On January 18, 2005, Condoleezza Rice, President George W. Bush’s nominee for Secretary of State, faced the 18-member Senate Committee on Foreign Relations. Senator Richard Lugar, chairman of the committee, opened with a statement. Then Senator Joseph Biden spoke, beginning with some good-natured banter about more money for Amtrak; he had been late for the meeting, having to run from his late arriving train.

All proceeded smoothly until the senator from California, Barbara Boxer, spoke. Boxer had taken it on herself to discredit Condoleezza Rice. Her purpose here is apparently the same as it was when she stood to oppose the electoral count on January 6—to demonstrate her contempt for the Bush administration.

Using Dr. Rice’s own words, Boxer claimed that the Secretary of State nominee’s “selling” of the war in Iraq to the American people had “overwhelmed [Dr. Rice’s] respect for the truth.” The subject is Saddam Hussein’s having a nuclear capability by the end of 2003. On the transcript of the exchange between Boxer and Rice, Boxer says, “So that's what you said to the American people on television—‘Nobody ever said it was going to be the next year’.”
Then Boxer quotes Bush: “If the Iraqi regime is able to produce, buy or steal an amount of highly-enriched uranium a little larger than a single softball, it could have a nuclear weapon in less than a year.”

Boxer quotes Rice again: “The intelligence assessment was that he was reconstituting his nuclear program; that, left unchecked, he would have a nuclear weapon by the end of the year.”

Then Boxer draws the conclusion, “So here you are, first contradicting the president and then contradicting yourself.”

But Boxer is wrong when she insists that Rice contradicted the president and herself. Rice is correct in stating that no one claimed Saddam was going to have nuclear capabilities by the end of the year. The president said that if Saddam could just get his hands on a small amount of highly-enriched uranium, he could have a nuclear weapon within a year. This statement reflects uncertainty, and it was an uncertainty Bush was no longer willing to entertain.

And Rice reflects that exact meaning in the next statement that Boxer quotes, that “the intelligence assessment was” that Saddam was reconstituting his nuclear program and “left unchecked,” he would have the weapon by the end of the year. Rice had already admitted that the intelligence was faulty. That statement does not contradict Bush. In both statements by Bush and Rice, no one had claimed that without doubt, Saddam would have a nuclear weapon within a year. By glossing over the key function words, “if” and “could,” and the phrases “the intelligence assessment” and “left unchecked,” Boxer changes Rice’s and the President’s meanings, and therefore comes to the erroneous conclusion that Rice contradicted the president and herself.

To make that distinction clearer, suppose I say: If your daughter starts using cocaine, she could be addicted by the end of the year. That statement does not say that I believe your daughter is without doubt going to be addicted by the end of the year. It depends on whether she starts using or not, just as the statement made it clear that Saddam could have the weapons is he acquired a small amount of highly enriched uranium.

This kind of willful ignoring of language is beneath members of the senate and is unacceptable. I am assuming it was willful and politically motivated, and not that Boxer is language challenged.

The next complaint Boxer issued against Rice raises the question of whether Boxer had ever read the Iraq War Resolution. She had moved on to the claim that Saddam’s possession of weapons of mass destruction was the only reason for going to war with Iraq. Rice replies,

But it wasn't just weapons of mass destruction. . . . [H]is territory was a place where terrorists were welcomed, where he paid suicide bombers to bomb Israel, where he had used Scuds against Israel in the past.

And so we knew what his intentions were in the region; where he had attacked his neighbors before and, in fact, tried to annex Kuwait; where we had gone to war against him twice in the past. It was the total picture, Senator, not just weapons of mass destruction, that caused us to decide that, post-September 11th, it was finally time to deal with Saddam Hussein.

Then Boxer replies,

Well, you should read what we voted on when we voted to support the war, which I did not, but most of my colleagues did. It was WMD, period. That was the reason and the causation for that, you know, particular vote.

But again, Dr. Rice is correct is saying that Saddam’s possible possession of WMD was not the only reason for going to war with Iraq. From the Iraq War Resolution, we find the following:

Whereas Iraq persists in violating resolution of the United Nations Security Council by continuing to engage in brutal repression of its civilian population thereby threatening international peace and security in the region, by refusing to release, repatriate, or account for non-Iraqi citizens wrongfully detained by Iraq, including an American serviceman, and by failing to return property wrongfully seized by Iraq from Kuwait;

Whereas the current Iraqi regime has demonstrated its continuing hostility toward, and willingness to attack, the United States, including by attempting in 1993 to assassinate former President Bush and by firing on many thousands of occasions on United States and Coalition Armed Forces engaged in enforcing the resolutions of the United Nations Security Council.

Again Boxer was wrong. The resolution offers more reasons for war with Iraq than just WMD, yet Boxer insisted, “It was WMD, period.”

Why did Boxer attack Dr. Rice, after lavishing praise on the nominee’s accomplishments, and also admitting that Dr. Rice would in fact be confirmed? Some call what the senator did “grandstanding,” others claim it was just another way to oppose the Bush administration, yet others point out that Boxer used the occasion to seek campaign contributions.

Whatever the reason, I would hope that Senator Boxer will use greater discrimination and give a closer reading to the words she seeks to challenge and oppose. She had demonstrated a sloppiness that undermines people's confidence in the intellect of government officials.

For further details:

Condoleezza Rice’s Opening Statement

Transcript of the Boxer-Rice exchange

Iraq War Resolution

Please join the forum if you'd like to share your thoughts.