In Thursday's Washington Post, Robin Wright gives an account of hearings with Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice and members of the Senate Foreign Relations Committee.
Wright writes:
Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice faced testy criticism yesterday from both Republican and Democratic senators for what they called a vague and troubled strategy in Iraq and for the administration's refusal to offer a concrete timeline for the withdrawal of U.S. troops.
Rice avoided answering questions about whether American troops would still be in Iraq in five or 10 years, noting only that insurgents would continue to kill innocents for "a long time." In a new effort to stabilize Iraq, she said, the United States will deploy civilian-military teams throughout Iraq next month to foster nation-building, from courts and social services to sewage treatment.
The give-and-take underscored shifting opinion about the war on Capitol Hill, where lawmakers on the Senate Foreign Relations Committee appealed for greater candor and more concrete information.
Wright distorts the weight of the "testy criticism" that Rice faced from both Republican and Democratic senators.
She claims that the exchange was indicative of the "shifting opinion about the war on Capitol Hill."
I have to disagree with her characterization of "shifting opinion" on Iraq.
She says, "Although Democrats have long challenged U.S. Iraq policy, Republican senators were also expressing concern. Committee Chairman Richard G. Lugar (R-Ind.) said the administration can no longer assume that creating democratic institutions in Iraq in the short term will diminish the insurgency, which could have long-term implications."
In her article, she quotes George Voinovich, Richard Lugar, and Lincoln Chaffee to illustrate her point that Bush is losing support from members of his own party. This is disingenuous at best. I don't consider these senators to be staunch supporters of Bush. I don't consider them to be staunch Republicans. Their conservative credentials are flimsy.
These senators don't supply examples of "shifting opinion". They've been limp for quite a while now. Any firm support they had for the President is just a distant memory.
When it comes to Iraq, Lugar broke with his party months and months ago. He's been very vocal in his criticism of the President's Iraq policy; and Voinovich certainly can't be counted on to support Bush. He's not a very stable man. The thought of John Bolton being the U.S. Ambassador to the UN reduced Voinovich to tears. Chaffee, one of the most liberal Republicans in the Senate, is so deeply entrenched in the Dems' camp that it's widely assumed that he could permanently bail on the Republicans and jump like Jim Jeffords at any moment.
I don't see how Wright can claim to be presenting a legitimate case that Voinovich, Lugar, and Chaffee prove that Republicans are turning on the administration in regard to Iraq. Technically, they aren't Republicans. Their actions speak louder than the "R" next to their names.
The fact that these so-called Republicans were dissatisfied with Rice's responses to their questions should come as no surprise at all. It's of no significance, nothing new.
Similarly, it was completely predictable that Barbara Boxer would whip out a chart and start badgering Rice.
Wright writes:
Sen. Barbara Boxer (D-Calif.) told Rice that the American public is "sick at heart at the spin and false expectations. They want the truth, and they deserve it." Putting up a chart, Boxer cited Vice President Cheney's comment in May that the Iraqi insurgency is in its "last throes," then showed the spike in violent attacks since then.
More props. Can the woman speak without relying on props?
I wonder if Boxer also brought out some promotional materials to hawk her new novel, A Time to Run.
According to the Washington Times:
The New York Times questioned Mrs. Boxer's portrayal of Republicans as "snakes" and Democrats as "saints" in the book, which chronicles the adventures of a diminutive redhead who assumes her husband's Senate seat after he is killed, then tries to foil the nomination of a conservative woman to the Supreme Court.
...Mrs. Boxer -- who opposed the nomination of conservative Judge John G. Roberts Jr. as chief justice of the Supreme Court and questions Harriet Miers' qualifications to replace Justice Sandra Day O'Connor -- has had to answer to critics who wonder where fiction stops and agenda begins. The discord was fueled by advance materials and sneak peeks at the 320-page book, published by San Francisco-based Chronicle Books.
...In an interview with the Times on Sunday, however, Mrs. Boxer acknowledged writing the book "with a point of view," adding that as a party, the "Democrats have virtuous goals."
Mrs. Boxer told Publishers Weekly last month that her novel was "definitely a struggle between liberals and conservatives, and knowing that I wrote the book, you can imagine who wins the day."
...The book will be published tomorrow, and Mrs. Boxer will embark on a publicity tour beginning Nov. 1, publicist Laina Adler said. The tour will include four appearances in the Washington area.
Sundry reviews are already crabby.
"Suffice it to say, this effort reads more like a cross between a bad romance novel and a soap opera script. The Congressional Record might be more entertaining. And it's free," noted the Sacramento Bee, which obtained an uncorrected proof of the novel last month but was prohibited from quoting directly from it.
That doesn't sound too good.
At their next meeting, if Boxer greets her with another chart, Rice should shoot back with a chart of her own, one displaying what's sure to be Boxer's dismal book sales.
Of course, Rice would never do something like that. She has far too much class, unlike Boxer.
By the way, shouldn't Boxer be serving her constituents and be attending to her duties as a senator rather than going on a publicity tour to generate sales for her reportedly really bad novel?
Again, I digress, back to Wright's article.
I think it's ironic that Wright attempts to make Rice look bad and tries to create the impression of a rift in the Republican Party. Rather than successfully attacking Rice, she actually makes herself look bad. Wright reveals her reporting as agenda driven, and herself as a partisan hack, an anti-Bush administration spinmeister.
No comments:
Post a Comment