Condi stands up in hearing and lets a senator have it

In a bold move the candidate Condi Rice stood up to a female senator who was assulting Condi's characture by out right stating Condi needed to tell the truth about some of the issues. In immediate response Condi stands up at tells the senator off .

Now do you think this was a wise move or will it hurt her confirmation, I don't see where it helped Condi to boldly stand and cut off the female senator mid sentance not allowing the senator to finish speaking, which shows rudeness and lack of control to me.

I think Condi should have atleast let the lady right or wrong finish her statement then politely and orderly offered the rebuttle defending her characture, what do you guys think?


NOW NOTE Condi should stand up for herself I am not saying she was wrong for telling the senator not to attack her characture by saying she is a liar, but it could have been done in better form.



[edit on 19/1/2005 by drbryankkruta]

The "senator" was B Boxer of the people republic of California accusing Ms Rice of thing she had done. (typical liberal ploy). Ms. Boxer is on record as saying there were WMD's in Iraq in 1998 and espousing the overthrow of Saddam. Yesterday was just typical of vile liberalism at its best.

The gutless republicans on that so called committee have the power and should use it to stop this attack on Ms Rice.

Senator Boxer gave it to Condi pretty good.
I was proud of her.

Condi's response wasn't that harsh in realation to what she was given.

Here's a long transcript of what was said:
207.44.245.159...

Well, when I was watching, the only thing Mrs Bus....I mean Condi said as a defence was "I will have this discussion any way you would like. However, I would ask that you do not impune my moral itegrity." Mrs Boxer made some good points about Condis lies, and Condi sidestepped the issue completly. This was not about Mrs Boxer, it was about Condi, and her severe inadaquacies in here position.

Actually from a strategic view I think Doctor Rice did exactly the right thing. You see Dr. Rice is about to assume the number 3 spot in the US government, and her acceptance is virtually assured. By politely but very firmly putting boxer in her place she helped to establish her authority early on, as well as sending a message that she is not to be #ed with. Also keep in mind had she not stood up for hersef in this way many would have interperted it as giving validity to Boxers accusations.
Additionally bear in mind that in addition to being a black woman (two strikes already in politics as sad as that is) She is not particularly attractive. I mention this because it is much easier for an attractive woman to manipulate men in power, and exercise power over other women. Though not true in all cases, or even in the majority of cases, attractive women have it so much easier (this also apples to attractive men BTW) that some fail to develop thier intellgence and will to a high enough degree. However because she is not partcularly attractive she has had to cultivate her intelligence and innate toughness to its sharpest edge to get this far. Yesterday was just a small example of that.

as posted by drbryankkruta
NOW NOTE Condi should stand up for herself I am not saying she was wrong for telling the senator not to attack her characture by saying she is a liar, but it could have been done in better form.

Say what?
Your saying that Ms. Rice should have handled it better, all the while you condone the behavior of Senator Boxer?! Oh my....

Biased?
Here's how I saw it:


Ms. Rice would own Senator Boxer on any given day. You go girl.




seekerof

Yeah, Miss Condi, loyalties to the bush klan is legendary, she will do well under the bush regime.

Nobody is doubting her intelligence. Obviously she is intelligent, she has a position that requires intellectual aptitude. My Papaw used to tell me when I was a child:
"Boy, you can be as smart as Einstien and still not have a lick of horse sense."
For those that dont know, horse sense is the country way of saying common sense; which Condi has none of.

Originally posted by Seekerof


Say what?
Your saying that Ms. Rice should have handled it better, all the while you condone the behavior of Senator Boxer?! Oh my....

You seem to be forgetting that Senator Boxer was not the one being asked the questions, now was she? Now had Senator Boxer been in Condis place, you MIGHT have a valid point. However..............

moot point

as posted by Kidfinger
You seem to be forgetting that Senator Boxer was not the one being asked the questions, now was she?

Not forgetting anything, nada.

I think the question and statement I made was right on mark. Don't think so, try reading the headline articles across the US today and you shall see. Senator Boxer needed to guard her own behavior, and it doesn't matter one bit who was asking the questions, Kidfinger. If you want to question a person, why start out by stating or insinuating that the person you are asking the question(s) of is a "liar"? Kind of makes any type further questioning rather moot, doesn't it? How about get Senator Boxer to call or insinuate that Rumsfield, Biden, Kennedy, Kerry, or Bush, ETC, are "liars" and see what their like responses would be, k?

Perhaps then, you will see how much of a moot point you make.





seekerof

[edit on 19-1-2005 by Seekerof]

Originally posted by DrHoracid
The "senator" was B Boxer of the people republic of California accusing Ms Rice of thing she had done. (typical liberal ploy). Ms. Boxer is on record as saying there were WMD's in Iraq in 1998 and espousing the overthrow of Saddam. Yesterday was just typical of vile liberalism at its best.

The gutless republicans on that so called committee have the power and should use it to stop this attack on Ms Rice.

Thanks for the info , but what I am more concearned about if she is going to interupt someone who is a member of the same goverment as her, what if this was done by an allie could she be more tactful and wait till they finished talking then politely respond, of is she going to do the same thing in which many countries take inturuptions as a major insult, is her lack of control here something to worry about in the future.

Originally posted by AceOfBase
Senator Boxer gave it to Condi pretty good.
I was proud of her.

Condi's response wasn't that harsh in realation to what she was given.

Here's a long transcript of what was said:
207.44.245.159...

But again the self control issues that she couldnt even let Boxer finish before starting her rebuttal, I think given the hostile world we are in that lack of self control NOT the content, but the control could have been better displayed. This type of behavior has been know to cause major problems in peace talks over and over again. It's a proven fact more respect comes from tact than justification.

Originally posted by Seekerof
. If you want to question a person, why start out by stating or insinuating that the person you are asking the question(s) of is a "liar"?

Umm, maybe because she DID lie?

[quote
Kind of makes any type further questioning rather moot, doesn't it? How about get Senator Boxer to call or insinuate that Rumsfield, Biden, Kennedy, Kerry, or Bush, ETC, are "liars" and see what their like responses would be, k?


Give me five minutes with Bush, and I would call him alot more than just a liar. I would take on Murderer, war criminal, and many, many other things that I shouldnt say here.

Perhaps then, you will see how much of a moot point you make.

Did you learn a new word in class? There is nothing'moot' about my point. She lied and senator Boxer pointed it out. I guess Condi should be unaccountable for her actions. OH, THATS RIGHT! Bush already said no one in his administration is going to be held accountable for ANYTHING having to do with the Iraq war......

as posted by drbryankkruta
But again the self control issues that she couldnt even let Boxer finish before starting her rebuttal...

First of all, Senator Boxer lost her semi-right to a "rebuttal" when she insinuated that Ms. Rice was a "liar".
Don't think so?
Next time you get the opportunity to formally question an individual, insinuate or call them a "liar" and see how much of an opportunity that you get for a "rebuttal," k?




seekerof

[edit on 19-1-2005 by Seekerof]

Boxer schmockxer, what a poor excuse for a American first off, second she is probably in bed with Koffi sipping on cups of hot oil she helped skim from Saddam. Boxer should be more conserened with what Terrorist groups Teresa Heinz has been funding with her millions. Will the real Micheal Moore please stand UP!!!!! He can't because he would have to leave a case of ding dongs and twinkies unguarded... CONDI CONDI CONDIWhoooooooooooYhaaaaaaaaaaaaaa!!!!!!!!

Originally posted by Kidfinger
Well, when I was watching, the only thing Mrs Bus....I mean Condi said as a defence was "I will have this discussion any way you would like. However, I would ask that you do not impune my moral itegrity." Mrs Boxer made some good points about Condis lies, and Condi sidestepped the issue completly. This was not about Mrs Boxer, it was about Condi, and her severe inadaquacies in here position.

She was right to take offense if she was unjustly being accused of lies she was not directly informed on like the questions about Iraq , yes they may have know shortly after the war started they where wrong and started lying from their but that doesnt mean she was privilaged to the information, and may not have from her point of view lied, but as we all know a lying politician is hard to prove because the cover ups start after the first letter of the first word of the lie has been uttered, my main gripe is her lack of tact and observence for proceedural guidelines that should be followed in these type of situations, she should have waited and not cut off Boxer as a matter of self control.

as posted by Kidfinger
Did you learn a new word in class? There is nothing'moot' about my point. She lied and senator Boxer pointed it out. I guess Condi should be unaccountable for her actions. OH, THATS RIGHT! Bush already said no one in his administration is going to be held accountable for ANYTHING having to do with the Iraq war......

Your hilarious.
You get proven wrong. Your remarks get disproven. Now you resort to attacking my intelligence?

Prove she "lied", and prove that lie within the context of what that alledged "lie" was given in, k?

Simply stating she "lied" is placing you in the same category as Senator Boxer, which doesn't surprise me, at all.




seekerof

Originally posted by Seekerof

as posted by drbryankkruta
NOW NOTE Condi should stand up for herself I am not saying she was wrong for telling the senator not to attack her characture by saying she is a liar, but it could have been done in better form.

Say what?
Your saying that Ms. Rice should have handled it better, all the while you condone the behavior of Senator Boxer?! Oh my....

Biased?
Here's how I saw it:

Absolutely not Boxer was way out of line , but she is not the one being intrusted with a position that on a daily baises Condi's behavior could be construed as an insult and result in political and peace difficulties, she needs more self control in such a sensitive position.

Originally posted by Seekerof
moot point

as posted by Kidfinger
You seem to be forgetting that Senator Boxer was not the one being asked the questions, now was she?

Not forgetting anything, nada.

I think the question and statement I made was right on mark. Don't think so, try reading the headline articles across the US today and you shall see. Senator Boxer needed to guard her own behavior, and it doesn't matter one bit who was asking the questions, Kidfinger. If you want to question a person, why start out by stating or insinuating that the person you are asking the question(s) of is a "liar"? Kind of makes any type further questioning rather moot, doesn't it? How about get Senator Boxer to call or insinuate that Rumsfield, Biden, Kennedy, Kerry, or Bush, ETC, are "liars" and see what their like responses would be, k?

Perhaps then, you will see how much of a moot point you make.





seekerof

[edit on 19-1-2005 by Seekerof]

It is only my stance that tact was not employeed when a tense situation arose, Condi cant act that way with leaders and members of other countries , not is this and isolated incident or a prelude to further negotiative failures with other countries.

Originally posted by drbryankkruta



She was right to take offense if she was unjustly being accused of lies she was not directly informed on like the questions about Iraq , yes they may have know shortly after the war started they where wrong and started lying from their but that doesnt mean she was privilaged to the information, and may not have from her point of view lied, but as we all know a lying politician is hard to prove because the cover ups start after the first letter of the first word of the lie has been uttered, my main gripe is her lack of tact and observence for proceedural guidelines that should be followed in these type of situations, she should have waited and not cut off Boxer as a matter of self control.

That has to be the longest sentance I have ever read!


I will admit that senator Boxer was very harsh in her questioning. There is no denying this. But the lies Condi told, needed to be addressed. They were not something that was hard to see eather. First she said Iraq would have nukes within a year. Then she said that nobody ever said there would be nukes in a year. Then she was on a conservative news station and said that Iraq WOULD have nukes within the year. So which part is the lie and which is not?

Seekerof,

I did not attack your intelligence. And you did not prove me wrong. I honestly think you are 17 and in highschool. Dont most 17 yearolds have an english class? That is not an insult in the least. And I believed I answered your questions about what the lie was about, right above this.

[edit on 1/19/05 by Kidfinger]