Comments on: The Rice Vote and Democratic Politics

By: Attila Girl

Attila Girl — Sat, 29 Jan 2005 00:13:48 +0000

The legality of the war rested on the fact that Saddam was violating international law, by 1) flouting the terms of the cease-fire (shooting at our planes), and 2) not showing us how he had disposed of the WMDs. People always forget this: he was not simply required to get rid of them. He was required to document when and how he did it.

South Africa did this correctly, and wasn't invaded. But Saddam did everything in his power to coyly hint that he still had the weapons in question, and he did not cooperate with the inspectors.

His actions were tantamount to manufacturing evidence against oneself in a murder trial. So he was "convicted," in a sense. And it was his own fault.

By: paladin

paladin — Fri, 28 Jan 2005 23:21:27 +0000

On January 23, 2003, John Kerry said: "Without question, we need to disarm Saddam Hussein. He is a brutal, murderous dictator...He presents a particularly grievous threat....So the threat of Saddam Hussein with weapons of mass destruction is real." Hey, if you can't believe John Kerry, who can you believe?

By: paladin

paladin — Fri, 28 Jan 2005 23:20:31 +0000

By: Avedon

Avedon — Fri, 28 Jan 2005 22:54:08 +0000

Those of us with an attention span of more than five minutes remember that it had been a few years since people had said there were WMD in Iraq, and that we had bombed their suspected caches since then, and that bio & chemical weapons have a short shelf-life that had already been exceeded.

We also remember that weapons inspectors were in Iraq looking in the very places that the US gov. was claiming the weapons were, and they weren't finding them.

We also remember that the point of the entire exercise was to get weapons inspectors in there. And the weapons inspectors were there. And there was no reason to invade.

Of course, if Rice was not lying - if she actually believed the things she was saying, then perhaps she is not a liar but she certainly isn't competent so it hardly matters. One way or another her judgment led to bad decisions.

But then, if her own attention span was good for more than five minutes, we must assume she did indeed lie when she changed her story back and forth. And if it's not good for more than five minutes, let's get someone in there whose memory is a bit more efficient.

By: paladin

paladin — Fri, 28 Jan 2005 21:48:28 +0000

I am so bored by those who claim that GWB just made up the claim of WMD over the last several years. Those of us with an attention span of more than five minutes will remember that Bill Clinton, John Kerry, Ted Kennedy, Nancy Pelosi, Carl Levin, Robert Byrd, Henry Waxman, Al Gore, Tom Daschle, Hillary Clinton, Madeleine Albright, Wm. Cohen, etc. all said Saddam had WMD and must be stopped. Now these same people are saying the Bush lied. Give me a freakin' break! Monday Morning Quarterbacking Gone Wild!

By: praktike

praktike — Fri, 28 Jan 2005 21:19:00 +0000

Right. Charles Krauthammer, the man who speaks for black aspirations everywhere ... give me a break. This conservo-race card thing is so dumb, it's pathetic. Nothing in the Senators' votes against Rice had anything to do with her race whatsoever. Krauthammer is the only one bringing this up, and frankly, it's embarrassing. Moreover, it's pretty clear that she did, in fact, mislead about the extent of U.S. knowledge about Iraq's nuclear weapons program by cherrypicking the one guy who said the aluminum tubes were for a nuclear program and failing to inform the public that everyone else--and most importantly those with the necessary knowledge--thought otherwise.

By: Marc

Marc — Fri, 28 Jan 2005 20:31:47 +0000

Ken: "someone who just plain lied to all of us about an issue that led to an illegal war is pretty good politics." And what lies were those? Keeping in mind of course a lie is a false statement deliberately presented as being true. Can you name them, with supporting documents? Doesn't enforcing an internationaly recognized ceasefire, one repeatedly violated by Saddam, fall under the category of legal. Obviously not in your case, but that's the way it is with the anti-Bush/war faction. You can hear and read a million "illegal war" screeds but none include the words ceasefire. Wonder why that is?

By: Jim Henley

Jim Henley — Fri, 28 Jan 2005 19:56:42 +0000

I suspect Krauthammer is letting his hopes stand in for his thoughts as far as the racial politics go. But if the BLACK press, not some white Republican columnist, starts writing as if the Rice vote is an insult to African-American honor, I'll certainly change my tune.

By: McGehee

McGehee — Fri, 28 Jan 2005 19:43:08 +0000

Ken, the question is whether those voting against Dr. Rice are to be taken seriously by mainstream opinion. The question of what you think, is another thing entirely.

By: ken

ken — Fri, 28 Jan 2005 19:37:40 +0000

I don't know James, it seems to me that opposing someone who just plain lied to all of us about an issue that led to an illegal war is pretty good politics. Condi's color is not a problem, her lack of integrity is.