2
   

Boxer's Low Blow

 
 
cjhsa
 
Reply Fri 12 Jan, 2007 10:47 am
BOXER'S LOW BLOW

http://www.nypost.com/seven/01122007/postopinion/editorials/boxers_low_blow_editorials_.htm?page=0

January 12, 2007 -- Democratic Sen. Barbara Boxer, an appalling scold from California, wasted no time yesterday in dragging the debate over Iraq about as low as it can go - attacking Secre tary of State Condoleezza Rice for being a childless woman.

Boxer was wholly in character for her party - New York's own two Democratic senators, Chuck Schumer and Hillary Rodham Clinton, were predictably opportunistic - but the Golden State lawmaker earned special attention for the tasteless jibes she aimed at Rice.

Rice appeared before the Senate in defense of President Bush's tactical change in Iraq, and quickly encountered Boxer.

"Who pays the price? I'm not going to pay a personal price," Boxer said. "My kids are too old, and my grandchild is too young."

Then, to Rice: "You're not going to pay a particular price, as I understand it, with an immediate family."

Breathtaking.

Simply breathtaking.

We scarcely know where to begin.

The junior senator from California ap parently believes that an accom plished, seasoned diplomat, a renowned scholar and an adviser to two presidents like Condoleezza Rice is not fully qualified to make policy at the highest levels of the American government because she is a single, childless woman.

It's hard to imagine the firestorm that similar comments would have ignited, coming from a Republican to a Democrat, or from a man to a woman, in the United States Senate. (Surely the Associated Press would have put the observation a bit higher than the 18th paragraph of a routine dispatch from Washington.)

But put that aside.

The vapidity - the sheer mindlessness - of Sen. Boxer's assertion makes it clear that the next two years are going to be a time of bitterness and rancor, marked by pettiness of spirit and political self-indulgence of a sort not seen in America for a very long time.

In contrast to Boxer, Sen. Clinton seemed almost statesmanlike - until one considers that she was undercutting the president of the United States in time of war: "The president simply has not gotten the message sent loudly and clearly by the American people, that we desperately need a new course."

Schumer, meanwhile, dismissed the president's speech as "a new surge without a new strategy."

Frankly, we're not surprised by Hillary Clinton's rush to judgment. With both eyes firmly set on 2008, her Iraq position flits like a tumbleweed in the political wind. Who knows where she'll wind up?

Heck, she admitted as much by citing November's midterm elections to justify her newfound opposition to the war. (And who needs a commander-in-chief who tailors war-fighting strategy to public opinion?)


Clinton would do well to consider the words of GOP Sen. John McCain, another White House hopeful, who frankly admits that his strong support for a troop surge in Iraq has cost him votes. (Some Democrats, in fact, already are calling this "McCain's surge.")

Said McCain: "I'd rather lose a campaign than lose a war."

As for Schumer, we're profoundly disappointed by his remarks.

While he's always been a fiercely parti san Democrat (nothing to be ash amed of), time was when Schumer seemed to understand the existential threat posed by Islamic extremism.

Now he's been elevated to a top position in his party's Senate leadership - and he has bigger fish to fry.

Like electing Democrats.

And so, like Boxer, he cheers on Barack Obama, Chris Dodd, Joe Biden and John Edwards - with Clinton, presidential aspirants - as they trash Bush's plan.

To the extent that such behavior encourages America's enemies - and of course it does - he, like they, stands to have innocent blood on his hands.

Yes, the party's bloggers will be happy.

So will al Qaeda.

True enough, Democrats don't hold a monopoly on appalling behavior.

Kansas Sen. Sam Brownback, a Republican presidential candidate and favorite of some conservatives, has joined with Democrats in opposition to the troop surge - and he's not alone.

The president deserves better.

Indeed, the least these critics can do is suggest an alternative that leads to success in Iraq rather than simply criticize.

Or suggest that America simply wave the white flag.

As Sen. Jon Kyl (R-Ariz.) said: "Now that the president has outlined a change in strategy, we should give his proposals an opportunity to work." Instead, Kyl rightly noted, "some declared the president's proposals unworkable even before they were announced."

No such nay-saying, however, was to be heard from two Capitol Hill stalwarts: McCain and Sen. Joe Lieberman, the independent Democrat from Connecticut.

"I applaud the president for rejecting the fatalism of failure and pursuing a new course to achieve success in Iraq," said Lieberman, who alone in his party genuinely comprehends what a U.S. defeat in Iraq would mean.

As for McCain, his support is tempered by the fact that he argued correctly, from the start, that the war was being fought with too few troops. Had the administration listened four years ago, this tactical shift might not be necessary now.

It would take a truly hard heart not to be touched, deeply, by the sacrifices made by the young men and women now wearing their country's uniform.

And one can only imagine the pain felt by the families of those killed and cruelly wounded in service to America. Just as it was hard to imagine the agony of the loved ones left behind on 9/11.

But even to suggest that Condoleezza Rice is not fit to serve her country because she is childless is beyond bizarre.

It is perverse.

Sen. Boxer needs to apologize.

And she needs to do it today.

(cj says: She can blow me while she's at it)
  • Topic Stats
  • Top Replies
  • Link to this Topic
Type: Discussion • Score: 2 • Views: 3,025 • Replies: 71
No top replies

 
joefromchicago
 
  1  
Reply Fri 12 Jan, 2007 10:55 am
Re: Boxer's Low Blow
cjhsa wrote:
The junior senator from California ap parently believes that an accom plished, seasoned diplomat, a renowned scholar and an adviser to two presidents like Condoleezza Rice is not fully qualified to make policy at the highest levels of the American government because she is a single, childless woman.

Quite right. Condoleezza Rice is not fully qualified to make policy at the highest levels of the American government because she has proven herself to be completely incompetent.
0 Replies
 
McGentrix
 
  1  
Reply Fri 12 Jan, 2007 10:57 am
Re: Boxer's Low Blow
joefromchicago wrote:
cjhsa wrote:
The junior senator from California ap parently believes that an accom plished, seasoned diplomat, a renowned scholar and an adviser to two presidents like Condoleezza Rice is not fully qualified to make policy at the highest levels of the American government because she is a single, childless woman.

Quite right. Condoleezza Rice is not fully qualified to make policy at the highest levels of the American government because she has proven herself to be completely incompetent.


Wake up on the left side of the bed today Joe?
0 Replies
 
cjhsa
 
  1  
Reply Fri 12 Jan, 2007 11:01 am
Boxer is like something Rice wipes her ass with.
0 Replies
 
joefromchicago
 
  1  
Reply Fri 12 Jan, 2007 11:16 am
Re: Boxer's Low Blow
McGentrix wrote:
Wake up on the left side of the bed today Joe?

I always do. If I rolled over to my right side I'd crush the cat.
0 Replies
 
kelticwizard
 
  1  
Reply Fri 12 Jan, 2007 11:21 am
First, I can't stand it when a writer insults my intelligence by starting his piece off talking about one thing, then slowly changing it bit by bit to what he really wanted to write about, which was something completely different.

This NY Post piece here starts off acting like it is all atwitter that Barbara Boxer would imply that the Condoleeza Rice doesn't care about the soldiers in Iraq because she has no children herself. It loftlily acts like it's piece is putting partisanship aside and the NY Post is standing up for civility in public discourse, especially when talking in Congress to our nation's leaders.

After trying to lure us into that, the NY Post does nothing but trash everybody it can think of who opposes the war, whether they were uncivil toward Rice or not. That is the main part of the NY Post's piece-and what the piece really was about. The bit about being shocked at Boxer's lack of respect toward Rice was a phoney attempt to pretend the Post was taking the high moral ground.

After decrying Boxer's remarks and running down anyone who opposes the war-mostly for having the nerve to oppose the war-the NY Post implies that those who oppose the war don't care about the lives of the soldiers who are already lost. This is pretty much the same thing the Post started off by complaining that Boxer did-and the NY Post expects the reader to not notice it.

Regardless of where you stand on the issue, the Post has once again shown contempt for the intelligence of their readers. And it shows. Circulation-wise, once the Post was the king of the New York tabloids-now the Daily News is kicking it's ass all over the city.
0 Replies
 
mysteryman
 
  1  
Reply Fri 12 Jan, 2007 11:31 am
So KW,
Does that mean that you agree with Sen Boxers remarks?
0 Replies
 
kelticwizard
 
  1  
Reply Fri 12 Jan, 2007 11:50 am
I don't see how that is actually relevant to this thread, since the editorial in question really wasn't about Boxer's remarks at all, but about how people can actually have the nerve to oppose the Iraq war.
0 Replies
 
Cycloptichorn
 
  1  
Reply Fri 12 Jan, 2007 11:57 am
Boxer's remarks, despite your opinion of them, are fairly accurate - neither she nor Rice have family members in Iraq, so they aren't really the ones who will be paying the price when our soldiers are killed, are they?

Cycloptichorn
0 Replies
 
LoneStarMadam
 
  1  
Reply Fri 12 Jan, 2007 11:57 am
I heard that even some of the dems are trying to put daylight between yjemselves & Boxer because of her personal attack on Rice.
My oh my, what must the feminists think of Boxer now? Shocked
0 Replies
 
Cycloptichorn
 
  1  
Reply Fri 12 Jan, 2007 12:01 pm
They think she's just fine, I'm sure.

Look, if you think that any Dem is going to get in trouble with their base by asserting that members of the Bush crew are incompetent, you're crazy. Boxer is just saying out loud what the rest of us think, and what's even more, she's right.

Cycloptichorn
0 Replies
 
cjhsa
 
  1  
Reply Fri 12 Jan, 2007 12:07 pm
There isn't a democrat with a capable bone in his or her body anywhere in the universe. Of the two majors the R's have much more capability to get things done than any dumbocrat. If you don't like that fact, vote third party.
0 Replies
 
mysteryman
 
  1  
Reply Fri 12 Jan, 2007 12:29 pm
Cycloptichorn wrote:
Boxer's remarks, despite your opinion of them, are fairly accurate - neither she nor Rice have family members in Iraq, so they aren't really the ones who will be paying the price when our soldiers are killed, are they?

Cycloptichorn


I dont have any family in Iraq,so does that mean I havent paid the price?
0 Replies
 
Cycloptichorn
 
  1  
Reply Fri 12 Jan, 2007 12:36 pm
mysteryman wrote:
Cycloptichorn wrote:
Boxer's remarks, despite your opinion of them, are fairly accurate - neither she nor Rice have family members in Iraq, so they aren't really the ones who will be paying the price when our soldiers are killed, are they?

Cycloptichorn


I dont have any family in Iraq,so does that mean I havent paid the price?


For dead soldiers in Iraq?

I seem to recall that you were injured in either that engagement or in Afghanistan - though I may be mistaking you for another poster - in which case I would say that you have paid a price for the war.

Condi won't be crying herself to sleep because her son isn't coming home, that's for damn sure.

Cycloptichorn
0 Replies
 
LoneStarMadam
 
  1  
Reply Fri 12 Jan, 2007 12:42 pm
mysteryman wrote:
Cycloptichorn wrote:
Boxer's remarks, despite your opinion of them, are fairly accurate - neither she nor Rice have family members in Iraq, so they aren't really the ones who will be paying the price when our soldiers are killed, are they?

Cycloptichorn


I dont have any family in Iraq,so does that mean I havent paid the price?

I wonder how many posters here have family in Iraq or Afghanistan. Nobody here seems to have a problem with pontificating on what's going on. Only a ribald liberal like Barbara do as I say, not as I do Boxer.
0 Replies
 
mysteryman
 
  1  
Reply Fri 12 Jan, 2007 12:42 pm
Cycloptichorn wrote:
mysteryman wrote:
Cycloptichorn wrote:
Boxer's remarks, despite your opinion of them, are fairly accurate - neither she nor Rice have family members in Iraq, so they aren't really the ones who will be paying the price when our soldiers are killed, are they?

Cycloptichorn


I dont have any family in Iraq,so does that mean I havent paid the price?


For dead soldiers in Iraq?

I seem to recall that you were injured in either that engagement or in Afghanistan - though I may be mistaking you for another poster - in which case I would say that you have paid a price for the war.

Condi won't be crying herself to sleep because her son isn't coming home, that's for damn sure.

Cycloptichorn


Yes,it was Iraq during the initial invasion.

BUT,using Boxers logic,nobody here on A2K that doesnt have family members in Iraq can comment about the war because they arent going to pay any price for it.
0 Replies
 
Time Lord
 
  1  
Reply Fri 12 Jan, 2007 01:01 pm
Quote:
I heard that even some of the dems are trying to put daylight between yjemselves & Boxer because of her personal attack on Rice.
My oh my, what must the feminists think of Boxer now?


Where did you hear that from? Fox News? Rush Limbaugher?

Draft the Bush Twins!

Quote:
I dont have any family in Iraq,so does that mean I havent paid the price?


Not in terms of the squandering of a loved one's life, but we all are paying the price in terms of taxes and Bush spending us into a deficit that will take decades to wipe out. If ever.
0 Replies
 
mysteryman
 
  1  
Reply Fri 12 Jan, 2007 01:14 pm
Time Lord wrote:
Quote:
I heard that even some of the dems are trying to put daylight between yjemselves & Boxer because of her personal attack on Rice.
My oh my, what must the feminists think of Boxer now?


Where did you hear that from? Fox News? Rush Limbaugher?

Draft the Bush Twins!

Quote:
I dont have any family in Iraq,so does that mean I havent paid the price?


Not in terms of the squandering of a loved one's life, but we all are paying the price in terms of taxes and Bush spending us into a deficit that will take decades to wipe out. If ever.


You are obviously new here,so I will give you the benefit of the doubt.
As for not "paying the price",I have permanent wounds suffered in Nassiriyah in Iraq during this war,so I have paid more thenmost have.
0 Replies
 
LoneStarMadam
 
  1  
Reply Fri 12 Jan, 2007 01:32 pm
Time Lord wrote:
Quote:
I heard that even some of the dems are trying to put daylight between yjemselves & Boxer because of her personal attack on Rice.
My oh my, what must the feminists think of Boxer now?


Where did you hear that from? Fox News? Rush Limbaugher?

Draft the Bush Twins!

Quote:
I dont have any family in Iraq,so does that mean I havent paid the price?


Not in terms of the squandering of a loved one's life, but we all are paying the price in terms of taxes and Bush spending us into a deficit that will take decades to wipe out. If ever.

You show a very discerning trait by being a fan of Rush Limbaugh, good for you.
Have you lost a loved one in Iraq?
0 Replies
 
Time Lord
 
  1  
Reply Fri 12 Jan, 2007 01:49 pm
Quote:
As for not "paying the price",I have permanent wounds suffered in Nassiriyah in Iraq during this war,so I have paid more thenmost have.


Thanks for the benefit, but I never said anything about you, or any other soldier, not paying the price. I said that there are those who have not lost a loved one, but they are still paying financially for Bush's War (tm). I am sorry that you got injured in such a wasteful venture.

Quote:
Have you lost a loved one in Iraq?


Not yet, but with one going back for their third tour, I am hoping their luck is still holding.

Quote:
You show a very discerning trait by being a fan of Rush Limbaugh, good for you.


I'm not a fan of RL. My radio has a "windbag filter" that prevents it from tuning in to him. Sean Hannity, too. Very Happy
0 Replies
 
 

Related Topics

Obama '08? - Discussion by sozobe
Let's get rid of the Electoral College - Discussion by Robert Gentel
McCain's VP: - Discussion by Cycloptichorn
Food Stamp Turkeys - Discussion by H2O MAN
The 2008 Democrat Convention - Discussion by Lash
McCain is blowing his election chances. - Discussion by McGentrix
Snowdon is a dummy - Discussion by cicerone imposter
GAFFNEY: Whose side is Obama on? - Discussion by gungasnake
 
  1. Forums
  2. » Boxer's Low Blow
Copyright © 2021 MadLab, LLC :: Terms of Service :: Privacy Policy :: Page generated in 0.03 seconds on 05/15/2021 at 06:06:57