# Barbara Boxer Lied! **URL:** \ **Category:** Great Debates\ **Created:** [January 21, 2005, 1:52pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/barbara-boxer-lied/285911 "2005-01-21T13:52:01Z")\ **Posts on this page:** 20\ **Page:** 1
**Author:** ![Bricker](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/b/977dab/32.png) [@Bricker](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Bricker)\ **Post date:** [January 21, 2005, 1:52pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/barbara-boxer-lied/285911/1 "2005-01-21T13:52:01Z")
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](http://uspolitics.about.com/od/wariniraq/a/jt_resolution.htm) 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. ---
**Author:** ![Demorian](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/demorian/32/7273_2.png) [@Demorian](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Demorian)\ **Post date:** [January 21, 2005, 1:54pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/barbara-boxer-lied/285911/2 "2005-01-21T13:54:04Z")
Pffft, senators don’t read what they pass. Didn’t you watch F-9/11? Oh, right, you didn’t. ---
**Author:** ![Demorian](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/demorian/32/7273_2.png) [@Demorian](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Demorian)\ **Post date:** [January 21, 2005, 1:56pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/barbara-boxer-lied/285911/3 "2005-01-21T13:56:26Z")
BTW, even if a democrat lies bold faced, it doesn’t justify Bush Admin’s lies. ---
**Author:** ![Left\_Hand\_of\_Dorkness](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/left_hand_of_dorkness/32/7156_2.png) [@Left\_Hand\_of\_Dorkness](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Left_Hand_of_Dorkness)\ **Post date:** [January 21, 2005, 2:00pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/barbara-boxer-lied/285911/4 "2005-01-21T14:00:50Z")
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. Daniel ---
**Author:** ![Squink](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/s/b5e925/32.png) [@Squink](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Squink)\ **Post date:** [January 21, 2005, 2:32pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/barbara-boxer-lied/285911/5 "2005-01-21T14:32:08Z")
> [@Bricker](#): > > Barbara Bozer Lied! Is that a typo, or are you trying to be clever? ---
**Author:** ![Demorian](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/demorian/32/7273_2.png) [@Demorian](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Demorian)\ **Post date:** [January 21, 2005, 2:43pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/barbara-boxer-lied/285911/6 "2005-01-21T14:43:27Z")
> [@Squink](#): > > Is that a typo, or are you trying to be clever? You can never tell with them, can you? ---
**Author:** ![Evil\_One](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/e/45deac/32.png) [@Evil\_One](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Evil_One)\ **Post date:** [January 21, 2005, 2:52pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/barbara-boxer-lied/285911/7 "2005-01-21T14:52:55Z")
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. ---
**Author:** ![Hentor\_the\_Barbarian](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/h/8edcca/32.png) [@Hentor\_the\_Barbarian](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Hentor_the_Barbarian)\ **Post date:** [January 21, 2005, 2:58pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/barbara-boxer-lied/285911/8 "2005-01-21T14:58:27Z")
Here are the resolutions they voted for: > [@](#): > > Resolved by the Senate and House of Representatives of the United States of America in Congress assembled, > > SECTION 1. SHORT TITLE. > This joint resolution may be cited as the “Authorization for Use of Military Force Against Iraq Resolution of 2002” > SEC. 2. SUPPORT FOR UNITED STATES DIPLOMATIC EFFORTS. > The Congress of the United States supports the efforts by the President to– > > 1. strictly enforce through the United Nations Security Council all relevant Security Council resolutions regarding Iraq and encourages him in those efforts; and > 2. obtain prompt and decisive action by the Security Council to ensure that Iraq abandons its strategy of delay, evasion and noncompliance and promptly and strictly complies with all relevant Security Council resolutions regarding Iraq . > SEC. 3. AUTHORIZATION FOR USE OF UNITED STATES ARMED FORCES. > (a) AUTHORIZATION- The President is authorized to use the Armed Forces of the United States as he determines to be necessary and appropriate in order to– > 3. defend the national security of the United States against the continuing threat posed by Iraq ; and > 4. enforce all relevant United Nations Security Council resolutions regarding Iraq . > (b) PRESIDENTIAL DETERMINATION- In connection with the exercise of the authority granted in subsection (a) to use force the President shall, prior to such exercise or as soon thereafter as may be feasible, but no later than 48 hours after exercising such authority, make available to the Speaker of the House of Representatives and the President pro tempore of the Senate his determination that– > 5. reliance by the United States on further diplomatic or other peaceful means alone either (A) will not adequately protect the national security of the United States against the continuing threat posed by Iraq or (B) is not likely to lead to enforcement of all relevant United Nations Security Council resolutions regarding Iraq ; and > 6. acting pursuant to this joint resolution is consistent with the United States and other countries continuing to take the necessary actions against international terrorist and terrorist organizations, including those nations, organizations, or persons who planned, authorized, committed or aided the terrorist attacks that occurred on September 11, 2001. > © War Powers Resolution Requirements- > 7. SPECIFIC STATUTORY AUTHORIZATION- Consistent with section 8(a)(1) of the War Powers Resolution, the Congress declares that this section is intended to constitute specific statutory authorization within the meaning of section 5(b) of the War Powers Resolution. > 8. APPLICABILITY OF OTHER REQUIREMENTS- Nothing in this joint resolution supersedes any requirement of the War Powers Resolution. > SEC. 4. REPORTS TO CONGRESS. > (a) REPORTS- The President shall, at least once every 60 days, submit to the Congress a report on matters relevant to this joint resolution, including actions taken pursuant to the exercise of authority granted in section 3 and the status of planning for efforts that are expected to be required after such actions are completed, including those actions described in section 7 of the Iraq Liberation Act of 1998 (Public Law 105-338). > > (b) SINGLE CONSOLIDATED REPORT- To the extent that the submission of any report described in subsection (a) coincides with the submission of any other report on matters relevant to this joint resolution otherwise required to be submitted to Congress pursuant to the reporting requirements of the War Powers Resolution (Public Law 93-148), all such reports may be submitted as a single consolidated report to the Congress. > > © RULE OF CONSTRUCTION- To the extent that the information required by section 3 of the Authorization for Use of Military Force Against Iraq Resolution (Public Law 102-1) is included in the report required by this section, such report shall be considered as meeting the requirements of section 3 of such resolution. 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. ---
**Author:** ![manhattan](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/manhattan/32/7_2.png) [@manhattan](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/manhattan)\ **Post date:** [January 21, 2005, 2:58pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/barbara-boxer-lied/285911/9 "2005-01-21T14:58:54Z")
> [@Demorian](#): > > You can never tell with them, can you? 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. ---
**Author:** ![CrankyAsAnOldMan](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/crankyasanoldman/32/11670_2.png) [@CrankyAsAnOldMan](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/CrankyAsAnOldMan)\ **Post date:** [January 21, 2005, 3:05pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/barbara-boxer-lied/285911/10 "2005-01-21T15:05:05Z")
> [@manhattan](#): > > 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. Okay, legitimate question that probably seems a bit like a nitpick. Shouldn’t she be referred to as “Senator Boxer?” ---
**Author:** ![CrankyAsAnOldMan](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/crankyasanoldman/32/11670_2.png) [@CrankyAsAnOldMan](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/CrankyAsAnOldMan)\ **Post date:** [January 21, 2005, 3:07pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/barbara-boxer-lied/285911/11 "2005-01-21T15:07:36Z")
> [@CrankyAsAnOldMan](#): > > Okay, legitimate question that probably seems a bit like a nitpick. > > Shouldn’t she be referred to as “Senator Boxer?” (and of course, Mr. Bush should be called “President Bush,” and I believe The former NSA is commonly correctly called “Dr. Rice.” I guess it’s not incorrect to call them Mr. Bush and Ms. Rice and Ms Boxer, but sometimes it seems a bit diminishing to my ears. ---
**Author:** ![Demorian](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/demorian/32/7273_2.png) [@Demorian](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Demorian)\ **Post date:** [January 21, 2005, 3:09pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/barbara-boxer-lied/285911/12 "2005-01-21T15:09:12Z")
> [@manhattan](#): > > 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. Shouldn’t you be busy taking down the political cartoons of Bush in a cowboy hat lassoing Osama or something? :dubious: ---
**Author:** ![Left\_Hand\_of\_Dorkness](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/left_hand_of_dorkness/32/7156_2.png) [@Left\_Hand\_of\_Dorkness](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Left_Hand_of_Dorkness)\ **Post date:** [January 21, 2005, 3:10pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/barbara-boxer-lied/285911/13 "2005-01-21T15:10:25Z")
> [@Bricker](#): > > [Here](http://uspolitics.about.com/od/wariniraq/a/jt_resolution.htm) 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. 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. Daniel ---
**Author:** ![manhattan](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/manhattan/32/7_2.png) [@manhattan](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/manhattan)\ **Post date:** [January 21, 2005, 3:11pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/barbara-boxer-lied/285911/14 "2005-01-21T15:11:22Z")
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. ---
**Author:** ![Demorian](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/demorian/32/7273_2.png) [@Demorian](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Demorian)\ **Post date:** [January 21, 2005, 3:12pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/barbara-boxer-lied/285911/15 "2005-01-21T15:12:34Z")
> [@CrankyAsAnOldMan](#): > > I guess it’s not incorrect to call them Mr. Bush and Ms. Rice and Ms Boxer, but sometimes it seems a bit diminishing to my ears. It’s supposed to be, that’s why people do it. 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. ---
**Author:** ![manhattan](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/manhattan/32/7_2.png) [@manhattan](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/manhattan)\ **Post date:** [January 21, 2005, 3:12pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/barbara-boxer-lied/285911/16 "2005-01-21T15:12:37Z")
> [@Demorian](#): > > Shouldn’t you be busy taking down the political cartoons of Bush in a cowboy hat lassoing Osama or something? :dubious: What, precisely, the fuck are you talking about? ---
**Author:** ![CrankyAsAnOldMan](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/crankyasanoldman/32/11670_2.png) [@CrankyAsAnOldMan](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/CrankyAsAnOldMan)\ **Post date:** [January 21, 2005, 3:15pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/barbara-boxer-lied/285911/17 "2005-01-21T15:15:18Z")
> [@manhattan](#): > > I don’t have my Chicago Style manual here at work (and I ought to!) 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. ---
**Author:** ![ElvisL1ves](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/e/5daacb/32.png) [@ElvisL1ves](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/ElvisL1ves)\ **Post date:** [January 21, 2005, 3:18pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/barbara-boxer-lied/285911/18 "2005-01-21T15:18:52Z")
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. ---
**Author:** ![Diogenes\_the\_Cynic](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/d/e99b99/32.png) [@Diogenes\_the\_Cynic](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Diogenes_the_Cynic)\ **Post date:** [January 21, 2005, 3:20pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/barbara-boxer-lied/285911/19 "2005-01-21T15:20:04Z")
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. ---
**Author:** ![RickJay](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/r/bb73d2/32.png) [@RickJay](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/RickJay)\ **Post date:** [January 21, 2005, 3:21pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/barbara-boxer-lied/285911/20 "2005-01-21T15:21:00Z")
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. [Next page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/barbara-boxer-lied/285911.md?page=2)