Boxer's Personal Hit on Personal Price

Debra Saunders

Last week's exchange between Sen. Barbara Boxer, D-Calif., and Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice turned into the chew toy of cable news shows over the weekend -- with Democrats arguing that Boxer was right to point out that Rice, a single woman, has no children fighting in Iraq, and White House spokesman Tony Snow indignant that Boxer had made "a great leap backward for feminism."

Debbie Argel Bastian, a Lompoc, Calif., mother who lost her son Derek Argel in Iraq in 2005, told me over the phone that Boxer's remarks were "rude," "shameful" and "cruel."

In case you missed the exchange, this is what Boxer said to Rice at the Senate Foreign Relations Committee hearing: "Now, the issue is who pays the price, who pays the price? I'm not going to pay a personal price. My kids are too old, and my grandchild is too young. You're not going to pay a particular price, as I understand it, within immediate family. So who pays the price? The American military and their families, and I just want to bring us back to that fact."

Actually, Rice is paying a personal price. She has not lost a son, but Rice has had to live with whatever mistakes she helped make, and she has put her own life at risk when visiting Iraq.

"If not paying a personal price on Iraq means that your opinion is not particularly legitimate, then by her own logic, Boxer should cork it."

Bastian, who visited Iraq in December with the pro-war group Move America Forward, came back saying: "Each and every one of those troops, I feel, are my children. I believe that Condoleezza Rice feels that, too." It's hard not to see a link between Boxer's comments and war critics who protest that the daughters of President Bush are not in the military. (The same is true of Chelsea Clinton and John Kerry's daughters, even though the parents voted for the war resolution.)

Of course, Bush would speak with more authority if his children were serving in Iraq. But you can't look at adult children, in Iraq or not, as extensions of their parents. That's what Bastian and two other Iraq-veteran parents told me. "Forbes on Fox" host David Asman said of U.S. troops in Iraq, "They are not anyone's kids," They are adults, they are "not dragooned."

Asman's stepson, Felipe, 26, served a tour in Iraq in the Marines and just re-upped. Asman resents the stereotype many war opponents hold of those who serve: That is, as if they are (not very bright) children, not "thoughtful men and women who have agreed to do this on their own."

Mary Riley of Napa, Calif., whose son Gregory Smedley served in Iraq, doesn't want Boxer speaking for her or her son. She told me: "Sen. Boxer's presumption to speak for the troops and their families is fundamentally dishonest. She's undermining the war effort -- which hurts, and doesn't help, the troops. That's how my son and I feel."

Like Rice, I do not have children. So the Boxer-Rice exchange hit a nerve. I've received my share of e-mail from readers who believe that no one without children in Iraq can support the war. I'm 52, and I don't know what I'm supposed to do. Have a test-tube baby to raise for combat service?

In citing Rice's childlessness, Boxer was doing what many lefties do -- coming up with conditions that others must meet in order to be entitled to dissenting opinions. It makes about as much sense as arguing, before the war, that only people whose children had to live in Iraq under Saddam Hussein had a right to oppose U.S. troops in Iraq.

Besides, it's not as if Senate Democrats heed the opinion of those who have paid a "personal price." When they talk of families of U.S. troops, it's as if they think only of Cindy Sheehan. "I have begged to go on the media and tell my story," Bastian told me. And, excusing her language, "Any time Cindy Sheehan burps or farts, she's on the news." If anyone is interested, Bastian supports the Bush troop surge. After the brouhaha, Boxer announced she would not apologize because, in confronting Rice, she was "speaking truth to power."

No, Boxer was pitching the propaganda to fellow liberals who don't really respect those who pay a personal price, but say they do. Anyway, if not paying a personal price on Iraq means that your opinion is not particularly legitimate, then by her own logic, Boxer should cork it.

Boxer makes her point clear -- that she's a hypocrite.

"Since George Bush and Dick Cheney took over as president and vice president, gas prices have doubled!" charged Sen. Barbara Boxer (D-Calif.), standing at an Exxon station on Capitol Hill where regular unleaded hit $3.10. "They are too cozy with the oil industry."

She then hopped in a waiting Chrysler LHS (18 mpg) -- even though her Senate office was only a block away.

Sen. Hypocrite (D)

OpinionJournal - Outside the Box

Sen. Strangelove
Or: How Democrats stopped winning and learned to love the filibuster.

BY PETE DU PONT

Sen. Barbara Boxer is a longtime opponent of judicial nomination filibusters. Or she was. Suddenly the light has dawned, and she realizes how wrong she was to oppose them: "I thought I knew everything. I didn't get it. . . . I am here to say I was totally wrong."

Other Democratic senators have had similar changes in belief: Joe Biden and Robert Byrd, Tom Harkin, Ted Kennedy, Joe Lieberman, Pat Leahy, Chuck Schumer and their erstwhile colleagues Lloyd Bentsen, and Tom Daschle have all vigorously opposed the use of the filibuster against judicial nominations. Mr. Schumer was for voting judicial nominations "up or down" without delay. Mr. Leahy flatly opposed a filibuster against Clarence Thomas's Supreme Court nomination: "The president and the nominee and all Americans deserve an up-or-down vote." Mr. Harkin believed "the filibuster rules are unconstitutional," Mr. Daschle declared that "democracy means majority rule, not minority gridlock," and Mr. Kennedy that "senators who believe in fairness will not let the minority of the Senate deny [the nominee] his vote by the entire Senate."

But that was then, when Democrats controlled the Senate. Now, they are a frustrated minority and it is different. Mr. Leahy has voted against cloture to end filibusters 21 out of 26 times; Mr. Kennedy, 18 out of 23. Now all these Senators practice and defend the use of filibusters against judicial nominees.

This fundamental change in deeply held liberal beliefs has made a difference. Sen. Orrin Hatch notes that in the 108th Congress (2003-04) the Senate "voted on motions to end debate on judicial nominations 20 times. Each vote failed." Of the 51 judicial nominees President Bush has put forward for the circuit courts of appeals, 35 have been confirmed, 10 have been "debated" without conclusion--filibustered--and six were threatened with a filibuster so no action has been taken on their nomination. Mr. Bush nominated Justice Priscilla Owen of the Texas Supreme Court for the Fifth U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals almost four years ago. She has the highest possible rating from the American Bar Association but has been filibustered four times by a Senate minority that once devoutly believed filibustering was morally wrong and clearly unconstitutional.

So what of this supermajority rule requiring a three-fifths vote to end judicial confirmation "debate" in the Senate and force a vote? Why is it here, where did it come from, and should it be part of the Senate rules?

This rule is not a constitutional requirement. The Constitution requires a two-thirds vote to override a presidential veto, pass a constitutional amendment, approve treaties or expel a member of Congress. But all it says about judges is that they are appointed by the president with "the Advice and Consent of the Senate." Absent a constitutional requirement for a supermajority, a majority vote is sufficient. The U.S. Supreme Court affirmed that principle in 1892.

When the Senate first established its rules in 1789, there was no such thing as a filibuster. A simple majority could move the previous question and vote on the matter before it. That was reversed in 1806 and the rules required unanimous consent to end debate; one senator could filibuster anything. In 1917 President Wilson, frustrated by a dozen Senators filibustering a wartime defense bill, observed that "the Senate of the United States is the only legislative body in the world which cannot act when its majority is ready for action." He successfully pressed the Senate to adopt Rule XXII, requiring only two-thirds instead of all senators to end debate on a pending statute. In 1975 that rule was amended to reduce the number to three-fifths, or 60 Senators.

The filibuster has historically been used to block the passage of substantive measures--such as the antilynching bills of the 1930s, and the direct election of the president in the 1970s. And they will be used in the future--Sen. Schumer said on Monday that he would filibuster the energy bill because it is too kind to Big Oil. A filibuster is also likely to stop personally owned Social Security accounts if such legislation reaches the Senate floor.

Current Senate rules prevent filibusters of some substantive matters--among them budget resolutions, trade agreements and the use of military force to protect America. But they do not limit the filibustering of judicial nominees. Some argue for abolishing the filibuster altogether, so that every legislative proposal reaching the Senate floor should be voted up or down and an angry minority would never be able to stop votes from occurring. The New Yorker's Hendrik Hertzberg says that the filibuster should not be elevated "into a moral principle"--that if the Republicans get rid if it for judicial nominations the Democrats should "get rid of it for everything else too." But Senate Majority Leader Bill Frist's proposal is not about that question. It is about eliminating the filibuster only for considering judicial nominations.

Should the 60 votes required to end a judicial nominee's filibuster be done away with by adopting a nonfilibuster rule for judicial confirmations? It was branded a "nuclear option" by Sen. Trent Lott, a phrase media critics and Democratics have embraced, but it is in fact a sensible choice. In America's representative democracy there is a constitutional intention that majority congressional votes be determinative on all but a very few enumerated matters. Confirming presidential judicial nominations is not one of them.

So when Mr. Frist offers his rule change in the next week or so, the Senate should pass it. Ms. Boxer may not vote for it, but five will get you 10 that if the Democrats one day regain control of the Senate, it will take her less than 20 seconds to decide that she had been totally wrong a second time--that judicial filibusters now should never be allowed.

Dems to U.N.: Drop Dead

OpinionJournal

Senate Democrats have won a delay, probably lasting a few weeks, to dig up more dirt on United Nations ambassador nominee John Bolton. But of course their real objection to Bolton is ideological, not temperamental: They take issue with his view of the U.N. So let's step back for a moment and ponder the nature of that disagreement, which the Los Angeles Times summed up nicely in an article on the hearings last week:

Sen. Barbara Boxer, D-Calif., played a three-minute videotape of Bolton speaking angrily in 1994 about the United Nations. . . . "There is no such thing as the United Nations," Bolton said on the tape. "There is an international community that can occasionally be led by the only real power left in the world--and that is the United States, when it suits our interests and when we can get others to go along."

Boxer said the speech appeared to reflect Bolton's disdain for the world body.

"I see the anger, the hostility," Boxer said, adding, "What we saw here, I think, was the real John Bolton."

Bolton's view--with which this column agrees--seems to be that the U.N. is useful and worthy of respect only insofar as it responds to American leadership and serves American interests. The Democrats' view, by contrast, seems to be that the U.S. has an obligation to follow the U.N., whether it acts in America's interests or not. That's why, for example, John Kerry*, who voted in 2002 to authorize U.S. military force in Iraq, changed his mind the next year when the U.N. Security Council balked at passing a resolution expressly permitting such action.

Only that's not quite right. The classic example of the U.S. leading the U.N. was the first Gulf War. In November 1990 the Security Council passed Resolution 678, which authorized member states "to use all necessary means," including military force, to liberate Kuwait, then under occupation by Saddam Hussein's Iraq. The resolution also "request[ed] all States to provide appropriate support" to that end.

In January 1991 Congress obliged. The House voted 250-183, with 179 Democrats voting "no," to authorize U.S. military force. The Senate vote was 52-47, with 45 Democrats voting "no." Only 86 House Democrats and 10 Senate Democrats voted in favor.

Among the negative votes were all five current Democratic members of the Senate Foreign Relations Committee who were then in Congress: Joe Biden, Chris Dodd, John Kerry, Paul Sarbanes and then-Rep. Barbara Boxer. All told, 25 of the 28 current Senate Democrats who were in Congress in 1991 voted against the Gulf War. (The three who voted for it, in case you're wondering, were Joe Lieberman of Connecticut, Tom Carper of Delaware and Harry Reid of Nevada.)

So the U.N. gave the thumbs-up for military force and asked for help, and most Democrats balked. Only a handful of lawmakers, including Sen. Jim Jeffords, ex-Sen. Bob Graham, Reps. John Dingell and Jim Leach and a few other House members (along with Al Gore), took what might be considered the consistent pro-U.N. position, supporting the liberation of Kuwait but not Iraq. Most Dems who now pose as champions of the U.N. showed their disdain for the world body by voting to refuse its request for help in 1991.

It seems fair to conclude, then, that most liberal Democrats, like Bolton, are pro-U.N. only when it suits their purposes--and that their purposes are the opposite of Bolton's. That is, for the Democratic left, the U.N. is useful and worthy of respect only insofar as it acts as an obstacle to American leadership and an opponent of American interests.

You can dance around it, you can run away from it, you can put perfume on it, but the bottom line is the bottom line -- Boxer is a twit.

Washington Post

Not long into John R. Bolton's confirmation hearing yesterday to be ambassador to the United Nations, three women stood up waving pink protest banners and denouncing President Bush's nominee.

Bolton, who sat frozen, his back to the demonstrators, got an unexpected assist from Sen. Barbara Boxer (D-Calif.), who called out to the demonstrators as the police removed them: "You need to leave! You need to go away!"

Boxer wanted to heckle Bolton herself.

Most Republicans skipped the hearing, leaving Democrats largely unchallenged as they assailed Bolton's knack for making enemies and disparaging the very organization he would serve.

Boxer led her colleagues with a multimedia assault on the nominee, displaying Bolton's more inflammatory anti-U.N. remarks in a videotape and on a series of posters. "You have nothing but disdain for the United Nations," Boxer charged. "You can dance around it, you can run away from it, you can put perfume on it, but the bottom line is the bottom line."

Someone needs to tell Boxer that American ambassadors serve America, not the organizations or countries where they serve.

Boxer: I'm a Big Fat Hypocrite

From Best of the Web

The far-left outfit MoveOn.org held a rally the other day in support of Democratic obstructionism, and among the senators who spoke was Angry Left heartthrob Barbara Boxer. Radioblogger.com has audio and a transcript of her defense of judicial filibusters, which is quite astonishing:

"Why would we give lifetime appointments to people who earn up to $200,000 a year, with absolutely a great retirement system, and all the things all Americans wish for, with absolutely no check and balance except that one confirmation vote? So we're saying we think you ought to get nine votes over the 51 required. That isn't too much to ask for such a superimportant position. There ought to be a super vote. Don't you think so? It's the only check and balance on these people. They're in for life. They don't stand for election like we do, which is scary."

Now, maybe it's a good idea to require 60 votes to confirm a judge, though we don't seem to recall Boxer or any other Democrat suggesting it in 1993-94, when it would have allowed minority Republicans to block Clinton appointees. But the Constitution requires only a majority vote. If Boxer thinks a supermajority would be better, she should propose a constitutional amendment--one that would impose the rule for all time, not just when it's expedient for the Democrats.

The Dems' Week from Hell

The Weekly Standard

THE DEMOCRATS' WORST WEEK AND a half since Black Tuesday (November 2, 2004, when the U.S. election returns came in) began on January 18, when Barbara Boxer took on Condi Rice in the Senate, and ended on Black Sunday (January 30, 2005, when Iraq held its first free election). In one comparatively short window of time, the Democrats managed to exhibit all of the class, grace, wisdom, presence, good sense, and strategic and tactical brilliance that had allowed them to move from absolute parity after the 2000 election to the loss of the House, Senate, and White House in the 2004 election, and left them apparently poised to lose even more. You too can turn yourself into a loser if you study and follow their recent behavior, and the cases to look at are these:

(1) Barbara Boxer and allies assault Condi Rice.

For mysterious reasons best known to themselves, a small diehard clique of old-line insurgents hiding out in the depths of the U.S. Senate decided to make confirmation hearings for Condoleezza Rice the venue of a bomb-throwing session, on the basis of two cherished liberal theories: one, that the war in Iraq is an utter catastrophe; and two, that while criticism of liberal nonwhites and women is always racist and sexist in nature, nonwhites and women who are right-wing or centrist are less than "authentic," and therefore deserve what they get. Thus, Margaret Carlson in the Los Angeles Times found nothing amiss in Boxer's calling Rice a liar and a lackey, but insisted Boxer's critics were somehow attacking all women.

This followed by weeks an unprecedented onslaught from liberal cartoonists and columnists, who compared Rice to a parrot, a house slave, Aunt Jemima (with one hell of a weight loss), and Prissy in Gone With the Wind. It did not help that one of Boxer's main allies was Robert A. Byrd of West Virginia, who in a prior life had been a member of the Ku Klux Klan. As a method of expanding the vote of an ever-shrinking minority party, this tactic stunned some observers, who concluded the scheme had been cooked up by Karl Rove.

"I wouldn't think having a former kleagle of the Ku Klux Klan lead a futile floor fight against the nomination of the first black woman to be secretary of state is a good way to enhance the appeal of the Democratic party to swing voters, but maybe that's just me," opined Jack Kelly. No, Jack, it's not just you. It's you and Andrew Young, a partisan Democrat and genuine civil rights leader; it's you and Dorothy Height, head of the National Council of Negro Women; you and C. DeLores Tucker, former chair of the Black Caucus of the Democratic National Committee; you and Ron Lester, a Democratic pollster quoted by the New York Post's Deborah Orin as saying, "A lot of African Americans are watching this and they're wondering why [Democrats] are going after her so hard."

It's you and Colbert King, the liberal columnist for the Washington Post, who has little use for Bush but even less for the Boxer-Byrd style. King asks us to ponder a key Boxer statement: "I personally believe--this is my personal view--that your loyalty to the mission you were given, to sell the war, overwhelmed your respect for the truth." Writes King, "It's hard to imagine a more demeaning and offensive caricature of a prospective secretary of state." What a great tactic! What a keen way to appeal to white moderates, as well as to stop the leakage to Bush of black social conservatives, which at the moment has the left in a panic.

A former kleagle of the Ku Klux Klan berating a cultured black woman, one of whose childhood friends was blown up in Birmingham: This is the image you want to create for your party? Call it strike one.

(2) Ted Kennedy calls Iraq Vietnam.

"Defeat is an orphan," Ted's big brother the president once famously said, but this fails to apply when Ted is in the neighborhood. He preemptively embraced failure in Iraq, declaring defeat three days before the election, just in time to demoralize American troops and Iraqi voters (and calling to mind another JFK comment, that his youngest brother was not "terribly quick"). But it wasn't the first time Ted had stumbled over his feet in his rush to proclaim a defeat for the United States. In 1990, he wanted to leave Kuwait and its oil fields in Saddam's possession, proclaiming a war would kill 50,000 Americans and become a new Vietnam. But things lately have been confusing for Teddy, what with George W. Bush morphing into JFK, while he himself turns into something rather more like his father, famous in 1940 for saying democracy was finished in England and attempts to save it would lead us into a quagmire--call it FDR's Vietnam.

Apparently, there are pro-and anti-democracy wings not only in the Democratic party but in the Kennedy family, though those on the pro side are sadly no longer with us. Unlike his late brothers, Ted Kennedy has negative moral authority, and is not the man you put out there to win hearts and minds, abroad or at home. A moral exemplar such as Edward M. Kennedy selling defeat is hardly what you want when you're trying to grow a political party that's been shrinking like a wool sweater in a tub of hot water largely because of its shortfalls in moral authority and its weakness in foreign affairs. He is the ideal spokesman to make the argument--from the point of view of the Republican party. Mark this down as strike number two.

(3) Evan Bayh joins the jihad.

On the morning of Thursday, January 27, the Washington Times ran across the top of page one pictures of Democrats Boxer, Byrd, Kerry, Kennedy, and the 9 others who voted against confirming Rice. What was wrong with this string of pictures? It was made up of 12 hacks, has-beens, never-weres, and certified losers--and Evan Bayh, one of the four main sponsors of the Iraq war resolution and until Wednesday a real star in his party, one of the few with a shot at being president, because of the trust he had amassed on the right and in the center, and the chance he could have had to peel off some red states. As of Thursday morning, that trust was gone.

"Say it ain't so, Evan," wrote Andrea Neal in the Indianapolis Star a week later. "After six years of building your centrist credentials . . . causing even hard-core skeptics like me to brand you the genuine article, you turn around and vote against a distinguished, conservative nominee for Secretary of State. After backing President Bush in the Iraq war, and presenting persuasive arguments for ousting Saddam Hussein, you take a stand against the only administration official who can seamlessly pick up [President Bush's] foreign policy. . . . After boasting on your web site to be someone who cares more about doing the right thing than the expedient thing, you become one of 13 senators to vote against President Bush's nominee."

Neal quotes a former Bayh backer who calls the senator "self-serving" and says further, "I am appalled." So are the many who formerly saw Bayh as the one Democrat they could possibly vote for, and right now are changing their minds. This is a vote that will not be forgotten: As we speak, some Republican doubtless is running up spots morphing Bayh into Boxer and Teddy. "In 1991, defense-hawk Sen. Sam Nunn (D-Ga) caught the presidential bug, abandoned his record, and opposed the first Persian Gulf War--a big mistake," writes Morton Kondracke in Roll Call. "Has the same thing happened to Sen. Evan Bayh?" Nunn lost his chance for a place on the national ticket when the Gulf War succeeded; just as Bayh may have lost his gamble when the Iraqi election went well. Would he have done this had he known what would happen? The answer is probably "no."

Bayh tried to recoup on This Week by claiming that he was for war, but not this war, a smart war, a sensitive war, a war backed by both France and Belgium that lasted three days at the outside, and in which no one got hurt.

But Kerry tried that line in 2004, to no effect whatsoever, telling Rolling Stone that when he voted for the war (before, of course, voting against it) he had no idea Bush would f--it up as he did. Bayh should have looked hard at both Nunn and Kerry, and, failing that, he should have bided his time. It is now three years to the Iowa caucus, plenty of time to find other ways to make nice with the base. And time, too, to see if Rice--and Iraq--are a failure. If you vote against someone as the architect of a failed foreign policy, it helps if the policy first fails. Bayh better hope now Iraq becomes a disaster: If it succeeds, he will look worse than ever, having thrown away his name and his future to protest a success. Paris may be worth a mass, and the White House may be worth a boot-licking gesture, but a boot-licking gesture that costs you the White House is something quite different. The only thing worse than an obvious opportunist is an inept opportunist with a bad sense of timing. Say good night, Evan. And mark this down as strike three.

(4) John Kerry goes on Meet the Press.

If Evan Bayh has learned nothing from Kerry and Edwards, it seems clear enough that Kerry has learned nothing either. He isn't a statesman, but he plays one on TV, and so there he was on Meet the Press the Sunday morning of Iraq's election, looking properly somber and careworn, saying a great many words to no purpose, and displaying too much of the cluelessness that went far toward helping him lose. In fact, as to losing, he seemed in a state of denial, talking up the (fairly) close race in the state of Ohio, and claiming he came so near to winning that it hardly was losing at all. He won the popular vote in the battleground states, he said proudly. A mere switch of 60,000 votes in Ohio, and he would have been writing the State of the Union. (Never mind that Kerry lost the national popular vote by nearly four million, while Bush was gaining four seats in the Senate; and that if he had managed to pull out Ohio, people now would be saying what a fluke it had been, and wondering how he would govern with a Republican Congress and a public that had so clearly voted for Bush.)

But Kerry was much more enthused about his campaign than about the Iraqi elections, which he grudgingly referred to as barely legitimate, while implying the worst was ahead. He declared us less safe than when the war started, although Saddam's capture had made us much safer: a perfect example of the kind of coherence he had brought to last year's campaign. And of his tone-deafness. "Whoever is advising him politically made a terrible mistake," Democratic strategist Bob Beckel said later on Fox News. "He should have said . . . this is a magnificent outcome, and now that we've had this . . . let's begin the process of getting our troops back home. . . . I don't get why any Democrat would want to dump on this election when in fact it's the beginning of the end." But Kerry seemed perfectly content with himself and his comments, and eager for more in the 2008 cycle. "Bring it on," doubtless reply the Republicans. Put it down as strike four--this is politics, not baseball.

EVERYTHING THAT HAS BEEN WRONG with the Democrats in the past several years was on vivid display during Hell Week: the teeth-grinding shrillness; the race card, misplayed with such gusto; the self-interest so blatant it defeats its own purpose; the crippling dearth of ideas. With a few brave exceptions (a faction of one named Joe Lieberman), the Democrats split into two major camps: the wingnuts--Dean, Boxer, and Kennedy--who know what they think, which alas sets them at odds with the rest of the country; and the caucus of cowards--Bayh, Edwards, and Kerry--who believe in nothing so much as their own career prospects, and change their minds on the gravest of war and peace issues on the basis of what serves their ends.

For the Democrats, this is not a new problem, and has been with them since the war in Iraq first emerged as an issue. "More than a dozen Democrats, who requested anonymity, have told the Post that many members who oppose the president's strategy . . . are going to nonetheless support it because they fear a backlash from voters," the Washington Post reported on September 26, 2002, in the run-up to that year's midterm elections, which made history when the Democrats lost. Five weeks later, "The Note," the widely read blog of ABC News, reported: "Voters may not know this explicitly, but if there were a secret ballot vote, Democrats in the House and Senate would vote overwhelmingly to repeal the Bush-Baucus tax cuts, and to stop the president from going to war in Iraq." From here, it is a straight line to Bayh, Kerry, and Edwards, surfing their way around public opinion, and getting upended by shifts in the wind.

And there you have the real vision gap between the two parties: Republicans want to win wars and spread freedom; Democrats want to save their rear ends. Bush thinks freedom is better than terror and tyranny; Democrats think they themselves are better than Bush. In 2004, Bush made it clear he was willing to lose on the basis of his convictions--and won in spite or more likely because of this. Democrats had no convictions beyond the end goal of winning, and therefore quite properly lost. No party deserved to lose more than the Democrats did in these past two elections, and unless they make changes, they stand to lose many more.

Since Black Tuesday last November, Democrats have spent hours of airtime, gallons of newsprint, and billions of words trying to find out why wonderful people such as they keep on losing. They'd be better off taking a hard look at Hell Week. All of the answers are there.

Boxer doesn't let the truth get in the way. . .

I was reading an item from the WSJ Best of the Web and came across this item slamming Boxer during the Rice confirmation hearings.

Pathetic.


Liar Liar, Pants on Fire. . .

16-2

The Senate Foreign Relations Committee has endorsed the nomination of Condoleezza Rice as secretary of state; the full Senate is set to confirm her tomorrow, a few hours after President Bush takes the oath of office. The vote was 16-2, with Barbara Boxer, the sweetheart of the Angry Left, and John Kerry, the haughty, French-looking Massachusetts Democrat who by the way served in Vietnam, casting the only "no" votes. Perhaps Kerry will vote "yes" tomorrow so he can say he voted against her before voting for her.

In an unpleasant exchange yesterday, Boxer confronted Rice with the usual Angry Left line, that BUSH LIED!!!! about Iraq. But it turns out Boxer is the one taking liberties with the truth:

Rice: It wasn't just weapons of mass destruction. He was also a place--- his territory was a place where terrorists were welcomed, where he paid suicide bombers to bomb Israel, where he had used Scuds against Israel in the past.

And so we knew what his intentions were in the region; where he had attacked his neighbors before and, in fact, tried to annex Kuwait; where we had gone to war against him twice in the past. It was the total picture, Senator, not just weapons of mass destruction, that caused us to decide that, post-September 11th, it was finally time to deal with Saddam Hussein.

Boxer: 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. That was the reason and the causation for that, you know, particular vote.

Presumably when Boxer says "I did not," she means that she didn't vote to liberate Iraq, not that she didn't read the resolution. But the resolution itself makes clear that Rice was right:
Whereas Iraq persists in violating resolution of the United Nations Security Council by continuing to engage in brutal repression of its civilian population thereby threatening international peace and security in the region, by refusing to release, repatriate, or account for non-Iraqi citizens wrongfully detained by Iraq, including an American serviceman, and by failing to return property wrongfully seized by Iraq from Kuwait; . . .

The President is authorized to use the Armed Forces of the United States as he determines to be necessary and appropriate in order to--

(1) defend the national security of the United States against the continuing threat posed by Iraq; and

(2) enforce all relevant United Nations Security Council resolutions regarding Iraq.

Ignorance is actually the more charitable explanation for Boxer's misrepresentation of the resolution's contents. If in fact she did read it, her own integrity is a matter of question.
And here's another apparent Boxer falsehood:

You never even mention indirectly the 1,366 American troops that have died. . . . And 25 percent of those dead are from my home state.

According to Casualties.org , the number of California servicemen who've died is 157, which is about 11.5% of the total, less than half the proportion Boxer claimed.

Sen. Boxer's vicious attack on Condoleeza Rice was based on lies

Mary Mostert

Condoleeza Rice is probably the best qualified person in America today to become Secretary of State. Before leaving her post as provost of Stanford University to serve as President Bush's National Security Advisor, on January 22, 2001, she authored several book and numerous articles on foreign affairs issues while serving as a member of the Center for International Security and Arms Control, as a Senior Fellow of the Institute for International Studies, and as a Fellow of the Hoover Institution. She was not chosen for her gender, as was Madeleine Albright in 1996, or her racial identity. Through years of study, determination and hard work, she has become a uniquely qualified asset to America.

And that is what makes the vicious attacks on her in the Senate hearings by people like Barbara Boxer, John Kerry and Ted Kennedy simply unacceptable. For example, Boxer accused Dr. Rice of being a dishonest salesman for President Bush's decision to go to war in Iraq. Boxer said during the Senate hearing:

"Your loyalty to the mission you were given, to sell this war, overwhelmed your respect for the truth.... I also will not shrink from questioning a war that was not built on the truth. Now, perhaps the most well-known statement you've made was the one about Saddam Hussein launching a nuclear weapon on America with the image of quote, quoting you, a mushroom cloud. That image had to frighten every American into believing that Saddam Hussein was on the verge of annihilating them if he was not stopped. And I will be placing into the record a number of such statements you made which have not been consistent with the facts."

Boxer attacked Dr. Rice for the entire 10 minutes she was allotted for questioning the nominee, without once giving Dr. Rice a chance to respond, and tried to end the attack without giving Dr. Rice a chance to say ANYTHING with: "As a matter of fact, you've said more misstatements: that the territory of the terrorists has been shrinking when your own administration says it's now expanded to 60 countries. So I am deeply troubled. Thank you."

Dr. Rice then addressed Senator Lugar, the Republican Chairman of the Senate Foreign Relations Committee with: "Senator, may I respond?"

Sen. Lugar said "Yes. Let me just say that I appreciate the importance of Senator Boxer's statement, that's why we allowed the statement to continue for several more minutes." Boxer had exceeded her allotted time. Lugar, addressing Dr. Rice went on to say: "But, clearly, you ought to have the right to respond. And then, at that point, we're going to have a recess. But will you please give your response?"

Rice responded:

"Senator, I have to say that I have never, ever lost respect for the truth in the service of anything. It is not my nature. It is not my character. And I would hope that we can have this conversation and discuss what happened before and what went on before and what I said, without impugning my credibility or my integrity. The fact is that we did face a very difficult intelligence challenge in trying to understand what Saddam Hussein had in terms of weapons of mass destruction. We knew something about him. We knew that we had gone to war with him twice in the past, in 1991 and in 1998. We knew that he continued to shoot at American aircraft in the no-fly zone as we tried to enforce the resolutions that the U.N. Security Council had passed. We knew that he continued to threaten his neighbors. We knew that he was an implacable enemy of the United States, who did cavort with terrorists. We knew that he was the world's most dangerous man in the world's most dangerous region. And we knew that in terms of weapons of mass destruction, he had sought them before, tried to build them before, that he had an undetected biological weapons program that we didn't learn of until 1995, that he was closer to a nuclear weapon in 1991 than anybody thought. And we knew, most importantly, that he had used weapons of mass destruction.

"That was a context that, frankly, made us awfully suspicious when he refused to account for his weapons of mass destruction programs, despite repeated Security Council resolutions and despite the fact that he was given one last chance to comply with Resolution 1441. Now, there were lots of data points about his weapons of mass destruction programs. Some were right and some were not. But what was right was that there was an unbreakable link between Saddam Hussein and weapons of mass destruction."

Sen. Boxer was given even more time for her attack, charging Dr. Rice with

"Well, you should you 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. That was the reason and the causation for that particular vote."

Actually, the first authorization for the use of force in Iraq was made, not under President Bush, but under President Clinton when Barbara Boxer's friend, Madeleine Albright was Secretary of State. In 1998 the #1 reason for authorizing President CLINTON to use force in Iraq was: "that Iraq was then in material and unacceptable breach of its international obligations and thereby threatened the vital interests of the United States and international peace and security." That resolution became Public Law 105-235."

And who were the President and Secretary of State in 1998 when the Congress passed a law demanding that Iraq comply with its international obligations? Bill Clinton and Madeleine Albright who is praised to this day on Barbara Boxer's own website.

The first resolution introduced to urge the president to take military action in Iraq was introduced by then Democrat Majority leader, Tom Daschle, on September 26, 2002 and the first reason given for taking military action was Public Law 105-235 passed in the Clinton administration. The resolution that finally did pass, Joint Resolution H.R. 114, referred to Public Law 105-235 and have 22 more reasons for authorizing military action against Iraq.

The liar here is not Condi Rice. The liar is Barbara Boxer and it is proven in the Congressional Record by her own arguments on the floor of the Senate.

To paraphrase, Ms. Boxer can go spit. . .

Real Clear Politics

Remarks By Senator Pete V. Domenici (R-New Mexico) Regarding the Confirmation of Dr. Condoleezza Rice as Secretary of State

Mr. President, I thank Senator Lugar for finding time for me to express my views to the Senate and to those who might be listening or viewing the Senate proceedings.

I say to Senator Lieberman, I appreciate very much the broad scope of his statement with reference to America and the world, and I thank him for stating his views, which are my views, and I think the views of an overwhelming number of Senators - 77 of them who voted for us to proceed with this approach to Iraq.

I think we all know our intentions, regardless of what some may say, are good and that the objective is that something good happen for the people of Iraq and for America and the world.

Having said that, I have been dismayed to hear - not everyone on the other side - but some use words such as ``liar,'' to use words as to this nominee - Condoleezza Rice - that called her a liar, implied she was a liar, who implied the President intentionally misled. I would like to zero in on that for a minute and those who have been putting forth that accusation - I am not talking about those who oppose the war. I am talking about those who say the policy was fraught with intentional misleading information about weapons of mass destruction.

I want to step back and say to my fellow Senators and those listening: What if today we were considering for Senate approval Secretary of State Colin Powell? Just think with me. He is the nominee. He is being reconfirmed for Secretary of State. What would the Senators who were here talking about Condoleezza Rice or our President intentionally misleading, being a liar, implying they had information they withheld, what would they say about Colin Powell?

On a certain day, Colin Powell appeared before the United Nations. Remember that day? February 5, 2003. I remember it. I think millions and millions of people remember it: maps, overviews, a firm statement by him about weapons of mass destruction. Now I ask: Where did he get his information? Was he lying? Did he mislead the American people? Was he intentionally trying to force upon us a policy that was not based upon what he said but that those facts were dreamed up? I believe that neither Senators nor the people of America would believe he was not telling the truth.

My point is, he got his information from exactly the same source that our President did, that the Prime Minister of Great Britain did, that all leaders at that point did, that we the Congress did. The President did not get his information from someplace in the sky, nor did Colin Powell. There was only one source: the accumulation of intelligence by the United States intelligence-gathering institutions. They told our President, Condoleezza Rice, and Colin Powell what was going on, and they all said, what? That there were weapons of mass destruction in Iraq, and that Saddam was a danger - an exceptional danger - because he had weapons of mass destruction.

Frankly, I believe there are those who have become partisan on this issue, and I almost would say, and should say, extremely partisan, who have become totally political on this issue and totally personal. There is no evidence whatsoever that Colin Powell lied, that he was misleading us, that Condoleezza Rice was a part of a policy to mislead the American people, nor that the President was. They all had the same information. One would not think that from what we have heard on the floor. One would not think that as you hear those who want to deny her this nomination.

Frankly, that argument does not wash. It is not consistent with reality. It is dreamed up. It is political. It is for no other reason than to insert false and untrue information and facts into this discussion. She deserves the nomination.

The President did not intentionally mislead. Those who oppose the war ought to say it and quit exaggerating and being political and personal about their attacks.

Mr. President, I thank Senator Lugar, and I yield the floor.

In other news, Boxer is an idiot, and Kerry flip-flops again.

OpinionJournal

In an apparent effort to impress porcine propagandist Michael Moore, Sen. Barbara Boxer of California joined Rep. Stephanie Tubbs Jones of Ohio in objecting to the counting of Ohio's 20 electoral votes for President Bush. The result? The joint session of Congress that certifies the presidential election adjourned for two hours, and the House and Senate each convened separately to debate, then reject, the objection. The tally in the Senate was 74-1, with only batty Boxer voting to sustain it, and as we write, the House vote stands at 263-32, with 135 members not voting.

This didn't happen even in 2000, when senators sensibly decided not to join various far-left House members in objecting to the counting of Florida's votes. Today, it's clear, the Democrats are in such desperate shape that they are resorting to crying that American democracy is illegitimate--a sure sign that they don't expect to win anytime soon.

John Kerry, typically, is trying to have it both ways. He's traveling overseas and so isn't in attendance (what else is new?), but yesterday he sent an e-mail to supporters saying:

Despite widespread reports of irregularities, questionable practices by some election officials and instances of lawful voters being denied the right to vote, our legal teams on the ground have found no evidence that would change the outcome of the election.

But, that does not mean we should abandon our commitment to addressing those problems that happened in Ohio. We must act today to make sure they never happen again.

So according to Kerry, Bush won fair and square, but it was an illegitimate election anyway. This is the "moderate" Democratic position. The extreme position is that Bush "stole" the election by getting three million more votes than Kerry. An outfit called United for Peace and Justice is actually planning an Inauguration Day protest. And if you can't make it to Washington, you can still join in:

UFPJ also encourages everyone to wear a white ribbon on January 20, no matter where you are or what you are doing. In many cultures, white is the traditional color of mourning.

Of course, the joke is on these losers, who apparently are unaware that in our culture, white is the traditional color of surrender.