Several Senate Democrats turned Condoleezza Rice's (search) confirmation as the next secretary of state into a sometimes angry debate over President Bush's decision to go to war with Iraq.
As Bush's trusted national security adviser, Rice came under fire during last week's confirmation hearings and during Senate debate Monday for how she has relayed the facts about Iraq to the American people.
One senator, Robert C. Byrd (search) of West Virginia, called the war unconstitutional and unwise. Another, Jack Reed of Rhode Island, suggested that Rice merely reinforces Bush's decisions after he has made them. And Sen. Edward M. Kennedy of Massachusetts charged that Rice, as Bush's national security adviser, provided Congress with "false reasons" for going to war.
Byrd, the Senate's senior member, said Bush, with Rice's help, steered the country into an unprovoked and unjustified war based on false information that Iraq had been a training ground for terrorists.
"Dr. Rice is responsible for some of the most overblown rhetoric that the administration used to scare the American people into believing that there was an imminent threat from Iraq," Byrd said.
Condi-versy: Dems standing their ground or grandstanding?
A sample of your responses:
Condoleezza Rice should not be promoted and confirmed for ANYTHING! She was a complete failure as national security adviser! She would be a TERRIBLE secretary of state!
The Democrats are grandstanding and cutting into the credibility of our secretary of state around the world. The Democratic Party has become guilty of aiding and abetting the enemies of America.
The Democrats are absolutely doing the right things. Such dramatic and obvious misrepresentations and distortions of facts leading up to the war should be held accountable. Not to mention policies of torture advocated by this administration. Credibility and trust is an essential attribute of the U.S. secretary of state and Condi, although she will be confirmed, is not a credible person to a large percentage of the U.S. and most of the world.
It is worse than grandstanding, it is called "losers' limp"
Miramar Beach, FL
It is without a doubt the most shameful situation I have ever seen. I don't understand why the Democrats are making this nomination about President George W. Bush's policies instead of about her nomination. It is ludicrous to think that Iraq would be better off with the way things were instead of the election they now face. Do you think they would prefer to be captives of their own country?
Also, I think if Condi was a Democrat the NAACP would be having a field day, someone tell Boxer and Mr. Kennedy to SIT DOWN and get on with business!
The Democrats leaders are continuing to remove themselves from the average person with their behavior towards Dr. Rice. They are hurting their party more than helping it. Sure, they'll receive a few bucks from the far side of their party, but they are embarrassing the rest of it.
I believe that in their desperate attempt for the president to fail in the war with Iraq, the Democrats are giving the insurgents and terrorist the hope to continue fighting. Kennedy and other Democrats are giving the terrorist the support and comfort.
What I think is so funny, is the Democrats and their media allies made such a big point that President Bush better reach across the aisle this term and better try to get along with the Democrats this time.
This is the Democrats' first chance to get along with the president and they obviously do not want to have any bi-partisanship. They are "self destructing."
Are her opponents standing their ground or grandstanding? Honestly, it doesn't look like there is much of a difference with that crowd.
Fort Wayne, IN
What do you think? Send your comments to email@example.com
Note: The views and opinions expressed on this page do not necessarily reflect those of FOX News, or its subsidiaries