WASHINGTON, Oct. 24, 2007
Rice Accosted By Anti-War Protester
Secretary Of State Called A 'War Criminal' At House Committee Hearing
-
Play CBS Video
Video
Rice Heckled On Capitol Hill
"CBS News RAW": An anti-war demonstrator, shouting "war criminal," approached Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice as she arrived to testify at a hearing on Capitol Hill.
-
Photo
Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice, right, is confronted by CodePink member Desiree Sairooz, her hands painted red, as she arrives to testify on Capitol Hill in Washington, Wednesday, Oct. 24, 2007, before the House Foreign Relations Committee hearing regarding US policy in the Middle East ,where she spoke about Iraq, Iran, and the Israel Palestinian conflict. (AP Photo/Charles Dharapak)
-
Interactive
Battle For Iraq
The government, the insurgency, key players, background and photos.
The protester shouted that Rice was a "war criminal" and should be taken to the Hague, a reference to international war tribunals.
Rice was stoic and proceeded with business as normal as the protester was immediately spirited from the room. Other protesters were likewise escorted away at the behest of Committee Chairman Tom Lantos, D-Calif.
Despite the protesters' effort to focus on the war, the Israeli-Palestinian conflict dominated much of the hearing. A "two-state solution" in the Middle East is in jeopardy after a series of events including Iran's recent efforts to support Palestinian Hamas militants, Rice said.
Accordingly, the Bush administration decided to convene an upcoming peace conference in Annapolis, Md., to keep from losing a window of opportunity, she told the House panel.
"Our concern is growing that without a serious political prospect for the Palestinians that gives to moderate leaders a horizon that they can show to their people that indeed there is a two-state solution that is possible, we will lose the window for a two-state solution," Rice told the committee.
Sharp questions included ones from Lantos on whether the Bush administration was doing enough to pressure Egypt to crack down on Hamas sympathizers and another on the question of whether Bush was calling for the peace conference to salvage his political legacy.
Rice dismissed suggestions that the conference was a political ploy.
"There are probably easier foreign policy tasks to take on than the Israeli-Palestinian conflict," she said. "The timing comes down to what it is we need to do to give moderate forces in the region a boost and to deal a blow to forces of extremism."
The conference has not been scheduled, but should happen by the end of the year, she said.
On a separate issue, Rice said an emergency State Department review found serious problems with the way private security guards operate in Iraq and that more changes to government policy for contractors may be needed.
Rice said she and Defense Secretary Robert Gates have told their No. 2 officials to do a further study. Rice has already ordered two rounds of changes to the rules for security contractors intended to install greater oversight from Washington.
On Iran, Rice said the administration shares Congress' goal of making sanctions tougher on Iran. But she urged patience among lawmakers, who are increasingly frustrated that not enough was being done to deter Tehran's nuclear ambitions.
Last month, the House passed, by a 397-16 vote, legislation aimed at blocking foreign investment in Iran, in particular its lucrative energy sector. The bill, sponsored by Lantos, would specifically bar the president from waiving U.S. sanctions.
"We are, of course, very concerned, Mr. Chairman, that the policies of Iran constitute perhaps the single greatest challenge for American security interest in the Middle East and possibly around the world, because the combination of Iranian terrorism, Iranian repression at home and the pursuit of nuclear weapons technology . . . is a very dangerous mix," she said.
© MMVII The Associated Press. All Rights Reserved. This material may not be published, broadcast, rewritten, or redistributed.
Video and Galleries from U.S.
-
Video
Hi-Tech Drones Aid Terror Hunt
-
Video
Confirming Sotomayor
-
Video
GM Turns To New Direction
- 1
- 2
- 3
- 4
- 5
- next
See all 232 CommentsAny time Rice or Bush opens their mouths is a political ploy. Need pictures of a police state watch the video.
SOUNDS ALOT LIKE WHAT WAS SAID TO THE UNITED NATIONS JUST BEFORE WE ATTACT IRAN..REMEMBER...LOOK OUT EVERYONE WE ARE ABOUT TO GO IN
In the Democratic primary, Colbert takes 2.3 percent of the vote -- good for fifth, finishing ahead of Gov. Bill Richardson (2.1 percent), Rep. Dennis Kucinich (2.1 percent) and former Sen. Mike Gravel(less than 1 percent).
So Colbert, a comedian, places fifth among Democratic voters.
If you didn''t hear about this poll, perhaps you saw footage of the Bill Maher (live) show Friday night.
911 Truth people infiltrated Bill Maher%u2019s live audience last night and disrupted his show to the degree that he felt he had to go out in the audience and help his security people push one of the hecklers out.
BOTH OF THESE EXAMPLES ARE JUST THE MOST RECENT (FURTHER) PROOF THAT THE DEMOCRATIC PARTY GALVANIZES THE CRAZIEST AND STUPIDIST PEOPLE THIS COUNTRY HAS TO OFFER. PERSONALLY, I''D BE EMBARRASSED TO BE A DEMOCRAT.
Posted by bizzzz
George W.Bush--and others should be embarrassed to be a Democrat????? How about being a republican !!!!!
Another incoherent rambling from this loser! You are a LIAR and a FRAUD. To claim military service when having NOT SERVED is a disgrace.
Posted by notblue
The loonie left has gone mad with lust for power. They do not reason, they only rant. Reid rants, Stark rants, Murtha rants, Kennedy rants, etc. It goes on and on. The problem with people like this is that one day they are going to take their rants too far and somebody is going to get hurt. Since the do not know their place and how to act appropriately, the are physically removed for their own safety and the safety of the people they target. Madness is what Lee Harvey Oswald was all about.
There is NO difference between a democrat and a republican. But so long as the democrat/republican party keeps the majority of us commoners believing that they are not all the same, THEY will retain power at the expense of America!
What is really amusing is that anyone whose opinion differs with the positions of mainstream Democrats and Republicans, is simply off of the map of the Bush regime dead-enders.
The idea that someone might not agree 100% percent with one or another of these 2 groups, is simply beyond the processing capabilities of these infantile bobble-heads.
Posted by parrot2
Anybody proud to be an American? Hahahaha
4 Democrats in there and the rest are Republican....you want 4 more years of that?
The 22 most corrupt members of Congress
Sen. Pete V. Domenici (R-NM)
Sen. Mitch McConnell (R-KY)
Sen. Lisa Murkowski (R-AK)
Sen. Ted Stevens (R-AK)
Rep. Ken Calvert (R-CA)
Rep. John T. Doolittle (R-CA)
Rep. Tom Feeney (R-FL)
Rep. Doc Hastings (R-WA)
Rep. Duncan Hunter (R-CA)
Rep. William J. Jefferson (D-LA)
Rep. Jerry Lewis (R-CA)
Rep. Gary G. Miller (R-CA)
Rep. Alan B. Mollohan (D-WV)
Rep. Timothy F. Murphy (R-PA)
Rep. John P. Murtha (D-PA)
Rep. Steve Pearce (R-NM)
Rep. Rick Renzi (R-AZ)
Rep. Harold Rogers (R-KY)
Rep. David Scott (D-GA)
Rep. Jerry Weller (R-IL)
Rep. Heather A. Wilson (R-NM)
Rep. Don Young (R-AK)
Dishonorable mentions
Sen. Larry E. Craig (R-ID)
Sen. David Vitter (R-LA)
Some of the people in the state dept. thought they could be used to enrich uranium. But, actual physicists told her that there was no way they could be used to enrich uranium. She just decided that there was a "controversy" and went ahead and said that they might be used for uranium enrichment. She did her part to lie us into the Iraq war. The protester is right. She has blood on her hands.
SOUNDS ALOT LIKE WHAT WAS SAID TO THE UNITED NATIONS JUST BEFORE WE ATTACT IRAQ..REMEMBER...LOOK OUT EVERYONE WE ARE ABOUT TO GO IN
"The military said a helicopter fired on a group of men believed to be a cell that places roadside bombs. The men then took refuge in a nearby house and continued to engage U.S. troops. It said 11 Iraqis were killed, including a militant known to be a member of a bomb cell.
Residents of Mukaisheefa, a village 80 miles north of Baghdad, disputed that account, saying 15 people died and that the men were farmers irrigating their fields in the pre-daylight hours. Abdul Wahab Ahmed, a neighbor, said the dead included two toddlers and four teens. Five were women, he said, adding two of the three farmers were killed in the field, and a third, who was injured, returned to the village. As neighbors gathered around the man''s house, jets made two bombing runs, he said."
Collateral damage has been existent in ALL wars, and cannot be completely eliminated in combat, particularly when the "enemy" runs in and hides behind innocents. Gutless.
Residents went on to say that these men were only farmers, irrigating their fields in the morning. So you jump all over the bandwagon that we murdered these men in cold blood, for no reason. Get off your self-pontificating high horse. I''m sure that all of the terrorists over there that plant roadside bombs announce to their whole town what they do...so everybody knows...right?
NOBODY is blaming America for the actions of the jihadists. What we are saying is that we should get the h3ll out of Iraq. Iraq did NOT attack the USA. We have NO RIGHT to steal their oil. We have NOT given them "democracy". What are we doing there?
Crazy jihadists who threaten to or try to kill Americans should be rounded up and put in jail. But that is most definitely NOT what we are doing in Iraq. We are sitting ducks, surrounded by people who hate us (because we illegally attacked their country and killed their people), and our soldiers are smack dab in the middle of a massive civil war between groups of people we do not now, nor ever will, understand.
Notblue, this is NOT a matter of disagreement between political parties. This is a matter of difference between SANE and IN/SANE people. The IN/SANE ones are those who think that declaring a "Crusade" against all the "evil doers", followed by an unprovoked attack on a country that did not attack us, coupled with stealing all of their national treasures, somehow adds up to "making the world safe for democracy". Thats completely NUTS!
"Stay the course" means "H3ll on earth".
These people that act against our military over there, by planting bombs and such, do so against their President''s wishes, and against their laws, putting their neighbors and villages in danger. Typical criminals...they got caught.
Posted by NavyRetired2
NavyRetired2, one man''s "terrorist" is another man''s "freedom fighter". Perhaps some/all these people planting road-side bombs are a tad disgruntled that their country is under foreign occupation. Ever consider that? How would you feel if, say, the Mexican army came across the border and re-took Texas?
Would you want to debate them, or fight back in any way you could???
Ya...tell that to the Iraqi government that keeps asking us to stay. I agree we need to get out, but we need to it responsibly. Just because we farked up big by going in, in the first place, does NOT mean we should abandon our responsibilities to at least try to ensure there''s a system for security before we leave. To this day, I don''t agree with going in to Iraq, but I don''t agree with a rapid, mass-exodus either.
NavyRetired2,
First off, the only country that we know of, FOR SURE, with a chronic policy of hiding behind "human shields", are the Israelis themselves- proven, beyond a shadow of a doubt, before their own Supreme Court.
www.adalah.org/newsletter/eng/oct05/1.php
They often attempt to attribute this cowardly practice to their advesaries, as a pathetic excuse to justify their own crimes and atrocities, and always without any substantial support. We now appear to be borrowing this sorry excuse to justify our own atrocties.
NavyRetired2, the war against Iraq constitutes a fraud-based, illegal war of aggression.
Are you of the opinion that the Iraqis do not have the right to defend themselves against a brutal and illegally invading army, which has destroyed their country, humiliated, imprisoned, raped, soddomized, maimed and murdered millions of their friends and family, installed a puppet government, and is trying to steal their natural wealth?
Would you allow that to happen here? I think not.
Would you want to debate them, or fight back in any way you could???
Posted by cdfoxtrot at 05:05 PM : Oct 24, 2007
Good point about the perspective. The whole village could''ve been involved for all we or anybody know...all the more reason to take ''em out.
Mexico crossing over and taking over Texas would be completely different than this situation. None of us could say "what we would do if..." until conditions and situations exist that allow it to happen. We don''t have the reference to make that kind of statement.
Bottom line on this story: the Iraqi government and laws forbid actions against the U.S. military and Iraqi security forces, if they planted roadside bombs, they deserved what they got. I don''t agree with our government on MANY things of late, but I''m not gonna go bombing cops.
Posted by cdfoxtrot at 05:09 PM : Oct 24, 2007"
Its a matter of perspective...my perspective is I support our troops and realize they have a VERY tough job over in Iraq. You can denounce the fact that the country has laws all you want, but they have them, and an established government of IRAQI people, whether they''re American puppets or not. That doesn''t excuse them to kill my brothers and sisters at will without recourse.
If you think it does, then YOU''RE the disingenuous idiot.
But its ok, I see where you''re coming from, you support the killing of our troops, eventhough out of the other side of your mouth we need to wake up and get out of there. Continuing killing our troops won''t help that...so what are you really for?
NavyRetired2,
Re: "We don''t have the reference to make that kind of statement."
You are mistaken. The reference that we have is our own Constitution. Every U.S. service member, as you know, swears an oath to "support and defend the Constitution of the United States...". Our Constitution cites international treaties as the "Supreme Law of the Land", meaning that ALL U.S. policies are bound by any international treaty of which the U.S. is signatory.
One such treaty is the U.N. Charter, which provides for only 2 cases which a member country may legally wage war against another. One is in the event of an immanent threat (currently being invaded/attacked), and the other requires a specific U.N. Security Council Resolution authorizing the use of force. We know that the Bush regime failed to push through an actionable U.N. Resolution, ahead of the invasion of Iraq, and we know that there was no immanent threat from the Saddam regime. As such, the war against Iraq violates the U.N. Charter, which is in turn a serious violation of our Constitution.
The Iraq War also constitutes an "illegal war of aggression", as described by the "Nuremberg Charter", another U.S. obligated treaty, since it was an offensive action by the Bush regime, and there was no threat, only fabricated intelligence, in support of the invasion.
I view you as a sincere poster here, rather than simply a reactionary disruptor. I urge you to consider your Constitutional obligation in this matter.
Correction:
"Immanent" should be "eminent"
NavyRetired2,
Re: "However, if what he''s doing is so illegal, and there''s no other documentation anywhere that allows us going in to Iraq in the first place, how is he getting away with it 5 years later?"
The same way that he has been allowed to torture people, to run secret prisons, to spy on Americans without a warrant, and to plunder our blood and treasure for the benifit of his Corporate buddies nad for Israel.
He has been able to do this because we have allowed it, because he has packet the courts with his cronies, and because their is no credible opposition Party in place.
The act of invading Iraq is in violation of the U.N Charter and the Nuremberg Charter, and the conduct of it is in violation of the Geneva Conventions, and the U.S. War Crimes Act of 1996, among other offenses.
It is an abomination, and hopefully represents a low point for our country.
Posted by FeelFree1 at 05:42 PM : Oct 24, 2007"
Something we totally agree on :)
NavyRetired2,
Re: "The FASTEST way to get the U.S. out of Iraq is to end the fighting, not by perpetuating violence and death."
That is false. We are coonstructing 14 PERMANENT bases there, and the largest and most expensive embassy ever built.
Even the supine Democrats are now talking about 2013 as an intended exit date.
There is no U.S. ruling class intention to EVER leav Iraq voluntarly. Those who believe otherwise are fooling themselves, in my opinion.
Under Rice the State Department pays to private security and law enforcement contractors has soared to nearly $4 billion a year from $1 billion, administration officials said Tuesday, but they said that the department had added few new officials to oversee the contracts.
Now how many of those no bids contrast went to major GOP type donor 100 percent, ya think, how about robbing from the US treasury being added to that list of grievances against this Bush lackey Rice.
NavyRetired2,
Re: "Something we totally agree on :)"
I have noted many points which we seem to agree on.
Have you heard the story about where a 500 pound gorilla sleeps, anywhere it wishes.
The new estimated cost for the Iraqi boondoggle is over 2 trillion! Hurray!!
Easy. Laws must be enforced, or else nothing happens. Our "representatives" (senators and congresspersons) in Congress have chosen to look the other way rather than enforce the laws that have been broken.
"Representatives," by the way, refers to both Democrats and Republicans.
Have you heard the story about where a 500 pound gorilla sleeps, anywhere it wishes.
Posted by Oscarez at 06:04 PM : Oct 24, 2007
It''s called a ceasefire in Iraq which was being broken everyday fo 10 years, the war never ended, and 17 UN Resolutions being ignored by Saddam.
- 1
- 2
- 3
- 4
- 5
- next
See all 232 Comments