much of the blame for that at the feet of the Republican party. I draw the line, however, when I read people criticizing Barack Obama for daring to vote to confirm Rice and indicate that he hopes for her success.

I am a big believer in perspective. Senator Obama is one of the party's brightest rising stars, and he catapulted to that position, at least in part, by virtue of a shiningly optimistic speech at the Democratic National Convention. In that speech, he stressed the importance of being an American. An American, not a partisan. Is it any surprise to anyone that in his vote and his comments, he expressed the same type of theme?

Echoing Senator Obama, I would hope, and in fact, I honestly believe, that the vast majority of Democrats does want to see Rice succeed in her job, which is centered on diplomacy, and hopefully the use of diplomacy in place of force. For that matter, I would hope and I honestly believe that the vast majority of Democrats does want to see the U.S. succeed in fostering a stable democracy in Iraq, however flawed -- and horribly, horribly flawed it was -- the initial decision to invade (which I opposed and marched against) may have been.

Also in terms of perspective, please recall that most Presidents get the cabinet they want. For example, here is a series of votes (thanks to Rowdyboy for compiling it) for President Clinton's nominations:

Dan Glickman 94-0
William Daley 95-2
Bill Perry 97-0
Janet Reno 98-0
Andrew Cuomo 99-0
Madeline Albright 95-0
Bill Cohen 99-0
Alexis Herman 85-13
Federico Pena 99-1
Mike Espy Unanimous Consent
Ron Brown U.C.
Robert Reich U.C.
Bruce Babbitt U.C.
Henry Cisneros U.C.
Dick Riley U.C.
Hazel O'Leary U.C.
Donna Shalala U.C.
Jesse Brown U.C.
Carol Browner U.C.
Bill Richardson Voice Vote (Unanimous)
Les Aspin V.V. (U)
Warren Christopher V.V. (U)
Togo West V.V. (U)

We are an opposition party, the Republicans effectively control all three branches of government. Like many here, I believe being the opposition party does mean that you actually have to oppose, that you have to act like the opposition.

That said, we should not just oppose capriciously, we should not oppose everything, and we should not oppose everything that we ultimately do elect to oppose to the same degree. We still need to pick and choose our battles. We still need to fight intelligently, precisely because we are the opposition party.

Presidents typically get the cabinets they want, and Rice is (somewhat inexplicably to me) relatively well thought of by the general public. And while I can think of many, many, many better candidates, I can also think of many worse candidates that Bush could have chosen.

What do people want? A filibuster when it comes to the floor? Tactics like those make no sense to me, because even if we "win" and the nomination is withdrawn, Bush just throws up another neocon, someone just as bad or worse than Rice, and we lose the political capital that we spend in such a high-profile battle.

Better to pick and choose our fights, and use the filibuster when it matters: on key judicial nominations, on Social Security, on critical appropriations bills. These committee hearings were a foregone conclusion, the Republicans control the committee and they have the votes to ram through whoever they want. We accomplished what we needed to do, in that we pointedly questioned Rice and raised concerns and issues about Iraq and other areas of foreign policy where our positions differ dramatically from the Bush Administration's.

That having been done, I see no reason or need to pillory our elected Democrats who ultimately chose to vote to confirm Rice in what, again, has always been a foregone conclusion. Maybe some of those Democrats didn't want to be seen as obstructionists (which is exactly how the whorish MSM undoubtedly would have portrayed such a fight). Maybe some of those Democrats wanted to be sensitive to the concerns of some of their black and/or women constituents. Maybe some of them were just being optimists, like Senator Obama. Who knows what their motivations were, perhaps it was several of the above, or none of them.

Regardless, I'm not going to set my flamethrower on high, not for this. I'm not going to roast people who I want to stand up for me in battles that really do count, where we really can win. We have criticized the "with us or against us" Bush refrain, but toward our own elected officials, we sometimes display little tolerance.

I just don't care all that much about Rice, who is going to carry out the wishes of her boss, just like any Secretary of State would do. Yes, she's slimy, yes, she's probably a liar, and yes, she's screwed things up royally.

Welcome to the Bush Administration.

DTH

[sampsonblk]

1. That isn't perspective, that's rationalization

She made blatantly false statements leading up to this "war," and continues to do so, even now. She refused to let the People know where she stands on the tortures that continue as we speak. She implied that those at fault (for the tortures) were being prosecuted, and that this shows the Bush admin doesn't approve of it.

If the Dems controlled the Senate, she would have been destroyed by an independent counsel by now. Just because we can't completely get rid of her is no reason to openly support her.

[Sleepless In NY]

19. I really do care that they did

They have in effect given her a free pass on 9/11 and Iraq. Rice backs bush's "policies", therefore by confirming her so do we. Opposition party? What are we "opposed" too? Be damned if I know. Let me think...we don't agree with bush policies...but we just gave him an early inaugural present by confirming a person who believes in everything he does, and plans to carry it out. Makes sense to you? Doesn't to me.

I'm truly at a loss for words. Democrats say there are problems with voting, but only one will stand and the rest vote against it? They'll get around to looking into it, you know the way they did with the 2000 election.

I don't know how to defend this party anymore, because quite frankly, I don't know what the hell they even "stand" for.

I have waited patiently for almost 4 years for my senators to take on bush's exploitation of 9/11, not a word. Hell, they even backed Kerik.

Today was an embarrassement. They handed bush what he wanted on a platter. They look like a bunch of dopes. "I dont approve of her actions, but I'm voting for her anyway!" Why? if you vote for a person for such a responsible position you should have the upmost confidence in her, they say they dont...yet .......they vote for her just the same. Some message that sends.

Doesnt matter anyway does it? They have lost the presidency, the house and the senate. Yet they wont ever stand together and challenge bush in unison on one goddamn thing. Which tells the American people what? That bush is right and they agree with him.

I'm all for putting a "Kick me" sign on the backs of my democratic party leadership and let it go at that. No sense aggravating myself anymore.

[DoveTurnedHawk]

42. There's No Free Pass

The next time an Iraq appropriations bill comes up, you'd better believe that I expect the Democrats to debate it and fight it if it's out-of-line. THAT is Iraq. Condoleeza Rice is not Iraq.

DTH

[Andromeda]

79. I expect the Democrats to rubber stamp

some if not all Iraq appropriations bills when they come up. There will be bluster from some Dems and a few fiery speeches on the Senate floor but when everything is said and done -- they will let Bush have what he wants.

Don't you get it? We don't have an opposition party anymore. It's dead. The Democrats are cowering, gutless, spineless wimps who are so afraid they will lost their jobs they will fall in line lest somebody find them "partisan."

They see what the Republicans did to Tom Daschle and they're afraid that will happen to them. This is true with most Dems who are in the red states. They are walking a fine line and they don't want to do anything to rock the boat.

Of course, Feinstein isn't in a red state so I don't know what her excuse is.

Opposing bad policies takes guts and our Democratic leaders don't have what it takes.

John Kerry and Barbara Boxer are the only ones who voted against Rice. It's pathetic that the Democrats have turned into the party of appeasers. I want my party back and I want my country back!

[DoveTurnedHawk]

157. I Guess We'll Have to See

Not all Democrats believe the same thing, as is evident from the disagreement in this very thread.

DTH

[errorbells]

51. I couldn't agree more with...

what you said ..except that I am, after much suffering,
not prepared to throw the baby out with the bath water.

Kerry and Boxer said NO to the witch. I am in line again
with my party, to the death if need be. I swore after the
concession I had become an Independent.

I have personally stood in a room with the most
dishonest, piece o crap, Dem politician......
thankfully voted out time before last election.

What's a party to do? Look at the repugs...they will
stand rooted by the most evil of evil people
'cause they wanna stay in power.

It does seem like an eternity...

as MLK said in his last speech
...Well, I don't know what will happen now. We've got some difficult days ahead. But it doesn't matter with me now. Because I've been to the mountaintop. And I don't mind. Like anybody, I would like to live a long life. Longevity has its place. But I'm not concerned about that now. I just want to do God's will. And He's allowed me to go up to the mountain. And I've looked over. And I've seen the promised land. I may not get there with you. But I want you to know tonight, that we, as a people will get to the promised land. And I'm happy, tonight. I'm not worried about anything. I'm not fearing any man. Mine eyes have seen the glory of the coming of the Lord.

[sal]

110. What she said.

When you got nothin you got to fight for everything. They're looking mighty sad to me.

[pokercat999]

126. How can we expect anything else when

their only real concern is getting re-elected.

Term limits are the first step. One term in any federal office and you can never serve AGAIN in ANY federal office.

Oh yeah the other thing....divide America now! I'm sick of these criminals that have taken over my country, I say give em their own space and let em fuck-over their own.

[DoveTurnedHawk]

41. Please Show Me When She Unambiguously, Knowingly Lied

As opposed to making statements that later turned out not to be true?

I have been reading threads here for ages, and I'm caught up on the news stories, and I've seen various parts of her testimony during various hearings.

Every time, I hear the chorus of "Condiliar" and the like, and it is accepted as a given that she has, in fact, been proven a liar.

If it's that obvious, it should be no problem to show the examples. Because despite my own, pretty thorough familiarity with the subject, I have yet to see it. I am talking clear, unambiguous proof.

Don't get me wrong. I believe that she is slimy and a liar, but believing and proving are two different things. The underinformed American public, wary of confrontation and embracing of the concept of the appearances of politeness, is always going to side with the accused liar over the accusers unless it's bulletproof. THAT is why none of the Senators are calling her an outright, no-good liar, not even Boxer, and it's not because they're spineless.

Everything I've seen put up as evidence can fall into a number of categories (e.g. she was misinformed, the statement was equivocal, she was taken out of context, etc. etc. ad nauseum), and can be -- and has been -- dodged. I've seen them do it. And you put it all together, and yes, it sure looks and smells damn funny. But I've never seen anything clear and unambiguous in terms of knowing lies.

I would love to see something to the contrary, however. Please, prove me wrong.

DTH

[ExclamationPoint]

54. Hey you know what's dumb?

I thought Condi was ALREADY the secretary of state the last four years. Slap me. :spank:

[DenverDem]

58. If she didn't KNOW she was lying then she was catastrophically incompetent

Either way she is absolutely undeserving of confirmation as S of S and is mostly deserving of prosecution for crimes against the nation and world.

[DoveTurnedHawk]

69. BUSH Is Catastrophically Incompetent

He is absolutely undeserving of the Presidency. Yet we're stuck with him, too.

DTH

[DenverDem]

76. That doesn't mean I am going to accept any of it without fighting it.

"When they start to rape you just let them and it will be over soon" BULLSHIT.

[DoveTurnedHawk]

158. WOW, That's About the Worst Leap of Logic I've Ever Seen

So failing to turn the flamethrowers upon folks who chose, for whatever reason, to vote Rice out of committee is now somehow the equivalent of a disgusting rape analogy?

:eyes:

DTH

[4MoreYearsOfHell]

82. How's this for one?

We know where they are. They're in the area around Tikrit and Baghdad and east,west, south and north somewhat."

Donald Rumsfeld, Secretary of Defense
ABC Interview
3/30/2003

"No one ever said that we knew precisely where all of these agents were, where they were stored"

Condoleeza Rice, US National Security Advisor
Meet the Press
6/8/2003

Didn't she also go on about the aluminum tubes, that EVERYBODY except the admin said were not suitable for nuclear use?

[DoveTurnedHawk]

159. If That's the Best We've Got, Then We're Screwed

It's a stupid and unwise comment, and she was certainly mistaken, but it's hardly a proven, knowing lie. I certainly don't expect anyone to know every comment ever made by every other member of the Administration.

One could also quibble over whether Rumsfeld's description fits the word "precisely".

DTH

[sampsonblk]

100. unambiguously?

These people don't make unambiguous statements. How can her lies be proven? This time around, she refused to speak directly about water-boarding. Wonder why?

They always leave themselves an out. Case in point: Bush spent 8+ months trying to convince the world that it was an open and shut case the Saddam had tons of WMD. When it turns out it was garbage, he miraculously has just enough room to weasel out of it.

My view is this: she and Bush made repeated statements that had the effect of convincing the public of things that were entirely false. I call that lying. Whether hairs can be split in her favor or not doesn't matter to me.

[DoveTurnedHawk]

160. Exactly My Point

That's why it's hard to take them on directly and call them liars. Most Americans will want to see proof, and that proof will be difficult to demonstrate.

DTH

[sampsonblk]

182. My opinion

If most Americans were shown the statements these bums made, they would conclude (as I have) that these are a bunch of crooks and liars.

Why does the "librul media" not show the clips and let the public decide?

[Baskabor]

178. Not only a lie but perjury

You asked for an unambiguous lie, no problem.

Here is a quote from Rice's testimony under oath before the 9/11 commission on April 7, 2004.

"I think that concern about what I might have known or we might have known was provoked by some statements that I made in a press conference. I was in a press conference to try and describe the August 6th memo, which I've talked about here in my opening remarks and which I talked about with you in the private session.

And I said, at one point, that this was a historical memo, that it was — it was not based on new threat information. And I said, No one could have imagined them taking a plane, slamming it into the Pentagon — I'm paraphrasing now — into the World Trade Center, using planes as a missile."

It did not warn of attacks inside the United States. It was historical information based on old reporting. There was no new threat information."

Now look at the last couple of paragraphs of the August 6, 2001 presidential daily brief, titled "Bin Laden Determined to Strike in US".

"We have not been able to corroborate some of the more sensational threat reporting, such as that from a (redacted) service in 1998 saying that Bin Laden wanted to hijack a US aircraft to gain the release of "Blind Shaykh" 'Umar' Abd al-Rahman and other US-held extremists.

Nevertheless FBI information since that time indicates patterns of suspicious activity in this country consistent with preparations for hijackings or other types of attacks, including recent surveillance of federal buildings in New York.

The FBI is conducting approximately 70 full field investigations throughout the US that it considers Bin Ladin related. CIA and the FBI are investigating a call to our Embassy in May saying that a group of Bin Ladin supporters was in the US planning attacks with explosives."

Please not the the information is contemporary, not historical as Rices claimed and it does warn of attacks in the US. That is two clear lies, made while she was testifying under oath.

Finding many other examples is no particular challenge, next time ask for something difficult to document.

[manxkat]

45. exactly! n/t

[phusion]

2. I criticize them..

I critize these democrats because I believe they should stand up for what is right ALL the time, regardless of any political interest at the moment. Even if their NAY vote would have been symbolic, they should have done it.

It's not a matter of tradition or respect that the president gets the cabinet he wants -- it's a matter of right or wrong.

If we continue to accept less and less from our representatives, what are we left with?

[rawtribe]

3. So we

rubber stamp torture, voter fraud and the lies to justify war?

Nice words are empty with out the vote to back them up.

[CWebster]

4. Sorry at this stage of the game

not buying.

This battle does count, if only for what it symbolizes.

Boxer backed up her words with action and Kerry made his objections based on reality. What fantasy is Obama entertaining?

[ET Awful]

5. So of your list of confirmations above . . .

how many had been caught repeatedly lying to Congress and the public to justify a war?

[pmbryant]

14. The problem isn't with Rice; it's with Bush

Rice is just the mouthpiece for Bush's lies.

--Peter

[ET Awful]

16. Ahhhh, I guess that makes it okay to confirm her then.

I understand. Even though she lies even independently of Bush (for instance when she said that no one ever said Iraq was close to having a nuclear weapon which conradicted what Bush said, then later on contradicted herself by saying Iraq was less than a year away from a nuclear weapon).

Even independent of the Chimperor, she's a liar.

[pmbryant]

20. I would have voted against her myself

On the basis of supreme incompetence. But I agree with the main point of the original post. And while I wish more had voted against her, I'm not going to criticize any Dem Senator who voted to confirm.

They did their primary job in the hearings, getting her statements on the record and in front of the public.

--Peter

[DoveTurnedHawk]

49. I Would Have Voted Against Her Too

For pretty much the same reasons. Like you, I'm just not going to savage people who voted in favor.

:hi: Peter!

DTH

[blondeatlast]

134. Buit this is a mechanism we have for fighting back against said "problem."

We can't get Commander Bunnypants out of office, we certainly can't impeach him with the lack of power we have, but the Democrats can put him on notice that bad policy and legendary incompetence will not go unnoticed by our representatives and the American people.

I was damn proud of Kerry and Boxer yesterday, and I think Kerry's vote especially will give other Dems the strength of will to vote against her as well.

It isn't much, but in a desert, I'll take a sip of water any time.

[Dr Fate]

24. None of them. Thats why the excuse does not fly. n/t

n/t

[DoveTurnedHawk]

47. See Above

They have a dodge for just about everything, and the American public is as apt to buy it as not, barring slam dunk proof.

DTH

[CWebster]

131. When did they not lie?

They lied continually and non-stop. They even set up their own office to cherry pick and doctor intel. How many times did Bush claim they had already found the weapons of mass destruction? Rice glossed over, dismissed and overtly lied when responding to Boxer- I watched it on C-Span again this morning.

The truth is the entire Invasion was created out of thin air and even with all their round the clock drum-pounding, the biased media couldn't poll enough dumbed-down Americans to support it without International support and continued UN Inspections. Rice stated right in her testimony that Saddam would not comply, but that is a bold-faced lie. Iraq was allowing the Inspections, but the US was on a schedule with arms build up at Iraq's borders and pulled the UN out--maybe because they knew there was no WMD. And now billions of dollars and thousands of lives later, we say, oh, well the president should have the cabinent he wants?

Will anyone go down on the side of truth?

[DoveTurnedHawk]

161. Prove It

Why do you think they blame bad reports and bad intelligence? Because it's easy to point the finger at someone else, and hard to prove. This is the administration of zero accountability, remember?

I know what I believe, and I'm pretty sure I know what you believe. Establishing that to an American public that dislikes confrontation, dislikes politics and politicians, and treasures the notion of faux politeness, is extremely difficult and if you fail, you will fall on your face.

DTH

[CWebster]

184. That's not proof, that's deception

It's all in who molds popular consensus, isn't it? It is all about manipulation of the conventional belief and exploiting that unwillingness or inability to face reality.

Sort of like when the soldiers led the Good Germans, who supported their troops, and had their own proud national myth(while they waged war and invaded and occupied other countries), through the Camps and they said, "We didn't know".

What more proof do they need?

[stray cat]

6. Thanks for a great perspective post.

I agree completely but you say it much better.

[DoveTurnedHawk]

48. Thanks

Many of our colleagues seem to disagree quite strongly, however. ;-)

DTH

[stubertmcfly]

7. hmmm....

ya know.... rice lied. openly. and yesterday she made a mockery of the geneva convention saying that "terrorists" don't deserve the protections that the rest of us enjoy. this, to me, does not a good secretary of state make.

should our representatives filibuster this nomination? not necessarily but they certainly could stand up and cast their vote in a way that demonstrates that this type of behavior and these attitudes regarding civil rights are not acceptable. yes, she would still win the nomination but wouldn't it be better to show that support for her is thin?

[jobycom]

8. Problem is

It means two people with no competence will be in charge of diplomacy. Bush, an idiot, will be telling Rice, a failure, what to do, and she will be advising him back. Which means that neither will have any idea what to do about foreign affairs. So who will really call the shots? There is no ultimate authority, no control. That's how the graft and incompetence of the Reagan administration spread so wide.

Rice should have been defeated, not because we disagree with her on every issue, but because she is completely incapable of doing the job and has proven it. Hoping she does well is nice, but hoping Bush would do well is what led to 9-11. He didn't have the capacity to do well. Neither does she. The whole reason the Senate confirms the president's choices is to protect against incompetent decisions when the president doesn't see they are incompetent. Rice is incompetent. She failed at her last job. She needs to be working at Walmart, not getting promoted.

I don't expect to agree with anything Bush says or does for the next four years, either, but just giving up and saying our party should not at least voice our disapproval is shirking our duties as Americans. We are the government, even if we, too, are simply a protest voice at the moment. That's not partisanship. It's democracy.

[Zhade]

23. YES. This makes complete sense.

Very well-said.

[sunnystarr]

25. I don't see what difference it makes ....

Powell was capable and had a track record to prove his diplomatic competency. The result was that he was shut out and made impotent in his position. Cheney is calling the shots for State Department. It's Bush's cabinet so he gets to pick. Look at Biden's statement before the vote was cast. It makes absolute sense to save any obstructionism for the important issues like SS. our tax code, and our trade deficit.

When it comes to the War on Terror, and Iraq the best Dems can do is continuously point out the lies of the administration. The model for the selling of the Iraq war is now being repeated for SS. Our leaders need to talk about it and point it out to the people. They need to talk about the nation building policy and reject any future military action in Iran and elsewhere.

Once the American people see the unrefutable evidence, they'll vote the Repugs out. I bet there are many Repugs very nervous about their '06 campaigns. Let's focus on the things we can change and take back the Congress in '06 and the Presidency in '08.

[Laurab]

90. Our party did voice their disapproval

I watched it with my own two eyes. And the senate wants to debate it too. They know the witch is going to be confirmed, and while it would have been nice to have all the dems vote against her, I'm not sure it would have served any real purpose. I agree that we have to pick our battles, and there are going to be a lot of them.

I am glad that JK and Barbara voted against, however I agree with the original poster. There will be much more important battles, this one was already lost. Like it or not, they're going to have to work with her.

I don't so much mind the way they voted, it would have been only a symbolic gesture that would not have accomplished anything. For Kerry and Boxer, I think it was more than that. They have both laid out plans to aggressively fight this administration, both are encouraging grassroots support, and both already have grassroots support.

I just hope the rest are preserving their votes for when they really, truly do count.

[Warren Stupidity]

111. an opposition party opposes the programs and policies

of the party in power.

In that the rethuglicans control the house and the senate, all of the Democratic votes are 'symbolic'. The only power that the Democratic Party retains in washington is to either filibuster in the senate to prevent a vote, or to stand in unity and vote against the creeps. The filibuster should be used sparingly, the opposition vote should be used at every opportunity to demonstrate to the American people that there is NO MANDATE that there is NO CONSENSUS that we all did not go and move to Canada just because * was declared the winner of the election.

After 10 years in opposition in Congress the Democratic Party has still not figured out how to be the opposition party. Worse, they still think that it is best to 'reach out and work with' their 'colleagues on the other side'. How many times do you have to get sucker punched before you figure out that the other guy isn't fighting fair?

[jobycom]

129. That makes no sense

They voted to confirm her. As you say, it would have made no difference if they had voted against her. There would have been no battle. It would have been a symbolic vote. And the meaning of the symbol would have been that they believed she was unqualified, as she is. They would have lost nothing by voting against her, it would not have affected any of the coming battles--which will be just as symbolic and pointless in the end-- but they would have demonstrated that they did not approve. Instead, they voted that they did approve of the job Rice, and thus Bush, has done.

If they approve of that job, I don't know why they are there in the first place.

I don't hold it against those who voted to confirm, really, but I don't respect them as much as I do those who opposed her, and my trust in them is less.

[Laurab]

147. Yeah I've kind of changed my mind

I totally agree with your last sentence. I don't hold it against those who voted to confirm, either, but I don't respect them nearly as much as I do Kerry and Boxer. I would say it also affected my trust. After reading all the posts, and thinking about it a little more, I've re-thought my opinion. I think there is absolutely nothing to be gained anymore by playing nice, and as someone posted - we have nothing to lose anymore by voting against. This administration is not bipartisan, has never been able to work in a bipartisan manner, and never will. So, I've decided I was wrong.

I think reading the interview with Barbara Boxer today in Salon also helped change my mind. She is truly representing the people. The others do need to start doing that, and I guess save the filibuster for the important votes.

I guess I don't think calling our reps names, and attacking them serves any useful purpose, and I see it so often on here. I jump in to defend on occasion without really thinking it through. While I still don't think that kind of thing is helpful, I do agree the ones who voiced so many "reservations" should have voted as they spoke, and that we should, in fact, let them know what we think about their vote.

We've tried playing nice long enough. It doesn't work. They should take any and all opportunties they are given to vote against, as Kerry said "more of the same". I was wrong.

[murielm99]

9. Thanks, DTH.

I appreciate your remarks.

I called my husband over to the computer and shared your wisdom with him.

I live in Illinois. I know that Obama is being mentored by Durbin. I don't resent Durbin for voting for Rice. I know that Durbin stands up for Illinoisans and working people when it is needed. I know, too, that Obama had a very good record in Springfield.

I wish I knew what to do about my daughter, though. She is 21. She worked very hard for Kerry in Iowa. Now, she is so disillusioned by our party of "sellouts" that she wants to leave it. I hope you, or someone here, will have some words for her.

Politics is not pure. Politics is often about compromise, and doing what you can under very difficult circumstances.

[DoveTurnedHawk]

52. I Agree

It's easy to be pure when you don't have to vote. For that matter, it's easy to be pure when you're expressing anonymous opinions on an Internet website.

Thanks for your kind words. :-)

DTH

[Rowdyboy]

10. Presidents get the cabinets they ask for....I learned that in

Poly Sci 101 in 1973. It was true then and its remains fundamentally true today. Even if, through some miracle, enough Republicans joined in to defeat Rice, Bush would just nominate Armitage, Wolfowitz, Perle or some other loony neocon so WTH have we gained? Literally a "sound and fury signifying nothing".

[Tom Rinaldo]

22. Rice's lies, and her failure coordinating the Iraq management group

or whatever Bush called it at the time, are reasons enough to vote against her. Therefor I think a No vote makes sense in her case though of course another Neo-con type would then get the job instead. And unless the next person nominated had a similar "smoking gun" in their record then that person would be accepted by Democrats under the rules of the game.

Still this is not an "acid test" vote for me. Some Democrats may use this important though ultimately symbolic moment to buff up their "non partisan" credentials with constituents. I do not respect them for that, but I can tolerate it if they go on to show real leadership on important issues, including Iraq.

But many gold stars to those Democrats who openly reject this nomination.

[Freddie Stubbs]

11. I just nominated this post for the frontpage

:thumbsup:

[messiah]

12. Democrats = Republicans thanks for letting me know once more

[stray cat]

28. Kerry and Boxer, Obama, Biden, Gore, = Frist, W, Lott.

Does that mean I was right not to vote in the year 2000? I learned my lesson, Gore did not equal Bush and the democrats do not equal the radical republicans.

[messiah]

162. Nope they equal the moderate republican party

the democrats are just a wing in the republican party. The parties need to fuse back together again because there really is'nt an opposition.

[DoveTurnedHawk]

55. Ralph? Is That You?

:eyes:

DTH

[messiah]

167. A Democrat that only believes in winning and does'nt care for

anything else other than winning is that you?.

[quiet.american]

13. Which is it?

The point I'd like to raise in relation to yours is that after each "struggle" in the House, so to speak, such as the election certification vote, we receive an email from the DNC asking for money, and usually containing some version of this language:

"This is your chance to stand up and tell President Bush that his narrow victory in 2004 gave him neither a mandate nor a blank check. Now is the time to send a clear signal to the Washington Republicans that Democrats will not falter or fall back -- we will stand up and fight for our values."

Well -- good, you'll "stand up and fight for our values"...when? Because usually, there's only one Democrat, okay, two, "standing up and fighting for our values," and its the same two all the time -- Barbara Boxer and Ted Kennedy. And usually only one standing up with an actual vote -- Barbara Boxer. (It's nice to see Kerry finally gave her some company with his vote "no" on Condoleeza Rice.)

So, here Democrats are being exhorted to support the DNC because they "will not falter or fall back" -- and that appears to be exactly what they're doing every time!

So which is it -- will our leadership stand up and fight, or are they going to continue to justify why they are repeatedly failing to do so and attempting to convince the base that indeed they are doing so, after we've just watched them on C-Span not doing so!

[DoveTurnedHawk]

56. I Ain't Donating a Penny to the DNC

Unless they pick Dean or Rosenberg as DNC Chair.

DTH

[Malva Zebrina]

88. and it is NOT nice to see the rest of the Democrats

go against their own, even though the evidence was succinctly put forth and that is the problem.

Either Kerry and Boxer were right and honest, or they were not, and obviously the rest of the 'Democrats on that panel chose to not think aobut unity, but chose to vote AGAINST their own and the questione has to be asked

Why?

All theposts that say it is a game or it is strategy are completely missing the point. They make their OWN look like fringe people while they walk away unscathed because of their "strategy"

Is that honorable? Did any of them present a different case to that of Boxer's ? NO

Yet, they go ahead and whore themselves out to this despicable woman and her boss.

What could possibly be the explanation for that? What?

[blondeatlast]

136. "They make their own look like fringe..."

Exactly. I'm one of the few on DU that remain solidly behind the party, but that doesn't mean I don't call them on their many weaknesses.

This is an ENORMOUS weakness. The Republicans don't so such things. The Republicans win because of it. Americans know that Republicans stand for SOMETHING, even if they can't tell you what, exactly.

We simply can't say this about the Democrats, and it breaks my yellow dog heart to say it.

"Make their own look like fringe," exactly. And then it makes those of us with legitimate concerns look like it too. It has to stop now.

[DoveTurnedHawk]

169. There Are Lots of Motives for Any Vote

And I can't pretend to know all of them. Some motives that I'm theorizing about are reasonable motives IMO, some are not, but regardless, I'm not going to blast the party and claim "doom and gloom and spineless" if they did.

DTH

[Dr Fate]

15. Someday Obama will be Swiftboated by the GOP/media.

And we will make excuses then too.

We will all say "But Obama was so nice and polite to the GOP/media- and they trashed him anyway- oh dear oh dear we are so persecuted."

And then when Dr Fate sez "I told ya so" I'll be accused of "Obama Bashing"

[DoveTurnedHawk]

57. We'll Have to Disagree This Time, Bud

We usually agree on lots of things, but I don't think Obama is going to hurt because of this vote, in the long run.

Obama in particular was in a difficult position. I believe the Republicans could have made as much hay, if not more so, by running affiliated group ads showing some concerned black folks expressing concern and dismay that Obama voted against a black woman for a cabinet post. The Republicans employ BS race-baiting tactics like that all the time, although it's generally of a different strain.

DTH

[CWebster]

73. Yessiree, we got to always be running scared

About what those Rightwing meanies are gonna do.

Check it out: They are gonna do it anyway.

[Warren Stupidity]

113. exactly (NT)

[blondeatlast]

137. This is more a street gang war than the politics of JFK's or Nixon's time.

THEY won't compromise, so we can't afford to do it either.

[Dr Fate]

123. No, we agree on that one part...

I agree with essentially everything you just said.

But Obama will be traashed by the GOP/media someday- they are planning it already.

My larger point is that they will attack us & smear us no matter what we do- so we may as well do them like they did Clinton, Gore, Kerry & Max Cleland- except do it with truth & facts.

[praisethelowered]

83. wow- that is the prediction of the decade

i believe you are right.

[John_H]

17. Of course every dem senator wants her to succed. But because

they also know she won't suceed, they should vote against her.

[DoveTurnedHawk]

59. I'm Not Quite That Fatalistic

I think it's pretty unlikely that she'll be effective, but who knows? I never thought the Sox would win the Series, either.

DTH

[blondeatlast]

139. She goes into the position in a weak position anyway.

We don't have a stellar diplomatic relationship record any longer, in fact, it's pretty dismal, and other countries know she's in it up to her elbows.

At best, she'll be a laughing stock. I don't want to think what the worst will be. No diplomatic skills whatsoever and we come from a very, very weak position.

There are several people who could have been chosen. Condi is close to the bottom of the list, right there with Wolfowitz.

She simply CAN'T succeed. Even if she had the skkills, which she does not, we are in such a weak foreign policy position the greatest diplomat would have us struggling.

[hector459]

18. I hope she succeeds in her "job" but not her "agenda."

there is a big difference and I appreciate your sentiments about Mr. Obama and the others who voted for her, but I totally disagree. they didn't have to vote for her to hope that if, confirmed, she would succeed in the job of diplomacy for the US.

[Zhade]

21. It wasn't "flawed", it was a premeditated crime.

Voting for Rice hardly bolsters the Dems, should they desire to go after the b*sh administration for (at best) dropping the ball on 9/11.

Not that they seem that eager to go after the admin, anyway...

I have to agree with another poster - this reads like rationalization.

EDIT: The public doesn't like Rice, per se, but the idea she embodies: an African-American woman rising to high status. If the public realized how criminal she is, she'd be no more liked that b*sh or Cheney. And there's no maybe about it, she IS a proven liar.

[DoveTurnedHawk]

63. See #41 Above

Because we won't be able to show the public how criminal she is unless we have unambiguous, incontrovertible proof.

DTH

[Warren Stupidity]

114. good grief

they (the neoclowns) aren't that stupid. I give up on what your actual position is on the Iraqi Blunder. For it or against it?

[DoveTurnedHawk]

168. Against It, as I Said in the Original Post (eom)

DTH

[CWebster]

26. This reminds me of the debate over the Dem chair

Why, it doesn't mean nuthin", they said.

Ever notice how many times it amounts to nuthin"? C'mon, move along, nuthin' to see here, let's just get past this and move on. Next! And next time it will be the same excuses and rationalizations and how many times have we moved on by now...and nuthin'. Until Dean started yelling it and Barbara Boxer stood up and we're all beside ourselves because we've been tossed a morsel of hope that someone is going to say the jig is up and not just move along like it was nuthin'.

[DoveTurnedHawk]

62. Dean for DNC Chair

I am a big supporter of Howard Dean for DNC Chair because I do think our party needs to start standing up for Democratic values more. I think we need to control the tenor and discussion with better messages and theoretical frameworks. I think we need to fight harder than we've fought in the past.

But I still believe there are times and places for fighting. I still believe we have to acknowledge the reality that certain people are more popular than others, and that given that reality, there are better ways to go about attacking or undermining them than full frontal assault.

We have a watershed moment coming up, and that is the election of the DNC Chair. That's going to be the signal. I think going to the mat right now, over something like this, is not the smartest way to go. We need to be prepared and organized and on the same page. And we're not right now. We won't be until we pick a DNC Chair. Hopefully, that Chair will be Howard Dean.

DTH

[CWebster]

70. You mean next time will be the time when we really ahow them, huh?

So, how many next times has it been?

[southpaw]

27. Every Dem in the Senate should have voted NAY!!!

Just to show that we, as a party, do not condone the lies and rationalizations that have been Rice's calling card in her previous role.

I'm terribly disappointed in all the Dem senators who, for whatever reasons they may have had, voted aye.

If we are the opposition party, why do so few of our elected 'leaders' ever actually 'oppose' the repukes?

[apple_ridge]

38. Exactly. And no dem should want her to succeed in her job. Think

about what her marching orders are for her job. If she succeeds at here job then we will be at permanent war.

[TeacherCreature]

39. Agreed. They have ENDORSED this pathetic liar with their votes

It makes me sick to see this defense of their pathetic whoring HERE too.

[DoveTurnedHawk]

64. It Won't Be the First Time I've Made You Sick

Better get used to it, because I'm not going anywhere. I'm even a donor with a strong interest in the community here, unlike some who just use Skinner's bandwidth for free while taking shots and complaining a lot about DU and the posters here.

DTH

[CWebster]

133. Cheap shot

You don't know the financial realities of other's lives.

We were flooded this past September and suffered extensive damage. Sorry, but I don't have a lot of spare change at the moment. When I catch up, I'll catch up and even donate for others, as I have been able to do in the past.

[Tinoire]

151. Jeez.

I'm repaying the kind unknown person who sponsored me when I came back to DU recently and sponsoring you right now.

What a pathethic but unsurprising cheap shot. :puke:

You keep on speaking!

[CWebster]

152. Thank you, Tinoire

I appreciate the gesture, and I hesitated when responding to DTH's remarks because I didn't want it to seem like I was advertising personally - but the insensitivity of the remark provoked me to use my own story as an example.

But still, you have a good heart and when I am able to, I will reciprocate in turn. :loveya: :hug:

[blondeatlast]

140. Very, very uncool, brother.

If it pisses you off, then donate in another's name as well. I do.

And it doesn't piss me off if someone doesn't have a star, either.

[DoveTurnedHawk]

163. I Have Donated, in My Name and in Others

Although some of my old friends clearly have an agenda here to paint me as an ogre, my comment was directed solely at the people who spend hours here, racking up thousands of posts while: a) spewing little but negativity and bombthrowing; b) complaining incessantly about the board, its members and how it's run; or c) trashing Skinner and the admins on other boards. Yet they cannot spare one dollar -- the amount that it takes for a star -- from their entertainment budget over the course of a year to help support this place.

If that description doesn't apply to you, then I wasn't talking about you.

The people within that group who are genuinely so strapped that they cannot afford a diversion from their entertainment budget of even one dollar (or who don't have an entertainment budget at all) have my abject apologies.

DTH

[CWebster]

185. A gold star for a dollar may be worth it just to keep bullies at bay

but the gold star isn't the point, being able to contribute more than a paltry dollar is.

[TeacherCreature]

148. Oh I'm so scared now!!!

Sorry to mess up YOUR board with my little opinions.

[Tinoire]

150. Wow. Bookmarked. Another fine example of compassionate conservatism

from a moderate telling us to get over yet something else.

Wow. Just when did that dove turn into a hawk again?

Editing to add...

Unbelievable. But thank you for putting this on record.

[DoveTurnedHawk]

165. Nice Try

I'm not a moderate. I'm a liberal, just not an extremist, and you already know the story behind my screen name.

If you're not spewing a ton of negativity and complaining about this board and how it's run all the time, then my comment was not directed at you. But feel free to think whatever you want.

DTH

[hfojvt]

29. I am glad you showed me the Clinton votes

I was remembering more opposition, and I think there may have been some candidates who were pulled after opposition.
I am not expecting a filibuster on her nomination, but I would like to see her confirmed 75-25 or 70-30 to have some representation given to the forty million people who oppose the Iraq war and the lies and incompetence of this administration.

[DoveTurnedHawk]

65. Fair Enough

I would have voted against her too. I'm just not into the demonization of people who did decide to vote her out of committee.

DTH

[LibDemAlways]

30. I care because

Rice condones torture. She out and out lied to the American public in the run-up to the Iraq. She ignored the intelligence that could have prevented 9/11. She's goddamn incompetent, and not qualified to represent the United States of America on the global stage.

Yes, the chimp could have nominated someone worse, but my God, how bad does a nominee have to be before Dems grow a spine and in unison say, "No"?

[Wind Dancer]

33. Well said!

This administration is radical and should be treated as such.

I will not support anybody that supports this illegal war and condones torture regardless of party.

[LaloCeli]

31. The problem is

that the democratic party has shown to have no balls (please excuse the expression), and fail to be loyal to the truth and facts.

The fact is that Rice does not deserve that nomination, and most democrats will agree to that but turn around and vote for her regardless as they are more afraid to look bad (I don't know in whose eyes) than to honor their own principles.

Its like Kerry allowing Edwards to go out and tell the World that they would make sure that every vote counts then turn around the next day and concede. Maybe there is a lot behind the scenes that we don't know, but what they show is an uncanny weakness and disrespect for the democratic values. They seem to go with any bad decision the boy-president comes up with.

No guts! and that is why I hope that Howard Dean makes it as the next president of the Democratic party, he seems to be the only one with guts.

[mistertrickster]

36. Agreed--and welcome to DU, Lalo!

I want diplomacy to succeed too but that doesn't mean that Condi is a good choice.

Her only qualification is idolatry of AWOL.

Obama should have voted against. But he'll learn, there's no working with these "uniters, not dividers."

[consciousobjector]

32. "most presidents usually get the cabinet they want"

that doesn't mean that the Democrats should just roll over and play dead. While they didn't necessarily have to filibuster Rice's nomination, it is unconscionable for any Democrat to vote in favor of Condo"lies"a. Your assessment that "she's probably a liar" makes me wonder what proof you need to positively conclude that she is a liar? Have you read the transcripts from yesterday's hearings? The woman wouldn't know the truth if it bit her on the butt.

While it's true that * would likely put forward an equally evil replacement nominee, it was wrong, wrong, wrong for any Democrats on the committee to vote for her. Obama is new, and may think he was being reasonable, but if this is any indication of what kind of legislator he is going to be, then the hope that rose up in me when he spoke at the Democratic Convention was just a pipe dream.

If you think there is any hope of peace in Iraq with Rice as SOS, then you are truly a blind optimist. Condi doesn't know the meaning of diplomacy...and the * administration doesn't want peace...peace doesn't serve their purpose - to control the country (and the world) through fear.

[Kerrytravelers]

34. With more Reps on the Committee than Dems, sure she's gonna

get in. So, by all of the Dems voting NO, it won't give * a chance to put in someone far worse. That consideration is off the table, it's not even a probability. SO, without that to worry about, I absolutely believe all the Dems should have voted no. I sent them an email either thanking them for standing up for the truth or asking why they didn't have more strength.

We have to fight now, not reason ourselves into a circle where we're shrugging our shoulders at what the Reps do.

remember, these people condone torture, which puts us all at risk. The next American captives, military or civilian, will be suffering far worse than we've seen so far.

That is why * and company terrify and offend me.

[upperleftedge]

40. No Donation without Representation!

I got the Demo money letter too and sent a gentle encouraging message back suggesting they elect Dr. Dean if they want a dime from me. All I ask is that they vote no. They don't have to give speeches or make deals or explain to the media they just have to vote no, like I would. They are not representing me. I won't pay someone to vote against my best interests.
Simple as that.
The good Dr., on the other hand, will receive my full support when ever he asks.

[blondeatlast]

141. This president is virtually guaranteed the cabinet he wants, but

even a symbolic gesture is called for here.

And you are right on with your last paragraph. NOT. GONNA. HAPPEN.

[spooked911]

35. Rice is different-- her track record is HORRIBLE, okay?

from 9/11 to selling the Iraq, she was no mere civil servant doing her job. She was a lying shill for outrageous policies.

[robbedvoter]

37. OUR elected reps need to represent their consituencies

56% according to the Reich polls are against the war. Yet our "reps" crown Ms War. How very cheerful!


"Once the minority of House and Senate are comfortable in their minority status, they will have no problem socializing with the Republicans. Any farmer will tell you that certain animals run around and are unpleasant, but when they've been fixed, then they are happy and sedate. They are contented and cheerful. They don't go around peeing on the furniture and such."

Grover Norquist -NOW, Nov 5 2004

[David Zephyr]

43. I'm happy that there appears to be some debate coming next week.

I may be wrong, but I think that with every poll showing a clear souring of the American people on Bush's war that Condi is being more and more identified with the disaster over there.

Any debate and speeches next week by the Democrats in the Senate will be public relations nightmare for the Bush White House.

I do hope, DTH, that there will be Democrat who may not vote against Rice, but will at least abstain from voting. They don't have to approve his choice by voting for it...they can simply not vote.

[DoveTurnedHawk]

67. I Agree

I think we can still make our points very well on this issue without resorting to doom and gloom exclamations of betrayal and outrage.

DTH

[NEOBuckeye]

44. Hope vs. Honesty

"Echoing Senator Obama, I would hope, and in fact, I honestly believe, that the vast majority of Democrats does want to see Rice succeed in her job, which is centered on diplomacy, and hopefully the use of diplomacy in place of force. For that matter, I would hope and I honestly believe that the vast majority of Democrats does want to see the U.S. succeed in fostering a stable democracy in Iraq, however flawed -- and horribly, horribly flawed it was -- the initial decision to invade (which I opposed and marched against) may have been."

Very good post, DTH, but I must respectfully disagree with you here. There's no need to pretend that we don't really know by now what the Neo-Conservative/Big Oil-backed Bush-Cheney regime is up to in Iraq. Not when it is so clearly laid out for all to see.

Given her bonds and ties to the aforementioned interests, there is absolutely zero chance that Condoleeza Rice can or will succeed at accomplishing anything remotely resembling "peace" as Secretary of State. Until the Bush Administration and its' backers are directly confronted with consequences for their crimes and forced from power, there will be no peace.

Rice and all of Bush's appointments should be opposed on principle, if nothing else. Would you expect the Republicans to do any less for a President Kerry, if the tables were turned?

[2Design]

46. I don't believe in rubberstamping torture and ignoring geneva

conventions - those are moral values of repbulicans and they are not God moral values - they may talk moral values but they do not practice them

and I don't want anyone representing me who has those moral values

[robbedvoter]

50. I know you love wars. I for one don't want criminals with blood on

their hands rewarded for their lies & incompetence. 911 was her criminal negligence too. Thanks for not giving a shit.

[Name removed]

66. Deleted message

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

[robbedvoter]

84. I remember you cheering on LBN the statue toppling. Your handle

Your disrespect for the magnitude of Rice's crimes reminded me that.

[DoveTurnedHawk]

166. That's an Absolutely Ludicrous Statement Coming from a Clark Supporter

First of all, I don't remember "cheering" like you claim. But even if I did, many Americans opposed to the war nevertheless cheered when our soldiers suffered very light casualties and when the statue was toppled, including General Clark.

My handle has its own origin story, but I enjoy keeping it now just to tweak people who enjoy jumping to conclusions.

DTH

[Name removed]

124. Deleted message

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

[ExclamationPoint]

53. We would be against our own values.....

if we attacked people for having seperate opinons.

[LynneSin]

60. It's not Condi Rice I'm worried about

I mean, we know Bush's cabinet is filled with lying idiots who don't even care that we're destroying this country.

All I care about is the judges

Save the fight for the judges. In 4 years (if not sooner) Bush and his minions will be out of office - but the judges Bush appoints will be around for many many years

[DoveTurnedHawk]

68. I'm Totally With You

Judges, Social Security, things like those are much more important than Bush's personal mouthpiece for his misguided foreign policy, which he's going to screw up no matter what bootlicking sycophant is in the job.

DTH

[Hippo_Tron]

72. That's my feeling about the whole situation

Blocking cabinet appointments gives them ground to end fillibusters for confirmations (something they only need 5 more votes to do). We NEED those fillibusters to stop Bush from appointing people like Condi Rice and Alberto Gonzales to the federal judiciary and the SCOTUS in particular.

[CWebster]

74. Yeah, well tell that to the mother of a soldier

who dies for the lie today.

[robbedvoter]

87. Add the relatives of the 911 victims to that - new insult to injury

[robbedvoter]

85. But they'll cave on the judges too as they did before.

Why do you think that crowning criminals, torturers makes the chances for fighting for judges any better? They became the laughingstock of the GOP today (and on Nov 3rd, and daily since)

[Spazito]

61. The world is watching, the vote does have meaning ...

the Secretary of State carries the message from the United States on it's policies and beliefs. The headlines say "only two democrats voted against Condoleeza Rice in her confirmation hearing". That sends, to the world, the message that bush's policies as carried out by the previous NSA, Condi, has been validated by the democrats.

There are two appointments that the world will be watching closely, Rice's and Gonzales' because their decisions affect more than the US.

[Riding this Donkey]

71. I agree with DTH

We are always trying to be so politically correct. Its time to pick and choose our fights by importance and/or the ones we can win. How do we draw people into our tent if we appear to oppose everything? This is about (to some extent) what we look like.

I think we all know about Conda-liar Not Nice but if anyone thinks she really has any pull I would disagree. She is but a pawn. She wants to be somebody when she grows up. We could (someday) get what we ask for if we are not careful.

So I say ditto to what DTH posted.

[blondeatlast]

142. "Politically correct?" What's "politically correct" about this debate?

Sorry, but that term just makes DUdar go up big time.

[DaCheat]

75. Either way

Whether you think her appointment was ok, or whether it was 3rd degree murder of the American public, at least we can all agree that Thomas Jefferson must be spinning in his grave right about now. After all, that is the job he lived to define.

[DoveTurnedHawk]

170. I Agree With You on That

He's spinning to see Bush as President, too.

:puke:

DTH

[SleeplessinSoCal]

77. I faxed this off to Obama last night:

Dear Senator:

I very much support you and appreciate the task of your first days serving the people of Illinois. I live in California and am so very proud of my Senator Barbara Boxer. I feel she needs to have some support on the task of exposing the lies and betrayals of National Security Advisor Rice. Had Rice been a Democrat and a man when the attacks of 9/11 happened, I believe she would have been instantly fired.

The negligence which became so obvious with the 9/11 Commission’s Report is there for all to see, but few truly question. Richard Clarke’s testimony tends to stay with you as did Rice’s who recalled the APB title yet showed no concern or seeming awareness of the intent.

I heard your questions today and believe they were useful and hopefully heeded. But why would we expect that to happen all of a sudden? I believe showing the public that Democrats are willing to fight for the truth and for principles is as important a task as we have. The daunting task of taking on the world will require many allies and diplomacy is crucial. Senator Boxer has made this point, please support her by reiterating it. I believe it will carry much weight.

Thank you from a very concerned citizen,

[snippy]

78. Excellent, well reasoned and well written post.

Every hill is not worth dying for. As the minority party in a corrupt government under one party control, democrats need to choose their battles carefully and wisely, not ideologically. And those battles need to advance the goals of winning in 2006 and 2008. Futile and childish opposition to anything and everything will not accomplish anything.

[DoveTurnedHawk]

171. Thanks

I agree, obviously. :-)

DTH

[Dr. Mullion Blasto]

80. Picking our fights?

I swear that if I see one more DUer talk about picking our fights, I'm going to puke. As near as I can tell, Congressional Democrats have been picking their fights since the Iraq war vote, and so far we have not found any fights worth picking, other than a handful of judicial nominations that we eventually caved on, even though Bush has just about bankrupted the country and led us from one disaster to another. Rice, as National Security Director, is one of the principal architects of an absolutely stupid and ruinous foreign policy. And we can only muster two votes against confirmation? Voting for Rice is a vote of confidence in Bush's foreign policy.

Look, if you are going to talk about opposition parties, you need to realize that, in the common understanding of the term in parliamentary democracies, they stand in opposition to the government. They oppose, and they do so nearly all the time. I'm not saying that we should filibuster every single nominee, although we should filibuster Gonzales for sure. What I am saying is that we need to learn the difference, in politics, between "Yes, but..." and "No". "Yes, but..." always loses because it concedes the agenda to the government. "No" loses when you don't have the votes, but it can be the beginning of a strategy that leads to victory.

[UL_Approved]

95. That is the truth

At what point do we dissent? When do we draw a line in the sand, even if we know we can't hold it?

Kerry was seen as a weak candidate, and not strong enough to lead us in war.

Senate Democrats have been submitting to all sorts of GOP-based legislation.

When is the "right time"?

Where are the "important battles"?

This is a question of dissent and opposition, not whether or not they can stop Rice's appointment.

[Warren Stupidity]

116. castrato party of eunuchs

men without balls

oh we can't vote no, no no no they wont like us any more

[CWebster]

135. The perfect post. nt

[jaysunb]

81. Very Good Post DTH

You have laid out the correct answer to how we should pick and choose our fights wisely.
One should not waste limited ammo on sybolism....she's going to get the job. Period.
Good soldiers know not to aimlessly fire their weapons just because they can.
The real fight is for the more lasting and impactive issues like Social Security, and judges. We should be thinking long term strategy that will expose and render the Republican party impotent, while we try to save as much of our democracy as possible over the next four years.

I once heard a saying about, small minded people spending their time talking about "other people" while successful people spent their time discussing ideas. Condi is truly a stain on the history of this country ( and I think history will judge her as such) Black people have seen right through her, so she can't escape the just rewards for the things she has done by trying to " run home " when the curtain is pulled back. So it really is a waste of time to spend a lot of energy on personalities...We need to be sharpening our IDEAS and message.

This Neocon house of cards cannot survive the light of day. Our job is to, be prepared with the alternative when that time comes.

:toast: to your post !

[DoveTurnedHawk]

173. Thanks J

It's a good thing I enjoy a little feisty debate, huh? ;-)

DTH

[robbedvoter]

86. Cheerful and not peing on furniture - Grover Norquist:

"Once the minority of House and Senate are comfortable in their minority status, they will have no problem socializing with the Republicans. Any farmer will tell you that certain animals run around and are unpleasant, but when they've been fixed, then they are happy and sedate. They are contented and cheerful. They don't go around peeing on the furniture and such."

Grover Norquist -NOW, Nov 5 2004

[SleeplessinSoCal]

94. Norquist isn't good as a sedative

I caught a few minutes of his declarations on C-SPAN before turning in last night and was thoroughly depressed and terrified that we cannot stand up for fairness and human decency any more.

Picking fights may be old school thinking. These are new days and we are dealing with vultures.

As Kerry strategized and believed it wise to sit out August, not squander funds as well as "not peak too soon as Dukakis did", we must anticipate a very new kind of politics. One far more ficious. This is their only chance to see all of their agenda through. They have all the power and intend to reward themselves. Is it wise to pick fights when we are practically dead already?

I think we need some major outside the box thinking.

[robbedvoter]

105. Not meant as a sedative - on the contrary. He is right: we are out

of power - so parsing "it" is demented. Nothing to lose - might as well be proncipled.

[Skittles]

89. I am tired of this attitude

I really dislike hearing "he would just nominate someone worse". WE F***ING KNOW THAT AND WE ARE OBLIGATED TO PROTEST EVERY G.D. ONE OF THEM. Ms. Rice is being promoted for her f***ing INCOMPETENCY. She is a G.D. DISGRACE and so is EVERY DEMOCRAT WHO VOTES FOR HER.

[sophie996]

97. from your lips ...

to god's ears! (or whoever.)

what a buunch of wusses our brave senator boxer is surrounded by.

[suegeo]

91. Condi is (at best) incompetent

I think someone should stop the monsters who have seized control of the government. Condi is a train wreck, there are bodies and body parts scattered everywhere due in part to her incompetence (or worse).

Many people have died (remember the people leaping to their deaths from the WTC towers?) because she is not competent. Many people are still dying (WMDS in Iraq! We must attack! KABOOM!)

In addition, they can't find their asses with both hands when it comes to stemming terrorism, It is on the rise and in more countries than ever.

So, her actions will get many people killed in the future.

It's the incompetence, and I don't want to die due to it.

Sure I hope she does a good job, just like I hope my surgeon can repair my leaky heart valve. However, if my surgeon has accidentally removed my kidney during a previous surgery, I would hope I would have the good sense to find another doctor.

[JI7]

92. i didn't really read your post

i will later though.

but i agree about not really caring about it. first of all Barack Obama's first vote is not going to be to vote against another minority for a top job especially when his vote would not make any difference. and it's the sense that Democrats "want" Bush to fail which hurts us. this is of course not true but this IS what the right wing puts out to the people. they do this to take attention away from their own failures. Obama did the right thing when he said he wants them to succeed.

there was a bunch of anti Kerry crap on DU about whether he will vote for or against her . and people made it as if that vote defines what he is about. just as they do with whatever the latest issue is.

but i know the various Senator's records and judge based on that. it's not about the latest vote but an overall record.

[Padraig18]

93. Thank you for injecting some sanity into this debate, DTH.

far too many people have completely lost any sense of perspective, as regards presidential privilege. They are urging s to play a VERY dangerous game which could easily come back to bite US in the ass, when we regain the WH.

[newsguyatl]

96. that's just the thing, dems won't EVER

regain the WH, until they turn into the party of true opposition.

far too many "democrats" have completely lost any sense of perspective, as regards fighting and standing up for something.

[DoveTurnedHawk]

172. We Do Need to Fight and Stand Up

But we don't need to do that with everything, and we don't need to do it in the same way for the stuff we do fight.

DTH

[RaleighNCDUer]

98. I think she is wrong and dangerous, but that just goes with being

part of this administration. One of the biggest foreign policy failures in the past 4 years was that everyone expected Powell to be a bright light and a steady voice in this company of clowns, and we lost the trust of much of the world when he turned out to be a clown as well. Well, nobody will have any such expectations for Condi -- they've already seen what she is. Since they know what to expect of her, I think foreign governments she'll be dealing with might be able to deal with her.

At least, for a change, State and Administration will be speaking with one voice. Richard Perle's voice.

[UL_Approved]

99. You talk of picking our battles, but...

At what point do we dissent? When do we stand up and say NO with some resolve? When does "something better" come around?

The Democrats have been consistently and quietly submitting to GOP legislation for the last four years now. The act of dissent by Dems seems to be hubris in Bush's America. How can we just sit back and make statements like "we have to choose our battles", "we have to wait for something better", and "we can't stop it anyway"?

By your logic, we should be flaming Kerry and Boxer for not choosing our opposition with more shrewdness. After all, they WILL pay for opposition at some point in the future.

And let us not forget about Bill Clinton. He fought long and hard for EIGHT years against radical Neo-Cons like Newt Gingrich. Billy boy fought those fucks day in and day out. And you know what, he won a hell of a lot of battles even though he was faced by a Republican majority. He even put the Republican Revolution on hold for a while. Do you see why opposition is so important?

The final thing that bothers me is the timing of your post. Being near to MLK day, I have to stand in awe at this man's accomplishments. He lived in a minority world, and he freed a minority world. He operated in an oppressive and committed environment. He even died for his cause. Yet he prevailed. Other people have done the same thing.

As long as we have opposition, we need to use it. It would have been nice to see one or two other Dems cast a negative vote.

If you are still not convinced that some criticism is needed, please read the book Why We Can't Wait by Martin Luther King, Jr. This is my major justification for mounting dissent whenever possible.

[oppositionmember]

101. On principle

one would have to vote against Rice. She is not competent and moreover is complicit in an irresponsible and possible criminal foreign policy. What is the point of endorsing her? Does Barack Obama win point with the Republicans, who will nonetheless fuck him whenever they get the chance? This is the irrational calculus of supine opposition - i.e. sodomize me whenever you have the opportunity.

[DrGonzoLives]

102. Finally, a voice of intelligence

and someone who actually seems to have some grasp of the real world.

Let's face facts:

(1) Rice would win the nomination even if every Dem voted no.
(2) See (1)

Let's the Dems filibuster, have a symbolic vote no, whatever - what then? The story becomes the nasty, childish Democrats and their political agenda, instead of what was said (or not said, more appropriately) during the confirmation.

The story right now is Biden's questions on Iraqi troop strength, Obama's questions on nuclear proliferation, Kerry and Boxer's relentess questioning and opposition...all focusing on what Rice is putting on the record.

If people here had their way, all this would fly right under the radar into The Memory Hole.

DTH is right - if Rice, in some bizarre reality gets defeated next week (Democrats are going to debate her confirmation, meaning no vote until next week) what then? You want to try again to take down Wolfowitz? Perle? Someone worse?

[NightOwwl]

121. I don't give a flying fuck about being called "nasty" and "childish"

And now we are supposed to cower in fear because the story becomes about our "political agenda"? Well, the story had damn well be about our political agenda. That "political agenda" is what we voted them into office to uphold.

Meanwhile, we rubber-stamp one of the most incompetent, dangerous members of this administration, all the while blubbering about how incompetent and dangerous she is.

Fuck 'em. Fuck 'em all except Boxer.

Kerry you squeaked by this time, but after you wasted the opportunity to stand up with your Senate Sister on January 6, you have to do more to earn my respect.

[blondeatlast]

146. Why do we try to please the OPPOSITION? Is this how we are

supposed to fight the gang war that politics has become?

Shouldn't they be pleasing us, the people who helped them get there?

[seaglass]

103. I like your perspective and agree for the most part. thanks. n/t

[mark414]

104. well put

unfortunately you and i are definitely in the minority here

it's unfortunate because from my time here, i've noticed that we've got just as many knee jerk reactionaries as the other side, who will never support a single thing ever done by a republican or even someone who's willing to work with them

[robbedvoter]

106. NO LONGER BUSINESS AS USUAL: no more 2 parties, checks&balances

constitution, elections. wake up and smell the dictatorship!
geez! Powerless and clueless - the worst possible combination.

[DrGonzoLives]

107. Amazing!

ONE SINGLE VOTE will destroy the America we all know? Fucking wild! :eyes:

[robbedvoter]

108. No dear. The votes are meaningless - but for the principle.

They have no power. NONE. So, what are they saving it for? Can you get it through your head that it's no longer a democracy?
Today's vote destroyed nothing but the integrity of the ones who cast it. And any chance for the dems to make a statement on war, torture, competence, credibility. Just a principle. No strategery. I am wasting my time here. This is the pundits thread. G'Night.

[Daybreaker]

109. But she's going to be a BAD Secretary of State.

She's unqualified. She lacks the credibility, the presence, the integrity and the diplomatic skills necessary to be a good Secretary of State.

Let me put it this way -- if I can see through her mistruths, chances are the heads of state that she'll be talking to will be able to as well.

[RaleighNCDUer]

112. Agree. As I said above, Powell had the trust of foreign leaders

which made things worse in the run up to the war. They'll not be at all misled by Rice. They know what to expect from her, and will deal with her accordingly.

[DoveTurnedHawk]

174. Even Though It's One That I Share

That's still pretty much a statement of opinion, and it's certainly not one that is universally shared.

DTH

[MellowOne]

115. What she did is unexcusable

We shouldn't reward her behavior with a promotion. It's like we're saying, you mess up but hey, that's ok. We forgive you, it's only people dying because of your mistakes, no problem.

[hansolsen]

117. We will lose every election until this line of reasoning is rejected. N/T

[xray s]

118. What I would like to know

If Al Gore was president 9/11/01, and he handled everything leading up to and after 9/11 exactly the same as Bush has, and he had a National Security Advisor giving him the exact same advice Rice has given Bush about terrorism and Iraq, do you think for one minute the Republicans would be voting for that person for Secretary of State?

What do you think the party that impeached a President for lying about a sexual affair would do?

[Mynameissalvatore]

119. I respectfully disagree

The democratic party is too quick to roll over. It's too late to pick battles. Our representatives better start fighting everything and now. Otherwise we better get used to the idea of being a perenial oppostion party

[FubarFly]

120. Hey, I like to dance as much as the next Democrat,

but don't you think the pink tutus are a little tacky?

Condi's lies are responsible for the slaughter of thousands of innocent humans. She is a war criminal in an administration of war criminals. If we were in a functioning democracy, we would be trying to figure out a way to put her in jail- not rationalizing ways to stomach her promotion. Confirming her to Secretary of State takes away any shred of credibility the Democrats have in the world community, and with it, much of the scant hope I have left that justice will ever be served to this band of traitors and murderers. It's a damn shame.

But outside of this, on a purely strategic level, our Democrats gain absolutely nothing with a "yes" vote. NOTHING. Except perhaps a deferred ass-whupping. Political capital has an expiration date. Either you use it or you lose it. When the next battle comes around, their vote here will be irrelevant. At least if they vote "no", they'll have something to point to later. They could build a record of opposition which would pay dividends in the 2006 elections. If and when Condi does fuck up, wouldn't you rather have our Dems say, "see, we were right", rather than see GW's smirking face exclaim, "gosh, but you supported her too." Unless you think a rose petal revival is in store for us in Iraq, a "yes" vote here is as moronic as it is immoral.

[IronLionZion]

122. Fine, but we can all thank Senators Kerry and Boxer

for voting NAY on Rice. Mind you, that's just the Foreign Relations Committee. The full Senate votes tomorrow I think.

Good votes on important stuff like this deserves some thanks.

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_all&address=203x292423

[DoveTurnedHawk]

176. Absolutely Right

Like I said, if I'd had a vote, I would have voted no. And I appreciate both my Senator Boxer, and Kerry, for their votes. I'm just not into counterproductive scorched earth tactics directed at people who voted yes.

DTH

[cyclezealot]

125. Don't you know when you hear bs.

She is a yes man...An unofficial Neo-con...She ignored the signs of 9-11 and hand crafted a failed policy into Iraq..A party to lies. Her motives should be impuned...Afraid to take on an Auntie Tom..?
She is cover for BUsh to his claims of minority members into his Cabinet..When her real loyalty is to Exxon Valdez.
In truth we shold be trying her for lying to the public and being a war criminal....more interested in promoting a war than telling the truth..You like being lied to...and getting us into unwinable messy wars.

[ComerPerro]

127. Great point, especially about Obama. One disagreement, though

And its a very small disagreement.

I just have a sinking feeling that whenever Democrats bitch about something Condi does or whoever else, Democrats will be told, "Well, you supported this person, so this is just as much your fault". Granted, that hasn't happened yet, but it wouldn't suprise me.

This nomination process is lose-lose for the Dems.

Approve, and your base thinks you are weak and a sellout.

Disapprove, and the media accuses you of obstructing the process (even though nothing the Dems do really matters now, since the Republicans are so fucking lock-step). And, in this "war on terror" (a title I personally loathe), obstructing the political process (as the MSM describes it) is considered to be Treason by the pundits.

The Republicans really have the Dems by the... well, you get my point.

[CWebster]

130. Of course it will happen

Kerry's vote to authorize Bush tied his hands and prevented him from taking a strong, direct shot.

Rice was the faithful servant willing to do her master's bidding and she promoted overt criminal lies, deceptive images and doctored intel that the world recognizes as bogus. Now she is the face we put forward to the world, claiming it was, and blaming it all on bad intel. Where is the accountability? What does it say to the world that we are willing to just go along and brush it aside?

How can we protest the lack of accountability when we are willing to repeatedly accept and excuse and justify and rationalize why we didn't hold them accountable? Boxer was only testifying to the tip of the iceberg for the record, with the aluminum tubes and the broader story behind "Saddam gassing his own people"--and even then there was even more to the story.

The question I have to ask of all you who brush it aside and excuse it time after time after time is:

IF NOT NOW, WHEN?

How bad does it have to get? How much human suffering does there have to be? How much deception, loss of world standing and reputation, how much looting and criminal glutting and corruption is tolerable- until it is no longer dismissed as not significant enough to make a stand--if merely a symbolic one?

[Ganja Ninja]

128. So at what point do you consider a persons past ...

job performance? None of Clinton's appointees had Condi Rice's deadly track record of failure. This isn't anything more than a job interview. Someone that screwed up as much as she did doesn't deserve a promotion. That's what she's getting.

We hear a lot from the GOP about personal responsibility. We complain ourselves about holding Bush accountable. Yet you seem to feel that for the sake of political civility we should just give her a pass. Let me ask you, why are there hearings and why is Senate approval required for cabinet appointees, so they can rubber stamp whoever the president wants?

[Disturbed]

132. Why have hearings?

Good question. A no vote is now obstructionist? It is picking a fight?
Dems, except for a few are appeasing weasles. Any Dems that vote yes on Rice or Gonzales does not deserve to be in Congress.

[muchacho]

138. Rice is being rewarded for negligence and incompetence

Like Tenant, Bremer and Franks, she is being rewarded for blind allegiance to an forgone neo-con ideology.

This is yet another in a long line of Bush actions that say "Fuc* you, what are you going to do about it?. Bipartisanship is forced on the losers."

[porkrind]

143. Disagree

Echoing Senator Obama, I would hope, and in fact, I honestly believe, that the vast majority of Democrats does want to see Rice succeed in her job..."

I really can't imagine why this makes sense to you. Rice is a proven liar. Remember her lies regarding 9/11 and then Iraq? Why would we want her for another term of lies to the public? Obama should know better.

What do people want? A filibuster when it comes to the floor? Tactics like those make no sense to me, because even if we "win" and the nomination is withdrawn, Bush just throws up another neocon, someone just as bad or worse than Rice, and we lose the political capital that we spend in such a high-profile battle.

Wrong. A policy of appeasement is not the way to go. Cooperation is fine, but approving known liars as cabinet members is not. Tom DeLay and Newt Gingrich did not become as powerful as they were by "playing ball" and saving "political capital". They became powerful by being unscrupulous (which I don't condone), but by also being energetic and constant in their opposition. They are junkyard-dog mean, and that's how democrats need to be in support of the public's interest. Why "save political capital"? It's not like the Republicans can fire them from the senate/house.

(Edited for politeness) :)

[NicRic]

144. Birds of a feather

Why should we expect this idiot in office to have a secratary of state that smarter thern him .When looking for a replacement for Colin Powell , he wasnt sure who would be as stupid as he(bush) is ! So he played it safe and went with someone he knows is stupider or at least as stupid as him. Whats upsetting is the Dems indorsing what has to be to worst possible choice for a secratary of state !

[blondeatlast]

145. It's just a filibuster and a vote, for God's sake, why NOT push it?

Why, just once, as God is my witness, should they NOT...

DO THE RIGHT THING?

So there will be criticism from our OPPOSITION. So the hell what? If they don't do what we hired them, as DEMS, to do, fire the bastards.

Those of us who push pencils, schlep food, and drive trucks for a living face this kind of thing all the time, why is it so damn hard for the people we put into office to do the same?

And why shouldn't they be expected to perform the jobs we hired them for?


Edit: double negative

[DoveTurnedHawk]

175. Because the Filibuster Is Like the Nuclear Bomb

It is the weapon of last resort. You don't use it all the time, and you don't use it for stuff like this.

IMO, obviously.

DTH

[DrGonzoLives]

180. Question

Would you rather the news be reporting:

(1) What the Democrats say on the floor about Rice and the administration, as well as her (non)-answers in committee?

or

(2) Republicans and Bush making loud noise about obstructionist Democrats undermining the war on terror?

At least this way some truth gets out. Or would you rather have a symbolic "victory" that only erodes what little clout the Democrats have?

[blondeatlast]

186. We need to fight back against the "obstructionist" label.

If it's bad policy or a bad nominee, I'd hope they'd "obstruct" all the way to hell.

I agree, a filibuster isn't for EVERYTHING, but Condi isn't the typical Cabinet nominee, either.

She's incompetent, a bootlicker, and a world-class hawk (bomb 'em first, then try diplomacy?!).

It's early, let's show them now that we won't roll over for them. THEN, and only then, step back a bit until it's time for SCOTUS appointments.

At the very, very least, make them squirm a bit.

As for the media, people are turning away in slow droves from the typical outlests like cable.

[GoBlue]

149. Incredibly naive

"Echoing Senator Obama, I would hope, and in fact, I honestly believe, that the vast majority of Democrats does want to see Rice succeed in her job,"

Yes of course, who wants a failure for Secretary of State?

And yet your pride and joy Obama goes and votes for a proven failure.

"...one of the party's brightest rising stars" appears to be a dim bulb.

[DoveTurnedHawk]

177. Maybe to a Shrill Few

Most people I know still love Obama.

DTH

[blondeatlast]

187. I've lost no respect for him, he's young and inexperienced.

I'm not ready to pile on those that voted to send this to the floor; I think you've misinterpreted me.

I'm saying let's show a bit of spine on the floor. Just enough to make them see we won't roll over for them.

Hell, I still like Biden, and I KNOW that loses me respect cred here at DU.

[DrGonzoLives]

181. How long has he been in the Senate?

Just curious as to how someone can be an utter failure after a week because of one vote.

[Bluesage]

153. The Time is Now

This is my first post although I have been lurking and reading for some time now. Being a Democrat is in my soul and my heart but has never been so frustrating as it is now. We seem to have so little leadership and so little influence with that leadership. So many of us worked so hard and gave so much during this last election only to have the wimp factor defeat us again. There is much talk now about "picking" the right fight. I say it is all worth fighting. The Republicans have out maneuvered us at every turn because they are organized and marching lock-step behind every evil and illegal whim of the Moron-in-Chief. They win with lies and deceit and a very compliant media. If we don't take a stand now, when will we? Every Democrat should have stood with Barbara Boxer and those brave Congressional Democrats challenging the Ohio electors. Every Democrat should vote NO on Gonzales and Rice. Many say it would be only a symbolic vote but it would be a vote against rigged elections, torture and lies. Sure, there would be an uproar and the media would have a field day calling us obstructionist but if every Democrat to appear on one of those ridiculous shows would just say (over and over again as the Republicans do with Karl Rove's talking points) that their vote was against rigged elections, torture, lies and incompetence and then ask the "hosting whore" how that is obstructing democracy and what we as a nation stand for? Maybe we should try the lock-step method for truth and justice.

[NightOwwl]

179. I agree 100%

Welcome to DU Bluesage :hi:

I'm looking forward to reading more of your thoughtful posts.

[mutius]

183. I agree 100%

what is wrong with the democrats including John Kerry? the party will be abolished by 2008, and our country, if we do not fight back. even CNN yesterday said bill Clinton likes the chimp.

[loritooker]

154. "Wishing ain't having". Obama should know this. nt

[progressoid]

155. "A moment of resistance, a lifetime of capitualtion."...John Stewart

Yes, I wanted a filibuster. But since we ain't gonna get that, at least a fight. That "hearing" was a joke. We started out this session with a wimper.

Yes, I wanted someone other than Bush's other wife. She makes Dan Quayle look qualified. Hell, Spongebob could do a better job.

I think the Democrats should start fighting today for us (all Americans). This administration is going to keep doing this as long as they can get away with it. And it looks like they are going to get away with it for another 4 years.

"A moment of resistance, a lifetime of capitualtion."...John Stewart

[Spazito]

156. In reading your constitution, I failed to find any words that said....

the President gets the cabinet he/she wants. In fact, it is stated in the opposite:

"Clause 2: He shall have Power, by and with the Advice and Consent of the Senate, to make Treaties, provided two thirds of the Senators present concur; and he shall nominate, and by and with the Advice and Consent of the Senate, shall appoint Ambassadors, other public Ministers and Consuls, Judges of the supreme Court, and all other Officers of the United States, whose Appointments are not herein otherwise provided for, and which shall be established by Law: but the Congress may by Law vest the Appointment of such inferior Officers, as they think proper, in the President alone, in the Courts of Law, or in the Heads of Departments."

The KEY words being "with the ADVICE and Consent of the Senate".

Am I wrong in interpreting that the founders felt it was crucial the Senate do due diligence in it's duty to ensure those appointed have been scrutinized closely and have been found to be worthy appointments and if found to be not so, their duty is to vote nay? If I am wrong, please point out what section of the Constitution and the duties of the Legislative bodies say "go along to get along"?

[Zynx]

164. Of course we won't like any of Bush's appointees.

However, unless a cabinet nominee has serious scandals, there is no reason not to confirm them simply because of ideological differences.

[blondeatlast]

188. Incompetence isn't a reason?

Yes, she's emininently qualified, but she reached the Peter Principle in 2001 and thousands died; now thousands more have died as an indirect result of the lies linking 9/11 and Iraq.

Now we should just allow her a promotion and a free pass into the SECRETARY OF STATE?

I think not.

Have you done any hiring?

It takes a lot more than meeting the minimum qualies to perform well at the job.

All those in opposition to the OP are saying is give it enough of a fight to put her and the Bushit Admin on notice. There is no doubt she gets the job.