Recalling Ms. Rice's pre-war remarks about the Baghdad dictator's supposed ambitions to acquire nuclear weapons, Senator Boxer said, "I will be placing into the record a number of such statements you made which have not been consistent with the facts."
After several more exchanges along that line, Ms. Rice said, "Senator, we can have this discussion in any way that you would like. But I really hope that you will refrain from impugning my integrity. Thank you very much."
"I'm not," Ms. Boxer retorted. "I'm just quoting what you said."
Ms. Rice replied that she welcomed further discussion, "but I really hope that you will not imply that I take the truth lightly."
You get the idea that Sen. Boxer is not going to vote for Ms. Rice's confirmation. Sen. Biden says upfront that he is. This suggests a certain lower standard of qualification given some of the remarks referenced by Fred Kaplan as well as the issue of just how many dependable Iraqi forces are on the ground. As discussed here (see also the comment thread), the "120K" figure suggested is looked upon rather dubiously. At best, it is a very optimistic reading of both "dependable" and "forces."*
The difficulty with Cabinet secretaries (especially policy positions such as State, though they should be held to a higher standard before confirmation, and not just questions about illegal nannies or other easy potshots) is that they serve at the will of the President, so if you find the President off base, this doesn't necessary mean one can vote against the secretary's nomination. Still, at some point, a line is crossed.
Alberto Gonzales clearly crossed it. Statements like: "We don't want the smoking gun to be a mushroom cloud." and that's a "historical document" (8/6/01 memo) also raises alarm bells. Kaplan and others also suggest overall Rice hasn't done her current job very well. One other item that has got somewhat less coverage is her strong words against the elective leader of Venezuela, egged on by the new senator from Florida. Not surprising, since the President (ours) supported the ongoing (illegal) coup d'etat, before the people's choice was reaffirmed.
The hearings give Sen. Dems (and some Republicans) a chance to give some of the more troubling issues like the whole WMDs motivation for war matter some play. This might be good politics and even do some good overall. Why senators like Biden praise and say up front they are going to vote for such a flawed candidate is a bit less clear.
Sen. Kerry by the way decided to join with Sen. Boxer to vote against the nomination. This might be deemed too much for those who find it distasteful that certain Democrats continue to strongly oppose the administration. After Sen. Boxer's joined a symbolic challenge of the electoral vote count, her recent strong words against Dr. Rice is seen as just one more example of liberals (Democrats) being sore losers, etc. Not only is it wrong to stereotype all Democrats by using traditionally emotional sorts like Boxer and Kennedy, but it reaches a point where one is supposed apologize for dissenting.
As to the grandstanding allegations, it is notable that they appear to be somewhat one-sided. When I read such stuff, including in local editorials, it disgusts and bores me in about equal measure.
---
* Misleading spin is at issue in the issue Sen. Kerry questioned her about. The NYT coverage today noted: "Under questioning from Mr. Biden, the nominee insisted that President Bush 'got good military advice' at the outset. But she said unforeseen events had made the mission in Iraq harder than anticipated." Not really, but you can spin it that way, I guess.
Will she also "spin" it when asked her opinion as Secretary of State? I know clarity is seen as poison in nomination hearings, but they have a constitutional purpose, a sort of review board. Some minimum standard should apply, right?