Applying the same standards to Senator Boxer as are applied to the President by those who insist he lied about Iraq…
Senator Boxer’s comment to Ms. Rice, when Ms. Rice suggested there were other good reasons for the use of military force in Iraq besides weapons of mass destruction: “Well, you should read what we voted on when we voted to support the war, which I did not, but most of my colleagues did. It was WMD, period.”
Here is the text of the “Joint Resolution to authorize the use of United States Armed Forces against Iraq.” As you can see, it’s a laundry list of Iraq violations and problems. Of course, weapons of mass destruction are mentioned there in various contexts, but they are by no means the only reason listed in the resolution.
Now, if Ms. Boxer had said, “The WMD claim is the only reason I even considered voting for the resolution,” I’d certainly understand that. But she doesn’t. She says that it was WMD, period. This is manifestly untrue.
Therefore, by the standards seemingly accepted by many, Ms. Boxer lied. Right?
Note that I do not agree with the characterization as applied to either Mr. Bush or Ms. Boxer. I don’t think she lied. But it seems quite inconsistent for anyone to deny her lie and accuse Mr Bush.
Stipulating that she lied (I stipulate it because of the reason below), is there a morally relevant difference between a lie that impugns a person’s integrity, and a lie that gets tens of thousands of people killed?
I say there is. And that’s why I bothered to look into the gory details of what Bush said to determine its truth but can’t be bothered to do the same for Ms. Boxer: Bush’s falsehoods resulted in many, many deaths, whereas Ms. Boxer’s, at worst, result in character assassination against Ms. Rice. That’s despicable, but it’s hardly earth-shaking.
It won’t work, Bricker. It’s amusing to call attention to things like this to watch them tap dance, but you won’t accomplish anything. For the record, I found Boxer’s behavior amusing as well. She is usually good to generate a derisive smirk.
Seems almost exclusively about the threat posed by Iraq to America. She overstated the letter of the matter, but certainly not the spirit.
Speaking of tap dancing, this is simply another in a long line of pirouettes by the right to try to move away from the bald fact that the primary justification presented by this administration for the war was the threat of Iraq’s phantom WMD. Keep dancing there, slick. You’re real good at it.
Actually, yes you can. I believe that Bricker has, in his long posting history here, never referred to any American official by anything other than his or her proper honorific and correct spelling other than in error.
Hmm…I just read that document, and by my count, there are eleven paragraphs describing the bad stuff that Iraq has done.
Eight of those center around WMDs.
One of those mentions Iraq’s brutal repression of its civilian population.
Two of those make spurious links between Iraq and terrorists.
The two terrorist paragraphs are immediately followed by a paragraph that points out how dangerous WMDs are in the hands of terrorists, thereby tying the spurious terrorist complaints into the WMD complaints.
As I read it, out of those eleven paragraphs, there’s exactly one that isn’t about WMDs. Far from a laundry list, it’s a characterization of Iraq as a power that has and uses WMDs, will probably give them to terrorists, and incidentally is awful to its own civilians.
Boxer’s characterization of the resolution is slightly more inaccurate than yours, Bricker, but only slightly. It is not even in the same league as Bush’s falsehoods about the war.
I don’t have my Chicago Style manual here at work (and I ought to!), but I believe that the convention is to refer to a Senator as Senator X on first use and as Mr. or Ms. X on subsequent use, just as the OP did in his text.
I mean, this is a system where when you say, “distinguished gentleman” you mean “asshole”… We need to be more like the Brits. CSPAN ratings would go up, too.
Well, it goes without saying I’m extremely disappointed in you.
Seriously (and embarrassingly), I didn’t realize this convention. Go figure. And it’s been bothering me for years. I knew the NYT had their own irritating little rules.
It’s quite common to use last names only, even omitting the title first if it’s clear who is being referred to.
Bricker, looks like your never-ending search for examples to backfill some factual support behind your faith-based belief that “Yeah, well, they’re just as bad as us” is becoming increasingly desperate. Time to reassess, pard.
It WAS WMD period. A single insincere paragraph about the suffering of Iraqi civilians (which is not a legal justification for the invasion anyway) doesn’t really refute Boxer’s point.
The “imminemt threat” justification was the sole LEGAL justification used by the White House, was the sole justification used before the UN and wasthe sole justification sold to the public.
Boxer is correct and Rice is a fucking liar and an assistant war criminal.
In an amusing twist, the resolution Bricker cites include the accusation that Iraq tried to assassinate President G.H. Bush in 1993 - a claim about as well founded and supported as the now-laughable WMD claims.