Should Republicans go ahead and add Supreme Court Justices to head off Democrats

Defending the undefensible Boxer

When Sen. Boxer opens her mouth and starts demonstrating her ignorance, she feels victimized by criticism. Robert Byrd showed ho out of touch he is with reality by dfending Boxer during his rant against confirming Rice as Secretary of State. Margaraet Carlson also came through with the "strong woman" defense, which is really silly when it is clear that Rice was the strong woman in the confrontation. David Lambaugh takes on Carlson:

Margaret Carlson, in the LA Times, expresses her outrage that women -- like Barbara Boxer -- are so often maligned for being harsh, as opposed to being praised for it, like men are. She sees Senator Boxer's incivility toward Dr. Condoleezza Rice as valiant work in aid of her country. Carlson wrote:

You wouldn't know it from reading the newspapers, but Sen. Barbara Boxer served her country valiantly last week. In her grilling of Secretary of State-designate Condoleezza Rice, Boxer finally named the elephant in the hearing room, which is more than the war itself. It's the lies that got us there. ...

Boxer asked Rice if "your loyalty to the mission … to sell this war overwhelmed your respect for the truth." Rice, without explaining a thing, coolly accused Boxer of impugning her integrity. No explanation of why her stories of yellowcake uranium, aluminum tubes and a potential Saddam Hussein mushroom cloud did not constitute an (over)selling of the war.

Just a couple of comments as I try not to be too harsh: 1) Can Carlson be serious that "Boxer finally named the elephant in the hearing room, which is more than the war itself. It's the lies that got us there?" The Democrats have been saying that for probably a year now and they've been lying themselves every time they say it. And yet we're going to applaud Boxer for doing it?

2) There needs to be no explanation about these matters beyond what we've heard ad nauseam. Dr. Rice said what she believed about all those items and other items pertaining to Iraqi WMD. She was saying what most of our intelligence people believed. She was saying what most intelligence agencies from other nations believed. She was saying what most Democrats believed. The fact that we didn't find WMD doesn't mean she -- or anyone else in the administration -- was lying about any of those statements. She was operating on the best information we had.

3) Why does there always have to be an elephant in the room for Democrats? Why can't they one time -- just for a brief period, say leading up to the monumentally important elections in Iraq -- focus on something besides phony allegations of Republican misconduct concerning the war? Why can't they get on board, quit badmouthing the Bush administration, quit naysaying our efforts in Iraq, quit undermining the efforts of our troops, and get behind this historic, potentially region-changing event?

4) If Carlson is so anxious to defend the honor of a fellow female, perhaps she should start with Dr. Rice, whose integrity was despicably challenged by female and male politicians who couldn't carry her briefcase. How ironic that Carlson chose to wrote a column painting the skunk-tongued Boxer as a victim. Liberal logic abounds.

Carlson and Boxer seem ignorant of the definition of the word "lie." To put the elephant back into their brain, a lie occurs when someone says something is true that they know to be untrue. It is a deliberate misstatement of fact. Neither Boxer or Carlson could give one example where Rice or the President ever said something they knew to be untrue. The fact that no weapons of mass destruction have been located yet does not imply that Bush or Rice knew there were no WMD. All it really suggest is that they may have received faulty intelligence and acted on it. What is clear is that Boxer is either ignorant of what a lie is or her criticism is totally disengenious. I think it was the latter.