|
Role of Senate's advice & consent per Alexander Hamilton & Constitution: not specified.
So senators must use own judgment. Criteria may change with times.
Sec'y of State v. important position. President's right hand. Even more important today, given challenges country will face in next four years.
Compliments Lugar & committee. Praises Biden. "I was particularly impressed by senator Boxer" ... "passion and forthrightness, as did Senator Kerry...."
Rice bio impressive, esp. as Byrd himself no bachelor's degree until age 77. "Remarkable indeed!" Doctorate, academic advancement to Stanford Provost. "recognized expert on Russia". Ample exposure to international politics. SHE IS CERTAINLY QUALIFIED FOR POSITION of SEC'Y OF STATE.
Byrd followed Powell's career. Byrd worked with Powell. Powell distinguished himself as Chair of Joint Chiefs. Byrd supported Powell based on his record.
But vote tomorrow not formality based on education or experience. Byrd does not belief must confirm President's choice. Must use judgment. Dems by insisting on debate NOT engaging in "petty politics" or partisan delaying. NOT A CEREMONIAL EXERCISE. Constitution requires REAL debate and real vote.
Byrd defends prerogatives of Senate and "separate but equal" branches of government. Advice & consent unique to FULL Senate.
(MORE)
(CONTINUED)
Condi's record he strongly opposes. Have fostered opposition at home and abroad. Her view of america encourages muscle flexing without restraint.
President lays claim to expansive power of preemptive attacks even without provocation. President has inherent authority to REPEL attacks. But President's National security policy "UNCONSTITUTIONAL on its face". Places decision on war and peace in hands of one man -- thus undermining Congress.
Founders required debate of representatives of the PEOPLE because no single man could be trusted with such an awesome power -- but that's exactly what the national security policy proposes! It barely acknowledges the Constitution's existence! Single reference to Constitution in national security strategy -- was it an obit for Constitution?
Condi says no warning before US attack on another nation. She says it's "common sense". But common sense not same for all people. Can lead to wrong conclusion. Founder John Dickenson: experience must be our only guide, reason may mislead us. Byrd will side with Constitution over Bush Administration "reason".
Yes, President has power to repel attack on US. No need to consult Congress on THAT. But, where does Constitution give President power to ATTACK, as Rice claims?
Rice also hyped Saddam's WMD danger. Rice responsible for "overblown rhetoric" to "scare America people". Rice conjured mushroom cloud images. Rice said: "we don't want smoking gun ... mushroom cloud." Rice said Saddam pursuing nukes. "We now know Iraq's nuclear programme was a fiction." We know no evidence of Saddam having/making nukes.
Rice not only wrong, but she did not accurately reflect intelligence reports OF THE TIME! Intelligence analysts disagreed, but Rice misrepresented this, also misrepresent aluminum tubes. But State and Energy Dept. dissented.
Rice claimed link between Iraq and 9-11. Spoke of supposed evidence that Saddam and Al Quaida in league.
Rice cherry-picked intelligence to make Iraq look more of a threat.
But CIA concluded "low confidence" of Saddam transferring WMDs to anyone else. (And turned out, he didn't even have WMDs). Abuse of intelligence to build case for UNPROVOKED WAR with IRAQ.
Results of this? False situation described BEFORE war -- Iraq training ground for terrorist -- but UNJUSTIFIED WAR created this that was warned against. Iraqis took up arms to fight US OCCUPATION of THEIR country. Iraq now training ground of new generation of terrorists. Administration's ill-advised RUSH to war.
Unprecedented preemptive invasion not Rice's only faults. She also failed to establish peace in Iraq.
She took helm of Iraq Stabilization effort when 300 US troops had been killed in Iraq. Number now 1368 as of today. Many wounded. Cost of war spiraled higher. White House about to ask for 80 Billion more.
Iraq gone from bad to worse. VIOLENCE ONLY KEEPS GROWING. NO Administration official has predicted when violence will subside. But only 2.7 billion spent to date on reconstruction. Despite cries to speed up aid to Iraq. What has Rice accomplished??
Richard Clarke has leveled scathing criticism of Rice for failing to recognize threat from Al Quida and OBL before 9-11. Clarke asked for urgent meeting before 9-11. But Rice made sure meeting not called until 4 Sept 2001. Clarke so frustrated he asked to be reassigned.
Rice's testimony to 9-11 commission raised question, did not answer questions. Why no action taken on 6 August 2001 intelligence report OBL determined to attack? Why re-assign Richard Clarke? Why nine months before first NSC meeting on OBL threat?
As Senate debates, still no answers to these questions. Clarke criticized, so does WMD investigator David Kay. dr. Kay: NSC "dog that DIDN'T" bark. Kay: every successful President had developed means of checking information from subordinates; but not Bush.
Kay: Rice's NSC did not question intelligence sufficiently. One contrary, Rice went BEYOND intelligence to hype war.
This nomination should spur Senate to "stop, look, and listen" to what has been going on in NSC. NSC failing deserve thorough examination, no? (PAUSE)
Accountability has become old fashioned notion in certain circles these days, but Accountability not negotiable -- not a luxury. But Bush administration "loath" to fulfill accountability. Bad polices based on faulty intelligence have been rewarded by President "with accolades and promotions". President and inner circle cling to myths and misconceptions.
President described 2004 election a "moment of accountability" and endorsement of his policies.
(LONG PAUSE)
Sadly failure has tainted far too many aspects of nation's foreign policy over last four years, culminating in Iraq.
There needs to be accountability for mistakes and missteps leading to this dilemma today in Iraq in isolation in world due to provocative, belligerent, and bellicose foreign policy.
Rice: must converse with rest of world not monologue -- but then in Inaugural Bush rattles sabers. Are we voting for reconciliation or more provocations: which face of "Jekyll and Hyde" foreign policy?
Rice has a RECORD! A record for us to judge. Did not protect before 9-11. Politicized intelligence. For preemptive war. To confirm Rice is to say answers to those question no longer important, another endorsement of preemptive strikes and bullying policies and callous rejection of long-standing allies.
Rice's record in many ways to be greatly admired. Very intelligent, knowledgeable, very warm and congenial. But stakes for US too high. Can't endorse higher responsibility for those who set us on path of WAR THAT HAS NO END!
WHEN WILL OUR BOYS COME HOME TO SIT WITH MOTHERS?
For these reasons I will cast my vote in opposition to Rice.
(END)
|
Printer-friendly format
Email this thread to a friend
Bookmark this thread
(1000+ posts)
Send PM |
Profile |
Ignore
