Senate Confirms Rice As Secretary of State

Anyway, I think Connie Rice is HOT!

except for when she has that 2 year old with a loaded diaper look on her face...ohh you have a point.

I used to feel that way about him. Really I did. When I discovered that it was his son heading the FCC as they threw out the rule book on media ownership, and then wanted to reduce them even further, well, that was the nail in the coffin.

Michael Powell resigning from the FCC a couple of weeks ago was the best news I've heard in a long time! Of course I'm sure he'll be replaced with someone just as clueless and corrupt.

Eh, I don't blame the father for the son's mistakes. Sure, Powell got the job at the FCC from his daddy - but he got it from a Democratic government and Colin Powell wound up a Republican, where the Democratic party was hoping to court Powell to their side.

And yeah, I'm very glad baby boy is leaving. Stern sure put the hammer down on that whipper-snapper.

Perhaps Dr. Rice is the perfect person for the job. Dubya isn't.

Actually, I was busy working on my response when all the others were posted. Looks like it's gonna be a buuuuuuuusy few days researching for me. Though, considering the questionable nature of many of these sources(the NOW program on PBS? Liberal bias anyone?) it shouldn't be too hard to debunk most of these.

However, I have to stress that I don't expect to debunk *all* of the findings presented in the previous posts. We *are* talking politicians here after all. Moreover, I would like to thank those of you on the Left who have offered more than rhetoric and cries of "Bush lied, people died". You've offered food for thought and I'm eating it up.

-Kiamat
So where's the exit strategy from the "War on Poverty"?

I like rice. It's good with beans.

Well, I'm sure black Conservatives are glad to know how little you think of them. Amazing that, rather than being ardent Conservatives who are in support of the President's vision, Powell and Rice are instead considered "lackys" (sic).

Liberals claim to be the friend of the minorities, but when that minority is a Conservative, they begin to show their "Segregation now, segregation tomorrow, segregation forever." roots.

-Kiamat Dusk
Elusive black Republican

I consider a person who supports the Bush Administration to be a lackey regardless of their race.

Just sayin'.

I was saying about the same thing when Clinton got reelected-were you?

Other than the infamous BJ (which occured AFTER his re-election) what did Clinton lie about? Give examples with links please.

Kendra, i was almost napping, and now you went and ruined it

I never felt that Clinton's sex life was any of my business, so no. I was appalled that so much time and tax money was wasted on such a petty witch hunt. You're still trying to compare lying about consensual sex with lying about a war that's killed tens of thousands, which, quite frankly, disgusts me.

Funny huh? We can investigate and go through impeachment proceedings against a president for getting a blowjob and lying about it (sure, not great judgement but didn't hurt anyone cept his wife), yet we now have a President, Vice President and Secretary of State that have been caught breaking the laws of our country and lying about issues that cost thousands of lives, numerous time, and nothing is done to them.

Can you say FACIST? Cause we aren't living in a democracy or a republic, that's for sure.

Bush never lied about the war. Period. His belief (which was shared by others including Clinton and Kerry) that there were WMDs was incorrect but intelligence is not an exact science. Moreover, the primary reason for going to war was to enforce the scores of UN resolutions that Saddam had broken.

-Kiamat Dusk
Liberals have never met a war they didn't protest.

Your blind allegiance is frightening. I'm not a democratic loyalist. I'm not a loyalist to anything except the truth. Keep on wearing those blinders Kiamat.

One important difference of course is that Clinton and Kerry didn't slaughter Hundreds of thousands of innocent women and children based on their "beliefs.

Umm..you're kidding right?? He stated said that he never said there was a connection between Iraq and 9/11, yet has been shown on video saying that very thing at least 10 times and more like 20-30. Guess what...he lied, and lied, and lied.

He also said there was definite proof that Iraq had WMD and were preparing to use them. Faulty intelligence or not, that was a lie.

He also stated, in a press conference, that the ships crew was responsible for creating and hanging the now-infamous "Mission Accomplished" banner on the aircraft carrier, when in fact it was thought up by his staff and directly approved by him. That would be a LIE.

He used the "Iraq is trying to buy weapons grade plutonium" incident in three seperate speeches, including the State of the Uniion address, AFTER he was told by the CIA that the rumor had proved to be false. That would be a knowing lie and scare tactic.

He has also fought very strongly against several independent investigations, including the one on 9/11, as well as one on Halliburton's dealing with the government and specifically thier contract and and dealings in Iraq.

Those are just some examples of the lies he's been caught in.

There *was* definite proof. There is also proof that aliens have visited Earth-doesn't make it true. He went with that he had. And what he had was enough to convince Clinton, Kerry, the Brits, and the Aussies.

The "Mission Accomplished" banner was done by the crew-if you have proof to the contrary show it and I'll recant. Either way, the mission ie-the taking of Iraq *was* accomplished.

Bush doesn't write his own speeches-no President does. It was the responsibility of the CIA to make sure that line was omitted.

None of this changes the fact that the UN had been threatening Saddam for years without ever following up. Bush enforced the UN resolutions which called for severe consequences.

Your last example isn't even an example of a lie.

What are all you Lefty's so mad about anyway? Iraq wasn't a threat to us? Is that it? They never attacked us? Is that your logic? So then how big an attack, how many American lives in your opinion are required before you'll support a war?

You advocate this "wait and see" policy then turn around and claim that Bush knew about 9/11 and did nothing to stop it. In your rationale, that was precisely what he should have done as a preemtive strike would be wrong. It was only after the towers fell that we were justified to go to war.

So I ask again-how many American lives are you willing to sacrifice before you feel justified going to war? I've asked this question before and I'm still waiting for an answer.

My answer, like Bush's, is zero.

-Kiamat Dusk

Ahh..I see I'm not dealing with a rational human being. Nevermind...

Iraq didn't take any American lives so your question is specious. So I guess you feel that killing tens of thousands of innocent people is justified just on the off chance it might prevent the loss of a single American? How the hell do you sleep at night?

Generally on my side...facing out. And you still haven't answered my question. How many Americans have to die before you'll support a war?

If by "rational" you mean "one who blindly agrees with everything you say without benefit of evidence" then yeah, I'm irrational.

-Kiamat Dusk
"If ignorance is bliss, then knock the smile from my face!" -RATM

Hehe. You are indeed blinded. Look up each of those. They have all been proven, some on many occasions.

I think it's funny that you don't blame the President for what's in his own speech or comes out of his own mouth. You really don't think he reads or reherses his speeches before giving them?? You really think things just got snuck in there and he didn't notice, several times?

And definite proof means definite proof, not theory.

And if he really makes this many mistakes honestly, and with the purest intentions, that should still scare the hell out of you and make you want such an incompetent person thrown out of office and given a job at a fast food drive-thru, where oversights and mistakes of a constant nature are almost expected.

And if you ever want another eye-opener, look up carl Rove, and his "past". He's just the kind of person a moral and just President would pick as his closest aide. LOL...yeah right.

Like I said, it's a bogus question. I will always support the course of action that preserves life rather than destorys it. Iraq was not a threat. We knew Iraq wasn't a threat to us or his neighbors. Have you read none of the things that were posted in this thread?

"We should constantly be reviewing our policies, constantly be looking at those sanctions to make sure that they are directed toward that purpose. That purpose is every bit as important now as it was ten years ago when we began it. And frankly they have worked. He has not developed any significant capability with respect to weapons of mass destruction. He is unable to project conventional power against his neighbors. So in effect, our policies have strengthened the security of the neighbors of Iraq" Colin Powell, Feb 24th, 2001

"let's remember that his country is divided, in effect. He does not control the northern part of his country. We are able to keep arms from him. His military forces have not been rebuilt." Condi Rice on Larry King, July 29th, 2001

So, were those lies? After killing tens of thousands and destabilizing the entire region, we know for a fact that they were not. Iraq did not pose a threat. The war was not justified.