just typical bad partisanship

[thesightless]

the only two people to vote down dr. rice to sec. of state

1. john kerry- lost the election
2. mrs. boxer (cali)- filed lawsuit over election.

funny thing is she was brought into the state dept by clinton. but once she got a job with Bush, she became the enemy.... :?

american politaics should be a reality show. we deserve to understand why these people will do things, for personal reasons? or for concrete reasons?... and not on behalf of the people they are responsible to?. looks like 4 more years of in-fighting within our gov't..... nothing will get done.

[Yao]

I'm puzzled: from what I read, she's partly responsible for the 'intelligence' Bush got, and the argument of WMD's.

If someome in such a position makes mistakes that drag a country into a war, shouldn't person be fired and receive no allowance whatsoever? She is partly responsible for all the deaths so far.

I see things like that happen in my country: people screwing things up with their arrogant asses, thinking they are above the law, and they get bloody promoted to another position, where they can screw things up even more!!

[fishingnut]

she's just a sore losser, and blind to her stupid actions

[digitalghost10]

Re: just typical bad partisanship

Boxer and Kerry, again they stand alone in their own partisanship. Nothing new here, two losers alone, and isolated. Typical.

[face]

Re: just typical bad partisanship

american politaics should be a reality show.

uhh. have you ever watched C-SPAN? or C-SPAN 2? lol. all they need is a confession booth and voil

[face]

btw, i WAS watching both Gonzalez and Rice testify on C-SPAN.

i thought it was rather interesting how Dr. Rice would either lie through her teeth or "decline" to answer questions she knew would expose her. lugor asked her something like: as a human being, would you personally consider water boarding and forced nudity to be torture? and she couldn't say.

and the senator from rhode island (republican, by the way) asked her about the hypocrisy of our foreign policy. how is it that we do business with russia, and china, who are known to have perpetrated massive human rights abuses, but we refuse do talk with iran? and as he pointed out: israel, pakistan, russia, india, and perhaps others are nuclear powers. why shouldn't iran be allowed to have the right to defend itself? just because it supports hizbullah in southern lebanon?

our middle east foreign policy priorities:

1)oil
2)israel's security
.
.
.
.
.
.
3)all the rest (human rights, freedom/democracy, women's rights, etc.)


so china and russia can get away with all of the above, just because they don't pose an immediate threat to israel?

[thesightless]

personally i think c-span should have the type of reporters that the networks use for ""problem solvers"" those annoying in your face types that actually would ask why somone voted for a bill to allow failing students to move up a grade, or why 2 million bucks goes to "researching the ways the humpback whale travels"" i mean the stuff with the war is downright evil. but some is a neccessary evil. the stuff on torture, blah, if we force a guy who was just shooting an RPG at people to strip and lay naked with another guy to find out where they are getting the weapons that are killing people. i say strip the guy if its the only way, b/c in the end, we could hand him over to pakistan or a CIA operative who would beat, drug, main, or worse to get the info.

not all, but a lot of those prisoners abandoned thier rights to fair treatment the moment they decided to forcefully deny innocent people thier right to live a good life, and they did it through force. imagine your sister getting beaten to within an inch of her life because she disagreed with her husband, and when she went to the police, they beat her more for going against a man........

[face]

'the stuff on torture, blah, if we force a guy who was just shooting an RPG at people to strip and lay naked with another guy to find out where they are getting the weapons that are killing people. "

no, that's only to humiliate them. using dogs because arabs are stereotypically afraid of them; forcing muslims to eat pork...etc.

"we could hand him over to pakistan or a CIA operative who would beat, drug, main, or worse to get the info."

how's getting the "info" worse? and the CIA can't "officially" do most of what we'd call torture, but our government likes the "rendition" alternative, i.e. giving them to pakistan, egypt, etc. where they will be tortured and we know it.

"not all, but a lot of those prisoners abandoned thier rights to fair treatment the moment they decided to forcefully deny innocent people thier right to live a good life, and they did it through force."

abandoned their right to fair treatment? are you talking about "insurgents" or soldiers who fought for saddam? but like our soldiers who humiliated, tortured, and killed prisoners of war, iraqi soldiers were just following orders. why the double standard? just because saddam was considered a tyrant doesn't legitimize a call for his troops to surrender with a smile.


"imagine your sister getting beaten to within an inch of her life because she disagreed with her husband, and when she went to the police, they beat her more for going against a man........ "

what the hell? was that an analogy or were you trying to make a statement about iraqi/muslim society?