Byrd On Rice

According to the Senate website, the floor vote on Rice's confirmation is scheduled for 11:30 this morning.  Of course she'll be confirmed, with a number of Dems wimping out and voting yes, but I'm hopeful that many will go on record as rejecting one of the people responsible for the failures of 9/11, the unconscionable policy of preventive (not just pre-emptive) warfare, and deceiving the American people about the threats we face.

As usual, I thought Senator Byrd was spot on during the debate yesterday.  After commending Senators Boxer and Kerry for what they did during the committee hearings, he went on (PDFs of S393, S395):

There is no doubt that Dr. Rice has a remarkable record of personal achievement...The next Secretary of State will have large shoes to fill. I have closely watched the career of Colin Powell since he served as National Security Adviser to President Reagan and we worked together during the Senate consideration of the INF treaty of 1988. Colin Powell distinguished himself in his service as chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, particularly during the 1991 Gulf War. When his nomination came before the Senate in 2001, I supported his confirmation and I supported it strongly based upon the strength of his record.  

The vote that the Senate will conduct tomorrow, however, is not simply a formality to approve of a nominee's educational achievement or level of expertise. I do not subscribe to the notion that the Senate must confirm a President's nominees barring criminality or lack of experience. The Constitution enjoins Senators to use their judgment in considering nominations. I am particularly dismayed by accusations I have read that Senate Democrats, by insisting on having an opportunity to debate the nomination of Dr. Rice, have somehow been engaged in nothing more substantial than "petty politics,'' partisan delaying tactics. Nothing, nothing, nothing could be further from the truth.

The Senate's role of advice and consent to Presidential nominations is not a ceremonial exercise.
...

[A]ccountability has become an old-fashioned notion in some circles these days. But accountability is not a negotiable commodity when it comes to the highest circles of our Nation's Government. The accountability of Government officials is an obligation, not a luxury. Yet accountability is an obligation that this President and this President's administration appear loathe to fulfill.    

Instead of being held to account for their actions, the architects of the policies that led our Nation down the road into war with Iraq, policies based on faulty intelligence and phantom weapons of mass destruction, have been rewarded by the President with accolades and promotions. Instead of admitting to mistakes in the war on Iraq, instead of admitting to its disastrous aftermath, the President and his inner circle of advisers continue to cling to myths and misconceptions.    

The only notion of accountability that this President is willing to acknowledge is the November elections, which he has described as a moment of accountability and an endorsement of his policies. Unfortunately, after-the-fact validation of victory is hardly the standard of accountability that the American people have the right to expect from their elected officials. It is one thing to accept responsibility for success; it is quite another to accept accountability for failure. Sadly, failure has tainted far too many aspects of our Nation's international policies over the past 4 years, culminating in the deadly insurgency that has resulted from the invasion of Iraq.    

With respect to this particular nomination, I believe there needs to be accountability for the mistakes and missteps that have led the United States into the dilemma in which it finds itself today, besieged by increasing violence in Iraq, battling an unprecedented decline in world opinion, and increasingly isolated from our allies due to our provocative, belligerent, bellicose, and unilateralist foreign policy. Whether the administration will continue to pursue these policies cannot be known to Senators today as we prepare to cast our vote. At her confirmation hearing on January 18, Dr. Rice proclaimed that our interaction with the rest of the world must be a conversation, not a monologue, but 2 days later, President Bush gave an inaugural address that seemed to rattle sabers at any nation that he does not consider to be free.  

Before Senators cast their votes, we must wonder whether we are casting our lot for more diplomacy or more belligerence, reconciliation, or more confrontation. Which face of this Dr. Jekyll and Mr. Hyde foreign policy will be revealed in the next 4 years?  

Although I do not question her credentials, I do oppose many of the critical decisions Dr. Rice has made during her 4 years as National Security Adviser. She has a record, and the record is there for us to judge. There remain too many unanswered questions about Dr. Rice's failure to protect our country before the tragic attacks of September 11, her public efforts to politicize intelligence, and her often stated allegiance to the doctrine of preemption.    

To confirm Dr. Rice to be the next Secretary of State is to say to the American people and to the world that the answers to those questions are no longer important. Her confirmation will almost certainly be viewed as another endorsement of the administration's unconstitutional doctrine of preemptive strikes, its bullying policies of unilateralism, and its callous rejection of our longstanding allies.    

...I shall cast my vote in opposition to the confirmation of Condoleezza Rice to be the next Secretary of State.

Any bets on how many Democrats will show similar spine today?

ntodd