"In a heated exchange with Hagel, a potential presidential candidate in 2008, Rice disputed his characterization of Bush’s buildup as an “escalation.”
“Putting in 22,000 more troops is not an escalation?” Hagel, a Vietnam veteran and longtime critic of Bush’s Iraq policy, asked. “Would you call it a decrease?”
“I would call it, senator, an augmentation that allows the Iraqis to deal with this very serious problem that they have in Baghdad,” she said.
escalate: To increase, enlarge, or intensify:
Didn't Condi graduate from Stanford?
2007-01-11 06:05:14 · 9 answers · asked by Anonymous in Politics & Government ➔ Military
"after the "parsing" of Clinton, you have some nerve to talk about Rice using English!"
(Sigh)
2007-01-11 06:21:51 · update #1
We need to dramatically escalate our communications with our elected officials in the House of Representatives and in the Senate, and demand that they take action to block this troop "surge" and to end this conflict now before any more of our soldiers have to pay the ultimate sacrifice for this foolish bit of military adventurism.
2007-01-12 04:33:47 · answer #1 · answered by Anonymous · 0⤊ 0⤋
I hope Hagel plans on running as a Democrat. I've got a better chance running as a Republican to get the nomination than he does.
2007-01-11 06:29:50 · answer #2 · answered by Yak Rider 7 · 0⤊ 0⤋
Escalation is the phenomenon of something getting worse step by step, for example a quarrel, or, notably, military presence and nuclear armament during the Cold War. (Compare to escalator, a device that lifts something to a higher level.)
2007-01-14 17:52:21 · answer #3 · answered by Anonymous · 0⤊ 0⤋
depends on what you're definition of "is" is.
If you want to get Bush or any of his colleagues for war crimes, you will waste millions of taxpayers dollars i.e.
Clinton admitted that he misled the American people and that he had had an "inappropriate intimate contact" with Lewinsky. Clinton denied having committed perjury because, in his opinion, oral sex was not "sex" per se
As long of everyone involved with the Iraqi war believes it was "legal" per se, then they didn't do anything wrong
2007-01-11 06:22:16 · answer #4 · answered by Larry R 2 · 2⤊ 0⤋
Call it what you want. But if the objective is important, we should not have artificial limits on the number of troops sent. If the objective's not important, the troops should all just go home.
2007-01-11 06:28:54 · answer #5 · answered by American citizen and taxpayer 7 · 1⤊ 0⤋
I think what she was trying to say is that it is not an escaltion, but rather a necessity to increase the number of troops to "get the job done". I may not agree with her that it is not an escaltion to increase troops, but I understand where she is coming from. Right now, there may be no way out of this and they are just trying to save face and "get the job done'; but I would ask you, at what price to America and the Iraqi people?
2007-01-11 06:16:38 · answer #6 · answered by mischa 6 · 1⤊ 3⤋
after the "parsing" of Clinton, you have some nerve to talk about Rice using English!
2007-01-11 06:09:02 · answer #7 · answered by kapute2 5 · 2⤊ 1⤋
Just reading her comment makes me proud to be a Rice supporter! Her dignity far exceeds anything that you say about her!
2007-01-11 06:29:22 · answer #8 · answered by tx girl 3 · 0⤊ 0⤋
Them moving stairs you see in cities.
2007-01-11 06:32:56 · answer #9 · answered by Anonymous · 0⤊ 0⤋