Yahoo! News - Rice on the Defensive Over Iraq, Integrity
WASHINGTON (Reuters) - Condoleezza Rice gave little ground to senators lambasting U.S. policies in Iraq on the first day of her confirmation hearing to be secretary of state and will return on Wednesday for a second round of questioning.

President Bush's national security adviser defended herself on Tuesday against a charge she put loyalty above truthfulness in making her boss's case for going to war against Iraq and clashed with senators over an exit strategy.

In the most heated exchange, California Democrat Sen. Barbara Boxer all but accused Rice of lying to argue the case for war.

"I personally believe ... that your loyalty to the mission you were given, to sell this war, overwhelmed your respect for the truth," Boxer told Rice, citing statements about how fast former dictator Saddam Hussein might acquire a nuclear weapon.

Rice responded: "I have never, ever, lost respect for the truth in the service of anything.

Her voice appearing to quaver with emotion as she looked directly at Boxer, she repeatedly asked the senator not to question her integrity.

I'm a bit disappointed that this story did not include the juicy bit that she condones torture for those that "Geneva doesn't apply to", or something to that effect. Both the AP story and this one fail to mention the exchange where Christopher Dodd told her to "go talk to John McCain" to understand what torture really means to a serviceman.

Hmmm. Can I stand to look through hours of transcripts to find it? It's hard enough to actually listen to these 15 minute "questions" from our Senators, don't know if I have the patience to read them also.

Edit: I found it- here ya go.

The New York Times > Washington > Transcript: Confirmation Hearing of Condoleeza Rice, Continued

SEN. DODD: Let me just come back to the point. I just want to make this simple question.

MS. RICE: Yes.

SEN. DODD: Is it your view, as a human matter, that water- boarding and the use, as we saw, in prisons in Iraq of nudity -- is that torture in your personal view, as a nominee here for the --

MS. RICE: Senator, I'm not going to speak to any specific interrogation techniques, but let me talk about Abu Ghraib, because that was not acceptable.

SEN. DODD: I'd like to just get your views on just a simple matter. It's a simple question I'm asking. I'm not --

MS. RICE: Well, you asked me about the incidents in Iraq, and --

SEN. DODD: (Off mike) -- asking about some very specific techniques that were used, whether or not you consider them to be torture or not.

MS. RICE: Senator, the determination of whether interrogation techniques are consistent with our international obligations and American law are made by the Justice Department. I don't want to comment on any specific interrogation techniques. I don't think that would be appropriate, and I think it would not be very good for American security.

SEN. DODD: Well, let's leave it, if that's your answer, there. It's a disappointing answer, I must say. The face of U.S. foreign policy is in the person of the secretary of State, and it's important at moments like this to be able to express yourself aside from the legalities of things, how you as a human being react to these kinds of activities. And with the world watching, when a simple question is raised about techniques that I think most people would conclude in this country are torture, it's important at a moment like that that you can speak clearly and directly without getting involved in the legalisms questions. I understand these involve some legal determinations, but as a human being how you feel about this, about to assume the position and be responsible for pursuing the human rights issues that this nation has been deeply committed to for decades, is a very important moment.

MS. RICE: Senator, I maintain the commitment and will maintain the commitment of the United States to norms of international behavior and to the legal norms that we have helped to --

SEN. DODD: Let me ask you this, then. What would happen if someone did this to an American? What would happen if we saw on television that a captured American was being subjected to these kind of activities? How would you react to it?

MS. RICE: Senator, the United States of America -- American personnel are not engaged in terrorism against innocents.

SEN. DODD: I wasn't asking you what they have been charged with. I'm asking whether or not, if you saw an American be treated like this, how would you react?

MS. RICE: We expect Americans to be -- because we are parties to the Geneva Conventions, we expect Americans to be treated in accordance with the Geneva Conventions.

SEN. DODD: Of course we do. And do you consider these kinds of activities to violate the Geneva Conventions?

MS. RICE: We believe that there are certain categories of people, the al Qaeda, for instance, who were not covered by Geneva, that in fact it would have been a stretch to cover them under Geneva, would have weakened Geneva to cover them. But the president said that they had to be treated, as military necessity allowed, consistent with the application of Geneva.

SEN. DODD: Do me a favor. At the end of all of these hearings, I'd like you to spend about 15 minutes with John McCain and talk to him about this stuff. I think you'll get some good advice when it comes to the subject matter, someone who has been through this, about what the dangers are when we have sort of waffling answers about these questions and then Americans can be apprehended and what happens to them.

Let me move on, because I don't want to take up the committee's time on this particular point, but I'm troubled by your answer.

Sheesh, I think I need some ibuprofen now. Here's some more from Boxer later in the day-

SEN. BOXER: No, no, you're -- you're missing -- you're not listening to the question. You said you don't want to extend these international laws to all prisoners. However, it is extended in the defense bill. And this was just extending it to the intelligence officers. Now you're -- so that's why I'm asking you, since you said you can't extend it, do you support it in the defense bill? Whether the president signed it, I'm asking your opinion.

MS. RICE: Of course I support it in the defense bill, Senator.

SEN. BOXER: But you've gone in the intelligence bills and --

MS. RICE: No. Senator, we think the intelligence are covered in the defense bill. It was unnecessary to have it in your bill.

SEN. BOXER: But then you go to say that these -- that these agreements are not covered.

MS. RICE: I was making -- I was making a broader point, Senator, which is that the Geneva Conventions should not be extended to those who don't live up to the obligations of the Geneva Convention.

SEN. BOXER: Okay. Okay. Well, let me just say this, Mr. Chairman. The person who wrote this, Dick Durbin, Senator Durbin, senior senator from Illinois, he offered the language to the Defense Department bill. He then said the Senate Intelligence Reform Bill would have simply extended these requirements to the intelligence community.

Now, I'm getting two messages from you. One is you -- we didn't need this because the intelligence community is already covered. If that was the case, why not leave it in, so the world can see that we're not only willing to put it in the defense bill, but in the intelligence bill? Because obviously, colleagues here -- John McCain kind of knows what he's doing in legislation, and so does Senator Lieberman. They're the ones who did this -- a hundred to nothing, it was passed through the United States Senate. I think people felt it was important in light of Abu Ghraib to stand up and be elegant on the point. And I'm going to read it one more time, if you'll hold it up, because what they said was quite elegant. And it doesn't have, you know, any extra words at all: "In general, no prisoner shall be subject to torture or cruel, inhumane or degrading treatment or punishment that is prohibited by the Constitution, laws or treaties of the United States." And everyone in the Senate, Republican and Democrat, it was a shining moment for us.

And then in a letter -- and it just comes to light last week -- that you write, you ask that this be stricken. And I have to say that's the problem I have. There are beautiful words, and then there's the action.

MS. RICE: Senator, it's --

SEN. BOXER: (Inaudible word) -- there's contradictions. And I don't think --

MS. RICE: Senator, it's the law of the land.

SEN. BOXER: -- that you have explained it, because by saying we didn't need it, it was in the defense bill, A, people don't agree with that in the Senate; and B, so what if it was duplicative, that we said it twice that torture is wrong and we will obey international laws?

I think it just shows that this is not an issue that you feel very comfortable with. You had an opportunity when Senator Dodd asked you, you had an opportunity to say how you felt personally about it. You had a chance to embrace this language, which was embraced by Senator McCain and Lieberman and every member of the Senate. And yet you write a letter, and as a result, it's dropped. And I just think it's a sad day for us. That's how I feel.

Thank you.

There you have it. Condi condones torture under certain circumstances. Wish this was being reported a little more in the news, but, hey, we've got Brad and Jen and inaugural fashions to worry about.