Cycloptichorn wrote:Quote:
Boxers comments were insulting to not only the Secratary of State but insulting to me personally.
No they weren't.
You may have decided to feel insulted, but her words weren't insulting to you; they were the truth, namely, that you don't have a kid in the war who will come home in a body bag someday.
So when we discuss the
price of the war, it doesn't hit home quite as hard for you, does it?
Now, if you do have a kid in Iraq, I take it back; but I'm guessing you don't, and therefore, what Boxer said is
accurate. It's easy to send others away to their deaths. Makes a more cavalier attitude about the whole thing when there is no personal involvement.
Cycloptichorn
In times like this I don't want someone calling the shots that has a dog in the fight besides what is best for the country. Feeling emotion about the decisions is one thing letting those feelings effect your judgement is bad.
Baldimo wrote:Cycloptichorn wrote:Quote:
Boxers comments were insulting to not only the Secratary of State but insulting to me personally.
No they weren't.
You may have decided to feel insulted, but her words weren't insulting to you; they were the truth, namely, that you don't have a kid in the war who will come home in a body bag someday.
So when we discuss the
price of the war, it doesn't hit home quite as hard for you, does it?
Now, if you do have a kid in Iraq, I take it back; but I'm guessing you don't, and therefore, what Boxer said is
accurate. It's easy to send others away to their deaths. Makes a more cavalier attitude about the whole thing when there is no personal involvement.
Cycloptichorn
In times like this I don't want someone calling the shots that has a dog in the fight besides what is best for the country. Feeling emotion about the decisions is one thing letting those feelings effect your judgement is bad.
Fair enough. But, have you seen any conclusive evidence that what Rice wants is, in fact, the 'best for the country?'
Let me note that while Boxer's criticisms are valid and accurate, they are not the ones I would have used in this context, but rather criticisms of Rice's inability to actually practice the art of Diplomacy.
Cycloptichorn
Cy, while I have a relatively low opinion of most politicians, I do believe that most of them do indeed want what is best for our country. Or more accurately, they believe that what they think is best for the country really is best for the country. Unlike some, I don't see dark motives behind every decision a politician makes. I think they make what they believe to be the best decisions for the US based on the info available to them. At least most of the time.
That said, I think Boxer is an idiot and I always have. Said idiocy having nothing to do with her being a democrat by the way. In this situation, I think she just didn't realize that the way she expressed her thought would sound a bit, oh, disgusting. I doubt she meant it to sound the way it has been taken.
Of course, if Rice would confront her and slap her silly because of it, I'm afraid I'd have to cheer Rice on. Of course, I always did like a good cat fight. (Wait, is that ok to say? Or am I being politically incorrect? Oh well)
Cycloptichorn wrote:Baldimo wrote:Cycloptichorn wrote:Quote:
Boxers comments were insulting to not only the Secratary of State but insulting to me personally.
No they weren't.
You may have decided to feel insulted, but her words weren't insulting to you; they were the truth, namely, that you don't have a kid in the war who will come home in a body bag someday.
So when we discuss the
price of the war, it doesn't hit home quite as hard for you, does it?
Now, if you do have a kid in Iraq, I take it back; but I'm guessing you don't, and therefore, what Boxer said is
accurate. It's easy to send others away to their deaths. Makes a more cavalier attitude about the whole thing when there is no personal involvement.
Cycloptichorn
In times like this I don't want someone calling the shots that has a dog in the fight besides what is best for the country. Feeling emotion about the decisions is one thing letting those feelings effect your judgement is bad.
Fair enough. But, have you seen any conclusive evidence that what Rice wants is, in fact, the 'best for the country?'
Let me note that while Boxer's criticisms are valid and accurate, they are not the ones I would have used in this context, but rather criticisms of Rice's inability to actually practice the art of Diplomacy.
Cycloptichorn
It sounds like Boxer is the one who has a lack of Diplomacy.
Baldimo wrote:KW where did you go.
I am here
I am not sure why you are calling for me though, since we do not have a direct conflict between us on this issue. I said that people did not usually first sign up for military service when they were in their thirties, you said you were thirty when you first did and knew others about that age, but admitted that most of them were in their teens and early twenties when they signed up. Sounds like we are pretty close on that point.
For what it is worth, I am sorry if I can't get to every thread and stick to it all the way through. I am trying to limit my online time, it has begun to eat into time for some other things. I'll try to stay through and argue a point as much as I can, but alas I may be pulling a "disappearing act" now and then, not by choice but by necessity.
A couple of things I would point out.
First, Boxer did not say Rice was childless and Boxer wasn't, so she had a better perspective. Boxer said that both she and Rice together would not be paying the price for the casualites of the war, and asked her who would. Boxer included herself in the same category as Rice, so she was not drawing a line between herself and Rice, with Rice on the morally wrong side of it.
You would not know that from the conservative commentary on the issue. From reading conservative commentary, you would think Boxer said, "I can lose a kid in this war and you CAN'T, Rice, so I can understand what it feels like." She said nothing like that. But conservative commentators are trying their best to spin it as if she did.
Second, Rice is before the Senate to explain and defend the President's policy, and Boxer and the others are there to carefully examine it. When composing a strategy, we would assume the president is taking into account the risk of number of men lost versus the benefit gained. If this is the case, Boxer has the right to question both sides of that equation-does the president fully realize what the benefit may or may not be of the strategy, and does the president and his advisors fully realize the cost of the soldiers lost. Boxer took pains to say that both she and Rice did not stand to lose people in the war, but asked Rice if she took into account those who did. The question is absolutely appropriate.
The Senators are not there to sit in rapt attention while the President's representatives gives them a lecture on how the President is going to proceed, and then applaud later. The Senators are there to ask thorough and probling questions about this policy, and to examine it thoroughly. As the President's strategies in Iraq have so often fallen short of their aims, it is even more important to do this.
Boxer's question was a probing one about one side of the cost/benefit ratio of the President's new strategy, and it was very much in keeping with her purpose for being there-to examine the President's new strategy.
I think the rationalization of Boxer's questions above is largely accurate. I'm sure that it does indeed explain the perspectives of many (perhaps most) senators of both politicaL parties in the questions they put to administration officials.
However, I don't think it has much applicability to the diminutive senator from California. Through a too long career in the Senate, Boxer has demonstrated degrees of self-righteous radicalism, an uncanny talent for finding the most offensive personal elements in her attacks on others; and rather persistent ignorance & stupidity in her attempts to cover her blatant partisanship with a veneer of thought and understanding, as to eliminate any possibility that the rationalization above may apply in her wretched case.
CoastalRat wrote:Cy, while I have a relatively low opinion of most politicians, I do believe that most of them do indeed want what is best for our country. Or more accurately, they believe that what they think is best for the country really is best for the country. Unlike some, I don't see dark motives behind every decision a politician makes. I think they make what they believe to be the best decisions for the US based on the info available to them. At least most of the time.
That said, I think Boxer is an idiot and I always have. Said idiocy having nothing to do with her being a democrat by the way. In this situation, I think she just didn't realize that the way she expressed her thought would sound a bit, oh, disgusting. I doubt she meant it to sound the way it has been taken.
Of course, if Rice would confront her and slap her silly because of it, I'm afraid I'd have to cheer Rice on. Of course, I always did like a good cat fight. (Wait, is that ok to say? Or am I being politically incorrect? Oh well)
I agree with you that most politicians deserve the opinion that what they do is in the best interests of the country (at least in their minds). I don't believe that for a second about any of the Bush crew or other Neocons, however. I've never seen an ounce of evidence that they give a damn about anything but themselves and their 'base.'
Sure didn't when they were on top of everything. Now that the Dems are ascendant, they are more touchy-feely, but it isn't fooling anyone.
Cycloptichorn
georgeob1 wrote: Through a too long career in the Senate, Boxer has demonstrated degrees of self-righteous radicalism, an uncanny talent for finding the most offensive personal elements in her attacks on others; and rather persistent ignorance & stupidity in her attempts to cover her blatant partisanship with a veneer of thought and understanding.....
George, will you please stop shilly-shallying around and come out and tell us what you REALLY think of Boxer?
kelticwizard wrote:georgeob1 wrote: Through a too long career in the Senate, Boxer has demonstrated degrees of self-righteous radicalism, an uncanny talent for finding the most offensive personal elements in her attacks on others; and rather persistent ignorance & stupidity in her attempts to cover her blatant partisanship with a veneer of thought and understanding.....
George, will you please stop shilly-shallying around and come out and tell us what you REALLY think of Boxer?
I think the word B-I-T-C-H can be read on his lips from here.
I'll confess that I REALLY don't like her. Feinstein is fine in my book, but Boxer (perhaps I should continue the alliteration....) , makes me grit my teeth.
