"Dr. Rice was a key member of the national security team that developed and justified the rationale for war, and it's been a catastrophic failure, a continuing quagmire," Massachusetts Democratic Sen. Edward Kennedy said in a debate.
With stinging rhetoric, other Democrats recounted Rice's role as a confidant to President Bush, accusing her of developing policies that exacerbated the violence in Iraq and would force U.S. troops to remain there for years.
"We have been the authors of much of our own misery and as a result of that I cannot find it in my heart or in my mind to vote for a promotion of Dr. Rice," declared Sen. Evan Bayh, an Indiana Democrat who supported the Iraq war.
Republicans came to Rice's defense, charging Democrats with political gamesmanship for demanding a full day of debate even though the Senate is expected to vote to confirm Rice by a wide margin on Wednesday.
In a debate that contrasted starkly with the bipartisan embrace extended to Secretary of State Colin Powell at his confirmation hearings four years ago, Democrats accused Rice of deceiving Congress.
They said she had exaggerated intelligence about weapons of mass destruction in Iraq, which were never found, and ignored warnings that a fierce insurgency would develop after the American invasion.
See, screw the Republicans on this. It's bad enough that we have a process where a nominee's confirmation is a foregone conclusion, but now they claim that any opposition voiced at all is simply "grandstanding." There's no allowing for debate, no consideration of the public's right to a full discussion of the candidate's qualifications and history, it's just supposed to be a nice, quiet rubber stamp. Good for the few Democrats who are standing up to this crap.
On top of that, these aren't merely allegations that Rice deceived Congress and exaggerated intelligence about WMD, she clearly did exactly that. She has refused to accept any responsibility, even going so far as to accuse those who correctly point out her inconsistent and contradictory statements as "impugning her integrity." This, of course, would be impossible. She has no integrity.
So there you go. Bringing up the fact that she was instrumental in leading the country to war on false grounds is "political gamesmanship," but the profession of her father, the social system under which she was raised, and her previous employment are clearly relevant.
Again, we should be proud of the few Democrats who are opposing her ascension. Tell Ted Kennedy, Carl Levin, John Kerry, Barbara Boxer and Mark Dayton that you support them. The evidence is clear, they should be commended for telling the truth.
Finally, a classic quote from Senator Kay Bailey Hutchison of Texas, representing the sniveling majority: "potential mistakes that people think might have been made," she said, should not be "brought up as a reason not to vote for Condoleezza Rice."
The logic escapes me.
