Limbaugh accused Barbara Boxer of "trying to lynch" Condoleezza Rice
On the January 12 edition of his nationally syndicated radio show -- in response to comments Sen. Barbara Boxer (D-CA) made to Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice during Senate hearings on President Bush's Iraq troop increase that "[Rice is] not going to pay a particular price, as I understand it, with an immediate family" -- Rush Limbaugh said: "Here you have a rich white chick with a huge, big mouth, trying to lynch this -- an African-American woman -- right before Martin Luther King Day, hitting below the ovaries here." Additionally, Limbaugh called the exchange "a great example of the anger and arrogance of [the Democrats]," and claimed that the "implosion" of the Democratic Party is happening "sooner" than he anticipated.
According to Talkers magazine, The Rush Limbaugh Show reaches more than 13.5 million listeners each week, the largest talk radio audience in the nation.
From the January 12 edition of Premiere Radio Networks' The Rush Limbaugh Show:
LIMBAUGH: Barbara Boxer hit below the ovaries yesterday with Condoleezza Rice during the hearings that they were conducting on the president's new strategy. Listen to this. Condoleezza Rice says: "I could never, and I can never, do anything to replace any of those lost men and women in uniform, or the diplomats, some of --"
BOXER [audio clip]: Madame Secretary, please, I know you feel terrible about it, that's not the point. I was making the case as to who pays the price for your decisions. Now the issue is: Who pays the price? Who pays the price? I'm not going to pay a personal price; my kids are too old, and my grandchild is too young. You're not going to pay a particular price, as I understand it, with an immediate family. So who pays the price? The American military and their families.
LIMBAUGH: That is -- I don't know where to start with this. Folks, this is, this is -- well it's unbelievable. This is -- can you even describe this kind of thinking? Here you have a rich white chick with a huge, big mouth, trying to lynch this -- an African American woman -- right before Martin Luther King Day, hitting below the ovaries here. What about the childless Gloria Steinem? Drum her out of the feminist movement? I'm going to tell you, I was joking the other day about setting up a lobbying group for the childless. This kind of thinking is exactly where we're headed with Democrats; if you haven't done anything you can't comment on it, you can't participate in it, and so according to Barbara Boxer, since Condoleezza Rice has nothing personal at stake in this, then her policy can't be trusted. Only if -- I guess the same thing would have to be said about Barbara Boxer, but see she's on the right side of this because she doesn't want any little, nasty, old war, she doesn't want people getting killed, she doesn't want victory, she doesn't want any of this. This is, I think, just a great illustration of the anger and the arrogance of who these people are, and I told you, it wouldn't take long. And this implosion is happening even sooner; I thought they'd at least get through their first 100 hours without this kind of mess.
Boxer's comments were uncalled for. There was no reason to reference Rice not having any children. A United States Senator should have chosen her words more carefully.
As for Limbaugh, it's no surprise he would jump on this. This bloated bloviating silly talk show host always chooses his words carefully - to enflame.
Tommy,
Do you think Boxer was trying to insuate that Rice is a lesbian or trying to point out neither she (Boxer) or Rice had to pay a "personal" price for this war?
Rush is leading you by your cerebral cortex. Boxer referenced that Rice has no brothers, no sisters, no nephews, no nieces, no living parents, and no children. Boxer also preceded this observation by noting that her children are too old to die in Iraq and her grandchildren are too young. So, she alluded to the two of them being bound by circumstances.
This is about spilling blood. It isn't about Rice's uterus.
The neocons had some success with their "Kerry/Edwards said that Mary Cheney is GAY!!!!"
They're trying to replicate that success.
It's as if Rush were trying to get his listeners to connect the dots, but he only has one dot.
So, Tommy, abandon your inveterate role of contrarian here.
Or as a cop would say, "Nothing to see here, folks. Move along. Move along."
You think Boxer's comments were appropriate, I do not. They have no relevancy whatsoever to anything. There is much to grill Rice on and much for her and Bush to answer for, but to make a comment about her personal life as relating somehow to her decision to put people in harm's way regarding war - is uncalled for.
And Rush leads me nowhere, despite your claim. I said what his motives were, he is irrelevant to me.
Pelosi remarks that Condi is black! GASP! OMG!
Pointing out the obvious is not a low blow especially in the context of the remarks as they were made. This is all just fake outrage and silliness on the part of some conservatives desperate to stir things up.
This is all just fake outrage and silliness on the part of some conservatives desperate to stir things up.
**************************
Based on the daily barage of threads here referencing nearly every "fake outrage and silliness" that some conservative utters, is that also just a desperate attempt for liberals to stir things up?
"Based on the daily barage of threads here referencing nearly every "fake outrage and silliness" that some conservative utters, is that also just a desperate attempt for liberals to stir things up?" --Tommy
++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
Of course it is possible. I consider that on nearly every thread. I often have agreed with you about such things.
As far as I am concerned the party out of power often does this kind of stuff. The Democrats did it before on some things and the Republicans are more apt to do it now.
I think that is a fair view and I think I have been consistent on that in the past.
I don't disagree with you, and it's not a big deal.......as I said, Rush and his cohorts live and love this stuff. They can't wait to pounce on it. But in fairness, their voracious appetite for any slip up by the opposition is mirrored by this website at times too. It's the gotcha of politics, I guess.
As I've said before, I tend not to get too worked up over people's comments, unless they are speaking in an official capacity as our elected officials - then they are under a different standard. This comment by Boxer was uncalled for, in my opinion. Nothing to make me scream hateful things at her, but nothing to garner more respect from me either.
is about rush accusing boxer of attempting to "lynch" rice. perhaps you missed it. limbaugh is a typical conservative who will criticize black democrats all day long, but let someone say anything about a black republican, and we hear all this absurd rhetoric about lynching and other nonsense. it's the exact equivalent of what they accuse others of doing. playing the race card.
You find the comments offensive because you profoundly misunderstand them. You have invented intention that in all reasonable likelyhood was never there. Hang on to that misdirected animosity there Tommy. (sarcasm)
Please enlighten me as to what I misunderstood?
was made and none was. It's like the willingness to believe that John Kerry was saying the troops were stupid. It's not a likely conclusion but a convenient accusation. A place to direct your animosity. The likelyhood and most logical explanation I have laid out below. Your animosity seems to be formed because you assume that Boxer was attacking personally when it's painfully obvious that wasn't the case. There for you are holding on to your animosity, needlessly. grasshopper.
Don't tell me what I "assume". I said nothing about a personal attack, where did you get that? Geez.
I simply said her comments were uncalled for.
Why do so many love to summarize or "assume" someone else's points so incorrectly. Make your own arguments please, I will make mine.
and it will be apparent why I came to the conclusion that you viewed Boxers comments as iuncalled for bcause she was making a comment about her personal life. It is very clear what you meant. I don't need to assume anything. Maybe you don't make your true feelings clear, don't blame me.
You accused me of saying that Boxer personally attacked Rice and now you can't back it up - because I did not say that in any way.
Is that the way you engage discussion? Pathetic.
perhaps I was not. Either way it's irrelevant. You still misunderstood Boxer's intent. It's you that assumed. I don't need to quote you verbatim to prove you are wrong. You felt the comment innapropriate because it was of a personal nature. You didn't write that exactly but it's what you said. If you meant something else you need to better explain.
You obviously have no convictions in your opinions or you wouldn't have to lie about mine. I don't waste my time with those of such questionable integrity.
My statements were clear and pointed. They need no explanation. I stand by them.
I don't even know what that refers to. You have made it clear to me and you can't accept that what I said was accurate about you. You started from a false premise. You stated it was innapropriate to bring up her personal life in this setting. She wasn't bringing up her personal life. Even in my argumet you try to find a flaw, an assumption on my part that you believed there was a personal attack, you cling to that to avoid the rest. You won't even address it. You are just stubbornly sticking to your original position without considering that you just might have misunderstood something and you might be wrong. Is that what conviction means to you? Being bull-headed?
Tommy: There is much to grill Rice on and much for her and Bush to answer for, but to make a comment about her personal life as relating somehow to her decision to put people in harm's way regarding war - is uncalled for.
Tommy: Don't tell me what I "assume". I said nothing about a personal attack, where did you get that? Geez.
Personal life, personal attack. Tomato, tomahto.
Why do so many love to summarize or "assume" someone else's points so incorrectly.
Excuse me, Tommy, but you have been called out for inaccurate attempts at mindreading more than anyone else on this board.
And now, if you stick with your pattern, you ask for examples, I provide them, and you respond in one of two ways: (1) "Is that all you've got?", or (2) "You keep all my old posts? You're obsessed with me."
Been there, done that, tired of beating you in debate that way.
This isn't some black-tie state dinner, Tommy; it's oversight--the job Congress hasn't really done for six years now. It's about friggin' time that Senators started demanding straight answers from Rice, rather than being cowed by her gender and her race and related notions of decorum that don't seem all that important here.
Yeah, Boxer is a rather blunt speaker, but isn't it WAY past time for these kinds of questions to be asked? She included herself in the characterization, and made her point well. And, as always, Rice simply ducked the question.
As I noted, more than children constitute immediate family. And you must understand that we're hardwired to care more about people who are genetically more similar to us. Boxer noted that Rice's situation precludes an understanding of the potential peril of having a more genetically similar person in peril in Iraq than the situations of many American families. Boxer also noted that her situation, at least in outcomes, overlaps Rice's situation. So, if Rice were to assert that she understands the pain of a mother who just buried what remained of her soldier son or even the fear of a mother whose daughter is on the verge of serving, I would assert, "Nah." Politicians who send other people's relatives off to serve should do so with all due humility and recognition of their ignorance. Boxer reminded Rice of this and for that, I'm grateful.
If you believe that politicians are supposed to stay away from the personal, then they should no longer pose with their pretty families. They should no longer have their wives join them at podiums. Reagan should have never mentioned "Nancy." The role of First Lady should be eliminated and presidents' wives should lead private lives. And so on. Tommy, you're opening a Pandora's Box, logic-wise.
"You think Boxer's comments were appropriate, I do not. They have no relevancy whatsoever to anything."
Pointing out the fact that you or your immediate family won't be dying in Iraq seems extremely relevant to me and I am sure to the many families who have lost people or to the families that have members who could be killed or wounded.
The only reason anyone would think Boxer's comments were inappropriate is because they were taken completely out of context. She spent a substantial amount of time qualifying her meaning.
I too thought Boxer was a little out of line with a potshot here-- UNTIL I READ THE WHOLE QUESTION!!
I'll tell ya-- you conservatives nowadays are unbelievable.
Yes, I like the metaphor, Tommy. Let's be blunt about this. The warmongers like Rice, Rumsfeld, Cheney, Bush, etc. have no problems with this because OTHER parents' kids and relatives are dying or being maimed by this Operation Clusterf___NOT their own. The only reason Rice has her job is because she's the perfect foil for Dick Cheney's plans at Foggy Bottom. And don't you love Rush's concerns about an African American woman being being questioned like that? WOW, was he playing "Movin' on up" when he was saying that. This whole thing will be blown up way out of proportion. Let me see, a thinking person's voter like myself is left again with the question..botched war? botched question?....botched war, botched question...wait a minute!!! I think it's coming to me as which I'm supposed to more concerend about...hang on....it's going to hit like me like Rush's bag of pills.....
They have relevance to the point she was making that there was no PERSONAL price for Rice to pay in this war, she also pointed out that SHE was in the same boat, this wasnt a hit job, it was making a valid point.
WHO PAYS THE PERSONAL HUMAN PRICE IN THIS WAR?
Limpbrain and Fox News cherry picked this particular story because it’s the only one they found a way to attack.
All the Republican hostility towards Rice was highlighted by other Outlets but not by Rush or Fox.
Who pays the cost in human lives. Is it the rich and powerful or is it the poor and middle class. I know from personal experience who it is.
If we had a draft to make it more equitable, the rich would still find legal loopholes to avoid service.
Have you seen the list of these folks. It's long and filled with wealthy Republicans. There's even a special word in the Dictionary for them.
CHICKEN-HAWKS
Look it up for yourself. They support wars, but they never serve in those wars.
This war is serious and personal, so I don't fault Boxer for pointing out who has to pay a price and who among us does not participate in this war.
Then Secretary Rice, (Hired because Colin Powell was Not a Yes Man) ran for cover over at her favorite Fox News where she's treated with kid gloves.
I also applaud (R.)Sen. Hagel for grilling Rice. Everyone (including the Wall Street Journal's newsbox) highlights Republican Sen. Chuck Hagel's comments to Rice: "I think this speech given last night by this president represents the most dangerous policy blunder in this country since Vietnam, if it's carried out." Way to go Chuck!
But you won’t get Hagel’s comments from Rush or Fox.
Hagel, Boxer and 20 other Senators from both sides of the isle before the Senate Foreign Relations Committee greeted Rice with "outright hostility, disagreement and or overwhelming concern.
Is Senator Boxer perfect? No! Who is? But she was still correct and justified to make to make her point.
You show me a person who is perfect and I will show you a very lonely, lonely person.
But let me warn ya: be too friendly with me and the Uncivility Cops will come gunnin' for ya! I exchanged niceties with Tommy a day or so ago and a couple fellas assumed that Mr. T. and I were humping. So, wave at me at your peril.
Ms. Boxer prefaced her comment to Ms. Rice by saying that, as her children were grown, she would not pay a personal price. Ms. Boxer then said it was her understanding that Ms. Rice also did not have close relatives of military service age. After establishing that she and Ms. Rice would not be paying a personal price for the escalation of the war, Ms Boxer then asked Ms. Rice who would be paying the personal price. Ms. Boxer's remarks were fair.
Boxer's family is as irrelevant as Rice's family, or lack thereof, is. That is my point. Who knows why she referenced hers? It is immaterial. It had no place.
Can you give us a list of things you believe are okay to say? Please be precise. We don't want to offend your apparently delicate sensibilities.
You want to open that can of worms with this crowd? Please, look at the topics posted here daily and then talk to me about delicate sensibilities.
To be sure, you are right. There are many here with delicate sensibilities. I just thought that you weren't one of them.
I am a delicate flower, can't you tell? Seriously, I was just giving my opinion on her comments, that's all. I said they were uncalled for, I didn't advocate she be thrown to the wolves or call her insulting names.
I think you are on to something. I don't agree that Pelosi's idea was out of bounds, but it could have been worded better. It is clear Pelosi is not offending Rice because Pelosi is obviously explaining how both of their positions are similar in regards to their own personal "cost" for the war.
I can't for the life of me really understand why anyone would be so defensive of the fact that Condi doesn't really have a family. It is a widely known fact that she spends holidays with the President because she doesn't have a family. Nothing wrong with that at all? Anything more than that taken from Pelosi's remark is definitely "reading into" Pelosi's remarks.
to make it personal. Empathy is good Tommy you'd do yourself a favor to try. I believe Boxer's comments were meant to make Condi actually try to imagine just for a second the real personal cost a family feels when they lost a family member. It is refreshing to watch a Senator do her job for once and cut right down to the heart of the matter. She wasn't trying to hurt Rice's feelings, she was trying to get her to feel. There is no wonder why it is rumored that Republicans have no hearts.
I don't want Rice or Boxer or anyone making national security decisions based on their personal feelings.....that is patently absurd and irresponsible.
This wasn't the venue for policy decisions. A basic understanding of our federal government is the purpose here was for Congress to be informed as well as many other purposes but not to make policy decisions. So again your conclusion from a false presumption leads to no where.
About a President who orders the invasion of another country because 'god told him to.'
So is Rush’s point that the pain and sacrificed requested of our military families is not important, but Rice’s delicate sensitivity is?
Furthermore, do you think we should take the Fox News/Rush Limbaugh approach to covering the hearings by focusing on the convoluted slight of Rice and ignoring the rest of the hearings.
on perceptions seen through the lens of their personal feelings and that is how it should be. This is why we talk about character issues in politics. Empathy is a GOOD thing to base policy decisions on. IF something isnt important enough for your brother to die for it isnt imporatant enough to send someone elses brother to die for, because EVERYONE is your brother. This is the very basis of empathy and it is a better personal feeling to base a decision on than GREED, a lust for power, or any of the more negative feelings. To pretend people can divorce their decision making from their feelings or SHOULD is naive.
CONGRESS CUT THE FUNDING...
For the Vietnam War to stop Nixon's continuation of secret bombings.
President Kennedy had giving the order to start bringing troops home.
Johnson then tried to win that war. But afterwards, he called for peace talks. I wish Bush would give peace a chance?
Johnson then shocked the nation when he announced he would not run for re-election:
"I shall not seek, and I will not accept the nomination of my party for another term as your President"
In what was termed the October Surprise, Johnson announced to the nation on October 31, 1968, that he had ordered a complete cessation of "all air, naval and artillery bombardment of North Vietnam", should the Hanoi Government be willing to negotiate. I wish Bush would try something like that.
have no hearts.
Right. And who was in power, and cut off funding, causing the hasty exit from Nam, when millions there went looking for a piece of driftwood, or anything else that would float, to escape their "liberators"?
Millions died. Who ruled Congress? The Big Hearts--the Democrats.
excuse me, I really didn't get that.
Ho Chi Minh.
And one other Icon of Compassion--Jane Fonda.
Wasn't Nixon re-elected based on his "secret plan" to end the war? It is kind of hard to blame the Democrats when the war was doomed to be over by Nixon's campaign promise anyway.
Do rightwingers let reality get in the way of a good propaganda parrot talking point?
You're not satisfied that more than 58,000 soldiers gave their lives for American adventurism? How many more were you willing to lose?
We spent more than ten years propping up a corrupt government in South Vietnam and wasted a generation of Americans doing it. None of your heroes cared enough then to join the fight. Almost to a man, they were big supporters of the war. As long as someone else was doing the dying.
So, continue what your heroes have started. Sit there and bang away at your keyboard, as Americans figtht and die for something you believe in. Maybe ten years from now you can throw veterans of the Iraq War under the bus like the right has been doing to veterans of The War Vietnam.
Congress cut off further funding.
Prior to that, the Compassionate Democrats, led by Lyndon Johnson, presided over the escalation and failure of a "war" where our men were not allowed to do their jobs.
The thanks they got was abuse from Utopians with a mindset like many taking part in this forum.
And surprise, surprise--CORRUPTION in government in Southeast Asia...whooda thunk it. Thank God the pure, compassionate North Vietnamese got their way in the end, with millions dying.
Conjure up YOUR heroes, Kennedy and Johnson, and ask them your questions.
I'm not sure where you got your info but Johnson & Kennedy were not my heroes. Both did great harm and great good, unlike the present occupant of the office.
I'm curious, where did you learn the history of the War in Vietnam, or "Nam" as you put it? All of the real bad asses call it "Nam" in the movies. I guess that's what I should start calling it too. I should be angry too for the way our troops had their hands tied in "Nam". I should also be angry about the way the vets were treated when they returned home.
But I have one problem, should I believe you're version of "Nam". or should I believe my own, lying, eyes. I'm leaning towards believing your version. After all, it's been more than thirty five years since I returned from Vietnam.
With time memories fade. I look forward to the day when I can forget.
Please allow me to salute you--
And Thanks.
The Vietnamese didnt kill millions after the war, that is an outright lie. WE killed about two million Vietnamese but the claim the Vietnamese killed millions after we left is an outright lie.
IN YOUR HISTORY LECTURE..
You left out a very big part of the story. Ike sent us over there and Nixon rained cluster bombs from B-52's on the North Vietnamese People. Please tell the whole story next time.
Please! Thanks
Sam I Am
WHEN YOU DO YOUR "NAM" HISTORY LESSONS...
Will you please, in the future, include the rest of the story?
The French Colonialist were involved in the Vietnam War in 1946.
U.S. military advisors first became involved in Vietnam as early as 1950, when they began to assist French colonial forces.
Harry S Truman, and (R.)Dwight D. Eisenhower started our involvement in The Vietnam War. Then Kennedy, Johnson and Nixon tried to win that war.
Kennedy wanted to pull our troops out of The War [Additional evidence is Kennedy's National Security Action Memorandum (NSAM) #263]. Kennedy gave the order for withdrawal of 1,000 military personnel by the end of 1963.
After Kennedy's burial, new President Lyndon B. Johnson reversed Kennedy's order to withdraw 1,000 military personnel by the end of 1963 with his own NSAM #273. Large numbers of American combat troops began to arrive in 1965
Part of Nixon’s strategy was the resumption of the U.S. bombing of North Vietnam should the DRV violate the Peace agreement. He Rained Cluster Bombs from B-52’s on the North Vietnam.
Watergate, however, made it impossible to carry this out. Nixon, along with his National Security Advisor Henry Kissinger also sought a 'decent interval' solution to the problem of South Vietnam, so that that country would survive for long enough for him not to be personally blamed for its ultimate collapse.
Nixon ordered secret bombing campaigns in Cambodia in March 1969 (code-named Operation Menu) to destroy what was believed to be the headquarters of the National Front for the Liberation of Vietnam, and later escalated the conflict with secretly bombing Laos before Congress cut the funding for the conflict in Vietnam. In ordering the bombings, Nixon realized he would be extending an unpopular war as well as breaching Cambodia's stated neutrality.
Jane Fonda was a passionate war protester. She was against the Nixon bombing in North Vietnam. Jane has admitted that she made a mistake to visit North Vietnam.
That hasty exit came when
Congress cut off further funding.
But you must have forgotten that it was to stop the Republican President, Nixon.
Congress cut the funding for the Vietnam War to stop Nixon's continuation of secret bombings
The rightwing keeps repeating. There was no bloodbath in Vietnam comparable to the end of most civil wars. More Vichy French were killed after WW2 somewhere about 40,000. The claim millions of Vietnamese were killed is patent nonsense. Or that there was a mass exodus. Sure many left, What would YOU do if you were part of the Saigon Government, guilty of torturing and slaughetering tens of thousands after you had no protection from Uncle Sam? Think the families of those tortured and murdered by the Saigon government MIGHT be ready to take some revenge? So yes a few hundred were killed and a few tens of thousands fled. However this ludicrous claim of millions killed is a flat out lie. Reference Chomskys Political Economy of Human Rights Vol 2 After the cataclism for detaled analysis of this very thing. Cambodia, oh yeah, that would be true, Vietnam? Didnt happen.
Boxer's family is as irrelevant as Rice's family, or lack thereof, is. That is my point. Who knows why she referenced hers? It is immaterial. It had no place.
- tommy
---------------------------------------
I sympathize with you. It's hard for serial Bushvoters to understand the concept of relevance.
Are you under the impression that WAR does not have a personal aspect? That war should only be discussed clinically, without considering human cost? That it doesn't matter whether a person has a personal stake in an operation, or is personally disinterested in the consequences of his decisions?
If you are under any of these impressions, you are simply WRONG. War is DEEPLY personal -- to deny it is to be inhuman. The COST of war is ALWAYS relevant, the cost in lives and the cost in "treasure". ALL decisions are made, ultimately, on a "cost/benefit" basis. Executives will sometimes make decisions that have great cost, because they believe the operation will ultimately be "worth it". If they are WRONG, then they have wasted the resources.
Bush and RICE, by their decisions, are consistently WRONG, proven WRONG time and again, and they are wasting VERY PERSONAL resources -- to OTHER people. Boxer's very good point is that they are gambling with someone else's money (and the lives of OTHER people's loved ones), and so have no personal stake.
On the other hand, if Rice had two brothers serving in Iraq, the rightwing would be ballyhooing that fact from the rooftops; it would be a PR bonanza. If it's fair to tout a personal interest, it's fair to point out when there is NONE as well.
I WISH I WOULD HAVE SAID ALL THAT.
YOU DAMNED RIGHT IT'S PERSONAL!
I take it personal when posters here are so cold, uncaring, unsympathetic and calculating as to attack 21 Senators who ARE taking it PERSONAL.
THOSE POSTERS can't help it, they were all born with a SILVER SUCK-UP-SPOON IN THEIR MOUTHS.
Rush and Fox News cherry picked this particular Story because it's the only story they could think up a way to attack.
You won't see Rush & Fox News covering the Republican Senators who got very PERSONAL when they grilled Rice on the war and the Escalation.
I applaud (R.)Sen. Hagel for grilling Rice.
Everyone (including the Wall Street Journal's newsbox) highlights Republican Sen. Chuck Hagel's comments to Rice:
"I think this speech given last night by this president represents the most dangerous policy blunder in this country since Vietnam, if it's carried out."
FOX NEWS & RUSH LIMPBRAIN did not show this story. They just focused on their attack of Sen. Boxer.
Way to go Chuck Hagel ! A great Republican!
They are absolutly relevant to the point she was making. Claiming otherwise is just reality denial, nothing less
She is staing that neither she nor Ms. Rice has family members in harm's way...I didn't hear the rest of the interview, but the point of that short clip is that people who don't have a vested interest in a war should be careful about their decion making....
Oh, and Rush is a race baiting rabble rouser who can find 'lynching' in any context...maybe he should use those skills and find the WMD
I don't want our elected leaders making national security decisions based on their family structure. I don't want their personal situation entering into any vitally important matters surrounding their sworn duties as our elected officials.
If you're comfortable with that, then we disagree.
"I don't want our elected leaders making national security decisions based on their family structure." --Tommy
++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
Good, then you can vote for Pelosi or Condi. Maybe we should avoid all of that hassle and just creat robots to do the job.
starts from a false premise so leads to a conclusion that is entirely irrelevant. Seriously there was no personal attack but a legitimate question. Why do conservatives have such a hard time with the tough questions? Is it too much to ask the Secretary of State to really concider the effects of her decisions? Why would you assume that she was referring to her being childless? How do you come to such an unlikely conclusion? And why waste time inventing such scenarios? To avoid the hard truth maybe. I get it now, you create your own reality. By you I meant conservatives in general, not you specifically Tommy.
In the context of the remarks it made perfect sense and could not be seen as an attack in any way.
Some conservatives like the ones at the NYPost, who are apparently bitter about losing the last election are just swinging wildly -- making fools of themselves. I don't think you really believe what you wrote above.
The DrudgeReport.com put words into Pelosi's mouth with a very misleading title for the link to the NYPost editorial above: BOXER: [with a picture of Condi above] BUT YOU HAVE NO CHILDREN... Boxer said nothing of the sort. Her exact remarks are quoted in the article above for comparison. Drudge appears to be a bandleader in the hysterical chorus of angry mindless rhetoric on this one. I hope Tommy hasn't taken the bait here.
Please don't conflate my opinions with Drudge or any other news outlet. I stated mine clearly, your attempts to marginalize them by aligning them with others is lame.
As I said, if you're fine with your elected Senators or any other member of government making these types of decisions based on their personal family, then in my opinion, that is shortsighted and you expect far too less of them.
I didn't think I was marginalizing you, but I can see where you could reasonably get that idea. I was trying to address the origins of this story.
When I read about this originally in drudge, I expected to see comments like yours as a result. I didn't think drudge represented Pelosi accurately and the NYPost editorial was pretty shrill and disingenuous IMO. I should have given you the benefit of the doubt that you formed your opinion independently.
That said, my general impression of this whole thing is that Republicans are pretty angry about their loss and they really don't mind just disingenuously pumping out a steady drone of white-noise like this story. Drudge has at least one or two stories a day with unsubstantiated or shrill attacks on Democrats.
Drudge pointed to Dick Morris of all people challenging the credibility of the new congress because they took the day off on January 8th so some members could go to the national championship of college football (as opposed to sucking on some hookers toes I guess).
Drudge also pointed to some clap-trap about star-kist tuna and some far-fetched and unfounded allegations of hypocrisy against Pelosi.
They just keep pounding the drum with stupid stuff. Maybe not you, but it is definitely coordinated for maximum effect amongst much of the right-wing blogosphere.
Boxer expressed that she and Rice had no PERSONAL price to pay. She then questioned who would. She concluded that the American people would pay. She was making the point that American people MATTERED, that decisions made by people who will not pay in blood will affect those who will pay. A fact that appeared to escape Rice.
Boxer could have made the same point to Bush, Cheney, Limbaugh, Rumsfeld,--Choose your neocon. She chose her words well. Perhaps you choose to dislike her regardless.
...but, honestly... I believe that Boxer's point is/was that Rice, as well as ALL of the Bush Admin folks have paid little to no personal price in this so-called war. Even Boxer says so about herself!
But, Boxer's point about -- and I'm paraphrasing -- but, 'let's cut the crap' and get real about the lives at stake here is much needed... as painful as it may be to hear for these neocons and their minions. This is tough talk. But, it's needed. Limbaugh is a fat idiot. Of course he'll jump on this.
Rush's prediction/hope that things are 'already imploding' is b.s. Boxer is telling it like it is. The Bush crew don't get the response of free-pass they expect and that's an implosion? Please...
I know what Boxer's point was, and I have never accepted that as a valid opposition from anyone regarding any war. I trust and hope that our elected officials mourn every single death from war as if it was their own............we give them the power to make these decisions and if I thought for one minute that one of our elected leaders took that more casually just because they don't have a family member involved, I would be repulsed.
Our leaders need to make decisions of this magnitude based on intelligence and what's best for our country........not their personal situation, no matter what it is.
If you know what she meant, then what's the beef?
#1) I, for one, do not believe that Bush or his people mourn or even care about the lives that have been lost... How many times has Bush visited a VA Hospital or, even, gone to a funeral of one of the fallen? Oh yeah... compassion would be construed as a weakness right?
#2) Boxer's point -- and I repeat it not to imply you lack comprehension skills -- is a response to Rice who is implying she feels terrible about the slain. I believe Boxer's comment is reasonable... i.e. 'we know you feel bad, lady... cut the crap and let's do something about it.'
Rice should feel bad. We all do. Time is up = Boxer's ultimate point. Rice claims she "could never do anything to bring back those fallen soldiers". Well, guess what ... she can do something now to make sure it doesn't continue. Again, Boxer's ultimate point!
"Our leaders need to make decisions of this magnitude based on intelligence and what's best for our country" = Tommy
This has not happened one iota...no matter how many times we're told the opposite by these clowns... the lack of WMD, the Niger debacle, Joe Wilson, no-bid contracts, Cheney's $9million dollar paycheck, Dubai ports deal, etc etc etc...
It goes on and on. Time is up. These guys have PROVEN by way of their actions again and again that they have no true concern for this country or its citizens (save a few rich buddies and their own greedy interests). Time is up.
It's not the point whether it has happened or not, I made no contention either way. The point is that is the way it should be. I would hope you would agree with that statement.
Personal feelings have no place in policy decisions.
I concede... I agree with your general statement. Seems that Rice was the one initially 'pulling heart strings'. Boxer was responding in kind (to prove a point). But, yeah... I suppose you're right in theory.
Again, I believe that Boxer's point (in my mind -- maybe I'm full of it)... But, this ill-conceived occupation has a price...in blood, that is meaningful to those who are paying that price. But, does not seem to be all that meaningful to those in charge. Like moving pieces on a chess board. Shouldn't there be a bit more connection to those making the sacrifice than that? Is that too bleeding heart? Man... I don't know.
That was my point. Apparently Boxer was intimating that Rice doesn't "feel" this as much because of her family situation. And in my opinion, Rice should under no circumstances advocate any policy decision based on her personal feelings or family situation. In this instance, Boxer's remarks were uncalled for.
As other have tried to make my criticism of this into saying that Boxer personally attacked Rice.....which is ridiculous. It was not an attack, it was an uncalled for statement by Boxer.
or policy decisions here Tommy. You are arguing from your own false assumptions. You have wasted a lot of your time actually defending something that has nothing to do with this particular situation. You're arguing from right field and the conversation is about home plate.
But you are way out in left field.
Apt baseball analogy, thank you.
... that this is a MADE-UP conflict.
The rightwing under Rove/Frank Luntz/Rupert Murdoch have developed the way to FRAME a news story that is potentially devastating to the Republican Administration (such as being grilled about the disaster in Iraq).
The trick is to find the "story" about an INSULT, or an "uncalled for" question, or some other rhetorical slight that can be given the headline and define the event.
COLE OYL was Olive Oyl's brother, and his entire function was to go around telling everyone he bumped into "You Owe Me An Apology!" Using this as a model, the rightwing story-framers look for a "defining comment" in any event that portrays the enemy (Democrats) as senseless aggressors, and the poor Republican as the hapless victim, attacked viciously for no reason.
That's the STORY.
And it's headlined fit to beat the band, to hopefully overshadow all other "news" content -- in this case, the fact that for the first time in SIX YEARS, there is some responsible oversight being exerted on the executive branch, and the Administration's representatives HAVE NO ANSWERS. (That CANNOT be the story in FoxNews land!).
So, what's the STORY? That Bush is sending thousands MORE American soldiers into a meatgrinder, based on his "judgment" which has been WRONG so very consistently in the past? Or that maybe RICE was insulted? The talking-head panels will hold forth for hours on the "Rice; INSULTED by DEMS?", and will pay no heed to the REAL story.
"Personal feelings have no place in policy decisions."
You're absolutely right Tommy, but many here simply don't agree with that. I can remember reading a lot of posts by users here saying that Bush should send both of his daughters to Iraq so he can understand how others feel. That's absolutely absurd and hateful. Public officials shouldn't make policy decisions based on personal feelings. Many here also denigrate conservatives like Limbaugh and Hannity for taking aggressive foreign policy stances while never having served in combat as well. They mainly do this because they can't debate them on the actual issue. They simply attack them personally and say they have no credibility. Every American has the right to voice his or her opinion on national security issues. Someone speaking on national security issues doesn't have any less credibility simply because they have never served. Personal feelings have no place in policy decisions.
Personal feelings...as opposed to what? Be specific.
I enjoyed the bit about not being able to debate Hannity and Limbaugh about the war, by the way. Thanks for the laugh!
People like Limbaugh, Cheney and Bush are denigrated because they actively sought to avoid their generations war. It would be a different story had they not sought a deferment in Limbaugh's or Cheney's case or had someone pull strings to get them into the Air National Guard like GW. Others had to go because they sought a way out for themselves.
Now, all four are military experts. What issues aren't we debating them on?
The issues, as I see them, are that this administration, with the help of the RW media, has rushed to war with no plan other than to remove the regime in Iraq. They did not send enough troops, they did not properly equip the troops, they had no exit strategy, they had no plan to win the hearts and minds of the people of Iraq. Our leaders were not even aware of the differences and of a thousand years of hatred between the Sunni's and Shi'a.
Now almost four years after the invasion, Bush admits that there should have been more troops earlier when people like Gens. Shinsheki and Zinni were proposing the same thing. But when they proposed sending more troops they were insulted and forced to retire.
You are right that most people opinions shouldn't have less credibility because they were never in the military. My problem is with people who evaded service when it was their turn and now they advocate sending someone else's son or daughter to fight. People like that should not have a national platform fanning the flames and denigrating those who have served in the past.
What every one of these men never understood is that once war starts, it has a life of it's own. They speak of victory. but victory would come at a cost that most Americans are unwilling to pay.
that these decisions ARE made on personal feelings, or the lack of them. That sounds like a contradiction, but let me try; The feeling that the war doesn't directly affect you IS a feeling, and a LACK of feeling.
The feeling that the death of a child isn't that big a deal, if you know that it's not going to happen to you.
Would you want people with NO money to determine the tax rates? After all, they can't lose any money, so they wouldn't decide based on any personal feelings.
"Would you want people with NO money to determine the tax rates? After all, they can't lose any money, so they wouldn't decide based on any personal feelings."
What a delicious morsel of reasoning!
>>>"Personal feelings have no place in policy decisions."<<<
They do in Bush's mind. His personal feelings have a very high place. By his own admission, the leader of the free world consults regularly with a "higher father". That's as personal as it gets.
Politics is the public expression of personal feelings and policy decisions are derived from how one feels about the issues. Values and beliefs are emotional.
In fact, the notion of rationalism is being successfully refuted as we are able to more directly study how the brain works. Logic and reason are emotional operations. Republicans learned that logic and reason are linked to emotions 25 years ago and have exploited the political advantages ever since.
Remember the great incarcerator, er I mean the great communicator? Remember how he made you feel when he laid out his narratives about welfare queens? Remember the indignation and spite you felt for government, taxes and the social safety net? Facts are damned important, they do guide surficial thinking processes but facts can be easily discarded when they contradict our core emotions. For example, how does one believe that the earth is two thousand years old when radiocarbon dating clearly indicates that the earth is older than 4 billion years?
Argue otherwise, go ahead.
Tell me that personal feelings do not enter the abortion debate. Tell me that righties oppose gay marriage due to their cold, detached investigation of fact. Convince me that conservatives are not manipulating you emotionally when they characterize the commonwealth as liberal spending programs that waste your money.
No place for personal feelings in policy decisions? Please.
The best we can do in political discussion is to be aware of the manipulations and endeavor to match truth to fact; words to actions.
In Boxer's case not only was she factual she was truthful. Her words matched her actions.
"Politics is the public expression of personal feelings and policy decisions are derived from how one feels about the issues. Values and beliefs are emotional"
Isn't it you guys on the left that always say that it's wrong for conservatives to legislate on issues like abortion because they are basing the legislation on their personal feelings? Now you're saying that policians SHOULD legislate based on personal feelings? Which one is it? In this instance, I could simply say that you're trying to force your belief system on me, the same way you claim that I do when I advocate restrictions on abortion. For the record, I think you can make the argument that abortion is bad for our country without mentioning personal feelings. You can say that having 1 million babies die a year is bad for our country, because their are fewer taxpayers and less money coming into the government, and their are fewer people putting money into the Social Security system. You can base policy decisions on things other than personal issues.
You know that I never stated that politicains SHOULD base their decisions on their emotions. I stated that rationality is tempered by emotion. Since you can't counter the fact that you are manipulated by emotional appeals you create a this or that strawdog of an argument.
As I also stated, the best we can do in political discussion is to be aware of the manipulations and endeavor to match truth to fact; words to actions.
It's OK TruthD, I understand. It's hard to accept challenges to political dogma but I love you and I want you to live free.
The argument is that someones RIGHTS shouldnt be restricted by YOUR feelings. YOUR opinions. That is also a decision based on personal feelings that rights are important and that MY feelings about how an issue should be decided should demand how another makes that decision. Both are personal feelings.
Personal feelings have no place in policy decisions. - tommy
------------------------------------------
Wow good idea Spock. Let's use robots. Human spirit/feeling is so overrated.
and their own greedy interests".
Kindly stop doing the comic book version of Das Kapital.
...who has benefited from this so-called 'war' okay? Cheney et al and his corporate cronies... no bid contracts? You're living in a dream world if you think this 'war' is about liberty and justice for all. Again, how on earth does a man like Cheney earn $9million dollars last year? Sheer luck? That's war-profiteering, whether you choose to admit that or not.
before he took his current job. Most Presidents and VP's, both Dems and Reps, have been independently wealthy prior to their Executive posts. Nothing new there. Their capital earns huge sums while they are in office.
As far as no-bid contracts are concerned, it's a common course in all kinds of emergency situations--the taxpayers could be worse off, in such situations, if the contracts were open to bid and there was only one bidder, which is sometimes the case. Nothing new about no-bid contracts, and provision is made for such contracts in the law, for a good reason, and "no-bid" does not mean a contractor has a blank check.
You are likely thinking about Halliburton. Halliburton was already there, the taxpayers didn't have to pay for a massive move-in, and Halliburton would have been better off if this mess had never happened. They are in demand virtually everywhere in the world's oilfields, and doing just fine before.
Only two or three oilfield service co's in the world can do what Halliburton can do at its level of operation. They are a public corporation, so if they can print money, as some are fond of saying, tell your broker to put all your money into their stock. Your broker will tell you Halliburton doesn't have the free ride they are reputed to have; he will want to keep your funds invested in banking, transportation, big pharma, etc., maybe sometimes oil and oilfield services or exploration.
How about we hear from the person whose JOB IT WAS TO GIVE THOSE CONTRACTS Bunnatine Greenhouse
[link to en.wikipedia.org]
Bunnatine (Bunny) H. Greenhouse is a former chief contracting officer (Principal Assistant Responsible for Contracting (PARC)) of the United States Army Corps of Engineers. On June 27, 2005, she testified to a Democratic Party public committee, alleging specific instances of waste, fraud, and other abuses and irregularities by Halliburton with regard to its operations in Iraq since the Iraq War. She described one of the Halliburton contracts (secret, no-bid contracts awarded to Kellogg, Brown and Root (KBR)—a subsidiary of Halliburton) as "the most blatant and improper contract abuse I have witnessed during the course of my professional career."
Obviously SHE didnt think it was routine. Please dont try to tell me that only Halliburton could put together pipes and pumps. Oil extraction is one of the worlds largest industries and there are MANY companies that could do the work. They also got contracts for food preparation are you going to tell us that only Halliburton could cook eggs? Crony capitalism is ruinous and it has been going on a looong time. This is one area you would have a good argument to say both parties do it. However the only Halliburton could do it argumnent cannot withstand scrutiny. A British company was screaming bloody murder that they werent considered. They havent been doing a good job either there have been many statements to congress which the GOP refused to hear about the abuses, Billions of overcharges, cost plus contracts scream for abuse.
You are correct, regardless of what Dorraine chooses to believe ... All this nonsense about Cheney's uninvolvment with Haliburton, the excuses that these clowns - Dorraine included - continue to perpetuate. No matter how you slice it, this is war-profiteering, folks. Plain and simple. Which, should be illegal.
Last tally... Cheney's stock rose 3281% last year alone. Yea... he's just a 'rich guy' to begin with, huh? Now, he's super-rich. Please...
I trust and hope that our elected officials mourn every single death from war as if it was their own............Our leaders need to make decisions of this magnitude based on intelligence and what's best for our country........
There is no hypothetical Objectivity. Even when observing behaviors the very act of the observation changes the behavior. It's impossible for the vast majority of human beings (in real-life) to have the same feelings for abstract persons as they do for their known friends and family. "Our leaders" cannot divorce themselves from their personal interests, biases, values. So who determines what's best for our country? From what angle? Our country is made up of individuals and individual differences are relevant. Your comments sound like an extremely naive and insulated person.
Would you have been comfortable with this question, "I recognize that you have taken into account the cost of additional hazard pay, but have you properly accounted for the additional recruiting expenses and logistic support." That was essentially the point that Boxer was making, only she was questioning are you properly accounting for the additional human cost of this escalation.
No way were her comments rude. Dr. Rice stood before the American people day after day and year after year telling Bush lies. When she had an opportunity to tell the truth like Powell finally did she continued to lie. She still lies today and she has to be held accountable for it. She has the same amount of blood on her hands as does Bush and I would like to know how she sleeps at night. Maybe she can find all of the motherless and fatherless children in a few years, look them in the eye and try to tell them the same lies she's been tell the American people but I don't think so. She is too much of a coward. PS: I know Dr. Rice personally since 1980.
what a powerful post--thank you!
It doesn't matter if Rice is a childless woman, black or whatever. The point Boxer made was people like her aren't going to be the ones sacrificed in Bush's pointless war. Rice is a gifted woman with a PhD. But she won't be the one spilling her blood. That kid down the street who used to deliver your paper will. That kid that couldn't afford to go to college after high school graduation and decided to serve his country and maybe get to college through the GI bill will. I could go one put the point is lost on Tommy and Rash Lardbag.
>>>"Boxer's comments were uncalled for. There was no reason to reference Rice not having any children....A United States Senator should have chosen her words more carefully."<<<
Boxer asked a perfectly reasonable, obvious, CALLED-FOR question. A question that NEEDED to be asked: not only of Rice but of Boxer HERSELF as well, and any decision-maker involved in deciding the next steps in Bush's fiasco. Neither Boxer nor Rice have children in jeopardy or at stake in Iraq. Boxer CLEARLY stated that FACT.
One is dumbfounded at to why reactionary right-wingers like you get really, really touchy and bent out of shape in this realm. Is there something wrong about or shameful with being childless, or having a gay daughter (see Cheney, Mary)? It isn't as though these FACTS are not already known, or available to anyone who wants to know.
Here you have a rich white chick with a huge, big mouth, trying to lynch this -- an African American woman -- right before Martin Luther King Day...
Rush sounds a little envious of Boxer to me.
Asking pertinent questions about life and death decisions to members of the administraion = BAD!! It's the same as lynching!!
No big shocker here, but Rush is playing the race card. Rice is black and Boxer is white and so IT'S A LYNCHING!!!!
Rush should have born one hundred-fifty years ago. He should have been born a plantation belle, who was forever fainting and calling for her vapors.
He's such a drama queen that he would make drama-dripping high school cheerleaders say, "Get a grip, guy."
"You're not going to pay a particular price, as I understand it, with an immediate family."
Have you ever heard these characters froth so much, about so little?
That's the entirety of it, the above quote.
The New York Post ran an entire editorial, based upon that single little crumb... they headlined the editorial:
"BOXER'S LOW BLOW"
...and once they had quoted the Senator's comment (as I quoted it above), the New York Post editorial then frothed:
"Breathtaking.
Simply breathtaking.
We scarcely know where to begin."
...I don't know about "breathtaking"... I think all of the death and the destruction in Iraq to be even worse than that description...
...but all this froth, it's kind of amusing I think.
Does Rush consider it inappropriate for a woman to display righteous anger over the senseless waste of human life that Iraq has become? Or does Rush Limbaugh just hate women?
IRONY 101.
WHO PAYS THE PERSONAL HUMAN PRICE IN THIS WAR?
Limpbrain and Fox News cherry picked this particular story because it’s the only one they found a way to attack.
All the Repulican hostility towards Rice was highlighted by other Outlets but now by Rush or Fox.
Who pays the cost in human lives. Is it the rich and powerful or is it the poor and middle class. I know from personal experience who it is.
If we had a draft to make it more equitable, the rich would still find legal loopholes to avoid service.
Have you seen the list of these folks. It's long and filled with wealthy Republicans. There's even a special word in the Dictionary for them.
CHICKEN-HAWKS
Look it up for yourself. They support wars, but they never serve in those wars.
This war is serious and personal, so I don't fault Boxer for pointing out who has to pay a price and who among us does not participate in this war.
Then Secretary Rice, (Hired because Colin Powell was Not a Yes Man) ran for cover over at her favorite Fox News where she's treated with kid gloves.
I also applaud (R.)Sen. Hagel for grilling Rice. Everyone (including the Wall Street Journal's newsbox) highlights Republican Sen. Chuck Hagel's comments to Rice: "I think this speech given last night by this president represents the most dangerous policy blunder in this country since Vietnam, if it's carried out." Way to go Chuck!
But you won’t get Hagel’s comments from Rush or Fox.
Hagel, Boxer and 20 other Senators from both sides of the isle before the Senate Foreign Relations Committee greeted Rice with "outright hostility, disagreement and or overwhelming concern.
Is Senator Boxer perfect? No! Who is? But she was still correct and justified to make to make her point.
You show me a person who is perfect and I will show you a very lonely, lonely person.
Rush's use of such a vile analogy in this context clearly indicates to me how little he and his right wing followers know or care about what lynching really was.
Typical right wing filth.
If Limbaugh had been equally outraged about what the white guys did to Anita Hill during the Thomas hearings I might give him an inch on this one. But he lacerated Hill along with all the white guys.
...when it's convenient to throw a Democrat under the bus, Limbaugh suddenly gives a damn about women and/or the fact that Ms. Rice is African American. This coming from a regularly sexist and bigoted guy. The irony is painful.
He seeems to really dislike those "rich white women".
But don't you remember, Kate, that it was Thomas who was being "lynched" then, not Hill? At least, according to Thomas.
If he hadn't played that card in 1991, I'm sure Rush would've done it for him.
Rush, always looking out for a sister!
I love it. Please see my post above. I totally agree with your sarcasm.
Rush is full of it, but everybody knows that except his ditto heads.
the only thought involved is how to argue that what the Democrat said was bad and uncalled for and the Republican target is a delicate flower, if I may para-phrase Tommy. Guilty of the same thing here. They see what fits into their predetermined ideology. Objective thought and reason are irrelevant. It's easier to be angry at the things you want to direct your anger at and just make crap up to justify it. pathetic.
is not attacking or making any judgment about Condi’s family status and Rush knows this. She's making a point that neither of them will have an immediate family member in danger in Iraq. I wonder what Rush thinks about Laura Bush's statement about Condi made a few weeks ago. When asked if she thought Rice would run for president Laura replied no and said that because Condi is an only child and she never married and since both of her parents are deceased that she wouldn't run for president; because according to Laura Stepford Wife Bush you can't be president unless you have a family. I do know that Condi Rice has extended family and one of her cousins is a liberal civil rights attorney by the name of Connie Rice, she's wicked smart as they say in bean town.
[link to en.wikipedia.org]
[link to www.tavistalks.com]
"She's making a point that neither of them will have an immediate family member in danger in Iraq."...by Lynn
=====
Lynn, perhaps that's the way she could have phrased it instead of [specifically] mentioning her children & grandchildren. HOWEVER, I don't believe she meant to be disrespectful to Ms. Rice.
Rush's INFLAMMATORY use of the term "lynching" was totally uncalled for, BUT typical Rush.
"She's making a point that neither of them will have an immediate family member in danger in Iraq."...by Lynn
=====
"Lynn, perhaps that's the way she could have phrased it"
What difference does it make that neither one of them have an immediate family member in danger in Iraq? That's simply a personal issue. It has nothing to do with public policy. Public officials SHOULD NEVER make decisions based on personal issues. Their personal lives and public decisions should be completely seperate from one another. That's why what Boxer said was wrong and was also a cheap shot. She was implying that Rice would be against the Iraq War if she had an immediate family member fighting in Iraq. This is an extremist point of view that many on this website share. Boxer should stick to the actual issues in Iraq, rather than making it personal.
"She was implying that Rice would be against the Iraq War if she had an immediate family member fighting in Iraq."
And why is this insulting, exactly?
"Public officials SHOULD NEVER make decisions based on personal issues. Their personal lives and public decisions should be completely seperate from one another." -TD
The public decision to impeach Clinton was not based on the president's personal life? Those ridiculous holier than thou Republicans made a public decision based on their personal issues of sexual repression.
Republicans make public decisions on stem cell funding based on their personal feelings about embryos.
Make an argument that internal consistency.
It doesn't surprise me that you don't value all the dead human beings enough to take it PERSONAL.
Your man at the White House takes it personal.
The grieving loved ones with dead bodies coming home take it personal.
The 21 Senators grilling Rice took it Personal or did you avoid watching that event.
Having served in the war zone myself where thousands died in vain, I also take it personal.
Thousands have died in Vain in the War That You Support. I know you never served in a war zone, because you posted that fact.
Maybe that's why you don't understand why it's personal. I truly, honestly believe that you are one of those infamous Chicken Hawks that the Dictionary describes as mostly comprised of Republicans..
"honestly believe that you are one of those infamous Chicken Hawks that the Dictionary describes as mostly comprised of Republicans"
Once again, you would rather just attack me personally than debate the merits of a particular issue. My point was simply that our leaders should make foreign policy decisions based on what they think is best for our country, not based on things going on in their personal lives. If fact, if Bush had an immediate family member fighting in Iraq, that might actually cloud his judgement and make him more tentative to fight an aggressive war on terror. We need public officials who are objective and don't let personal issues get in the way of public policy decisions.
DEBATE? - TACTICS?
You ignore Legitimate Debating Points of Posters Here. Including my own points.
Like Fox News and Rush, you're desperately cherry picking thru valid points for something to TACTFULLY ATTACK.
<>Rebut Your Incorrect Points?<>
ABSOLUTELY!
Your the one who admitted that you never served our country in a War Zone. I can copy and paste it here if you want.
I'd be delighted to Debate you, but you don't Debate. You ignore all valid points that are made here. You even attack Media Matters. I can copy and paste that for you too.
I’m very impressed with MOST Conservative Posters Here, but not you. I've derived a comment from a famous Texas Lady Governor and from Republican Joe Scarborough:
You Can't Help it Truth: - You Were Born With a SILVER GOP-SUCK-UP-SPOON IN YOUR MOUTH.
I'm very busy Complementing Republican Legislators and Republican Pundits who disagree with all your points. They are great and brave Republican leaders, while you’re just busy following.
You think Boxer is too personal? Republican Senators were more personal that she was. Such as Sen. Chuck Hagel:
"I Think This Speech Given Last Night By This President Represents The Most Dangerous Policy Blunder In This Country Since Vietnam, if it's carried out."
FOX NEWS & RUSH did not show this story. They just focused on their attack of Sen. Boxer. Truth, you don’t fool me for one second. Your just like Fox & Rush!
"I’m very impressed with MOST Conservative Posters Here, but not you."
I have absolutely no respect for you as well, so the feeling is mutual. You're just a far left bomb thrower that would rather use personal attacks than debate the substance of an actual issue. It doesn't matter whether or not I served. It makes absolutely no difference. I simply think that there are people in this country better equipped to fight for our country than I am. But I still have every right in the world to advocate an aggressive stance on the war on terror. You try to descredit me by saying I don't have any credibility on a particular issue. You just continue the personal attacks rather than debating the substance of an issue.
With each post you show everyone exactly where your marching orders are coming from. You hit all the right notes. Far left bomb thrower, I'll bet you picked that up from Bill O'Really.
It's obvious that you know nothing of war. Anyone who's been through it knows that it is very personal. There are better equipped people than any of us to fight wars, but they're not always willing to do it. The job then falls to good people like Sam and I.
Sam pointed out that Republicans were also against this escalation. He mentioned that the right wing media ignored them and focused only on the Democratic opposition. You are the one who offered nothing but warmed over platitudes as your side of the debate.
It's time that we all took this war, and any war waged in our names personal. We may be a nation at war but we are not a people at war. Very few of us are touched by it.
I hope you get the chance to welcome these 20,000 troops home when they return, if they return. You could tell them, that as poorly as the military has been used for the last four years, you thought it necessary that they, not you, not yours, go fight for something that you believe in. You should be quite proud of yourself.
"I hope you get the chance to welcome these 20,000 troops home when they return, if they return. You could tell them, that as poorly as the military has been used for the last four years, you thought it necessary that they, not you, not yours, go fight for something that you believe in."
Thanks, King. This war needs to become personal. The chickenhawks need to go fight this war. They believe it's WWIII. They need to be there if that's so. With the chickenhawks gone, we can get busy reducing the debt, reducing global warming, and reducing the list of additional countries to invade.
Truth! - I never said I don’t respect you or your rights to post here. I’ve always told you jokingly, that I’m happy when you post, because it hurts your own cause.
I’ve told you jokingly, that when I fought in Vietnam for freedoms to post here, I was fighting for everyone. That includes You, Oh-Really, Limp-Brain, FoxLies, Hannity, Beck, Coulter and Other Chicken Hawks. But I wasn’t aware at the time that you would all be dishing out so much false information to such a large vulnerable audience.
Most Americans are for the war on terror too, but we invaded Iraq on a pack of well documented lies. Iraq, was not the war on terror until we Created it and Established it there. It’s all facts that are very well documented.
You have every right to post here. I have every right to expose you. When you’re correct, on rare occasions, I have supported you.
Sorry I took so long to Reply but I was supporting Americas Team. It used to be the Cowboys but today it’s The NAWLIN'S SAINTS. They defeated a very good Eagles team. Now I hope the Chargers can beat the Patriots on Sunday. I’m hoping for a Charger Vs. Saints Super Bowl. - Dream On - Sam I Am
Thank You King & Holly for your Excellent Posts. I wish I would have said all that.
but I'm just smart enough to know whose copy to cut and paste. In other words, I was just being Robin to King's Batman.
That's Great! I like your honesty, you passion, and your comments.
I've also complemented Tom, Truth, Jeter, King, Lynn, Purveyor, Lawyers, Magnolia Lover, Deanor, Lefty and others.
Many times I like to say Excellent Post, and I wish that I coulda, woulda and shoulda said that too.
If I'm wrong to do that I'm sorry. From now on if I agree with you I promise to keep it to myself.
I was just joshing. Love me up if you wanna.
Great Post...!
I wish I would of said all that!
U've rendered me speechless.
Let me just share that my face turned a shade of red. My head turned sideways and my emotions were spinning out of control. Then I started Laughing.
I'm am very available. I do love you and your comments, and I don't give a hoot about the dangers of saying that here.
Take Care! - Sam I Am
but watch that head spinning! I don't want you getting dizzy on me.
To do with a war on terror. If attacking extremist fundamentalist Islamic terrorists was the goal, invading the most secular country in the region was out and out insanity
"Personal feelings have no place in policy decisions."
Tommy,
You seem to believe that there is great value in political
leadership making policy decisions without regard to "personal
feelings". Some would caution against your above stated
practice. There are others who would argue that your ideal is
a falsehood.
Let's see if you would disagree with this idea proposed by an
influential philosopher (I will excerpt the philosopher's name
for the time being):
[He] treated politics not as something that could be studied
from afar. A political scientist examining politics with a
value-free scientific eye, for [him], was impossible, not just
a tragic self-delusion.
If you disagree, then you are in opposition to the above idea
proposed by Leo Strauss, regarded as the "Father of
Neoconservatism".
Although I am not a devote of Strauss, I would agree with him
on this point: It is folly not to consider one's feelings and
rely soley on intelligence and logic. One need not look too
far back in hostory to see the tragic consequences of
disregarding what, in part, makes up human.
a white racist pig "protects" you from his fantasy lynch mob
1. The KKK offers you a white hoodie
2. Rush Limbo got your back
We should only allow officers and enlistees in the armed forces who have no parents, siblings, children, friends, extended family, neighbors, employers or business associates. That way nobody will be the worse for their getting blown to bits whilst nobly exporting democracy and suuply-side capitalism to the backwards parts of the world. All gay daughters of vice-presidents may serve in combat arms units, but only after demonstrating that they are the tough, manish sort of lesbian one usually sees at Starbucks, and not the effete, "lipstick" variety appearing in most pornography.
Also: The above rubric shall not apply to people with boils on their asses or parents in Congress or the cabinet. Oil scions already enlisted in flex time Air Guard units will fly for an exteded tour of duty until they are shot out of the sky. Friendly fire or bird strike will suffice to fullfil this commitment.
This thread is silly. I will not support this assertion.
for the plan for action on Darfur that is certainly forthcoming from the Democrats now that they're in power and they're gonna show us how Compassion gets done, Progressive-style.
At last count, something like 400,00 have died in that genocide.
It's your turn to lead. What do you propose?
I have yet to get a single answer from the Compassion Tag Team, after asking this question several times.
This can be all YOURS. You can take all the credit for the outcome.
Increase taxes.
AND control spending.
We've become China's and Japan's and Germany's toady, by borrowing without taxation.
Reduce our oil addiction: public transit, smaller houses, smaller and fewer cars, etc.
Reducing our oil addiction means we won't feel compelled to meddle in the Middle East: to invade and occupy the world's second largest oil holding nation.
This, in turn, will allow us to focus our resources for the sake of altruism, such as Dafur.
Lastly, don't elect anymore pols who promise to make straight people a privileged class of citizenry, who didn't demonstrate success as a statesperson or businessperson, who weren't willing to pee into a cup, and who can't pronounce "nuclear." We've learned that such boobs lead us into unending war, monstrous debt, and dismantle the Constitution.
The Republicans have decided that fighting an illegal war on an invalid premise against a bunch of Muslims was much more important than saving a few pesky Christians &al. in Darfur.
What troops would you have the Democrats send? How many will be left over to take care of Syria, Iran, North Korea, Oceania or Eurasia?
However you might notice we have our armed forces tied up at the moment fighting a wary Bush lied to take us into. Now I would sure love to see dems or anyone else come up with something to help that situation but I will be satisfied that we are better off if Dems dont LIE US INTO ANOTHER WAR.
Here is my response to Senator Boxer…
Senator Boxer,
As a father of a Marine step son in Iraq and a Marine son in law to be deployed early (as part of the "surge") in March, I totally support your comments to Secretary Rice regarding family. I have heard that less than one tenth of one percent of all Americans have any family member in harm's way in this war. President Bush has asked the rest of Americans to "go shopping" to support the war. The rest of the country needs a blunt wake up call about real sacrifice. Neither Bush nor Rice and their platitudes will serve. I do not feel your comment had anything to do with Rice being a "single women" versus being an American who does not understand the sacrifices being made. Thank you for your comments.
Craig Ellerbrock
Anyone who does not know this (from my personal experience) is also a sexist, racist, homophobic self-serving individual. I know of only a few people who listen & like Limbaugh, and they speak of others in the same manner. For Rush to defend a woman, and a black woman no less, he has more powerful ulterior motives: he is more married to the Republicans than to his bigoted, sexist ways. Why? Because he stands to benefit from tax breaks and war investments. Money & Power. Simple.
Also, can we all agree to ignore Tommy? Threads are much more meaningful and true debates are possible without this opinionated teen with nonsensical segues.
I agree with you about Tommy. He is a time wasting troll. He has no credence with me.
Dr. Rice has much to answer for. She didn't get near the grilling she deserves. These Bushco people have NO empathy, no conscience. Trying to jog Condi's apparently latent conscience is probably useless, but Boxer had a duty to do it. It was definately not uncalled for.
I cannot believe that Rush is 'playing the race card' on this incident. Deep down inside this drug addicted idiot knows that Condoleezza is in an 'appointed position' on behalf of the white house admistration. She was selected and not elected because everyone black white or yellow knows deep down inside that REPUBLICANS DO NOT VOTE FOR BLACK OR EVEN DARK SKINED PEOPLE. Bobby Sindel of Louisiana lost the race for govenor, not only that but all of their 'token' black flunkies lost the election just last November despite wide spread cheating, more evidence that the Republican party is 'imploding' upon itself. This idiot who 'carrys water' for the Republican party had better learn to use a better bucket. This is from a Black Female so don't pull that 'WHITE CHICK ' crap on me...
Rush was RIGHT. Truth hurts sometimes, huh?
Condi was "lynched"? I don't think you know what that means if you think Rush was right. Surprise. Surprise.
It would be the FIRST TIME. As for the truth how would you know? You wouldnt know the truth if it slapped your face and took a leak on your foot.
Aren't you on the wrong site? We generally like truth around here...
Oh, and Rush...making allusions of African Americans and lynching isn't really a positive thing to do, regardless of what "ironic twist" you throw into the humor.
Here's what a lynching was: you take a couple hundred white cowards and they jump a lone black person. The cowards might take a knife and cut off the genitals and stuff them in the black person's mouth. Then they might take a blowtorch to the torso. Then the cowards would hang the mutilated citizen from a tree. Then the cowards would have a picnic and pose for pictures beside the corpse.
That's lynching.
And anyone who compares lynching to one woman beseeching empathy from another woman dishonors those who were lynched and trivializes racism.
The South once voted black. Millions switched parties when integration was applied and Jim Crow laws were ended. Millions of those former Dems became Republicans and many of their descendents listen today to Rush Limbaugh. Some of them could trace their family history to a picnic under a tree bearing strange fruit.
And anyone who compares lynching to one woman beseeching empathy from another woman dishonors those who were lynched and trivializes racism.
holly
--------------------------
Excellent point.
In many cases, the victim was decapitated and his head left to rot on a pole. Also, the genitals of the lynching victim were severed and kept as 'souvenirs' by members of the lynch mob. In the case of Nat Turner, a grease was made of his flesh while his skin was excoriated and made into a purse.
To today's Kramers, these were the good ole days.
What barbara boxer said was fact, As a matter of fact I bet Condoleezza Rice never put her life on the line to fight a war that she had no choice in. Oh and hey if everyone is so for this war then go join, no ones stopping you, but don't commit our men and women so freely if your not willing to do the same.
It is amazing -- Why can't logical and intelligent minds figure this limbaugh characater out? Well, that is the answer -- people tuning into him are not intelligent or logical!!! -- But, please notice in his current criticism and cutting up of Barbara Boxer -- he gives an example that she doesn't "go after" people like Gloria Steinem who also doesn't have offspring who will pay (giving their lives) in this Iraq war. Well, Rush Limbaugh, totally misuses and misses the POINT -- that people like Gloria Steinem didn't make the decision to go to War in Iraq and doesn't want our men and women to be there. Get the right point - Limbaugh -- Come on People -- Let's put this abuser/loser nimcompoop out of business -- Hasn't he made enough money on ranting and raving without any accountability for facts?
Boxer's point is correct. Rice and the rest of the neocons treat the war as a video game. For the most part, they aren't sending their immediate families into the war and they have put the war on a credit card so future generations can pay for it.
As for Tommy's remarks that attack Boxer in an attempt to deflect the attention for Limbaugh's comments. I wonder how much Tommy gets paid to monitor this website and study and parse articles in order to find some angle, relevant or not, to attack the articles.
Frank Rich wrote the following in his NYTimes column: "Which leaves you wondering exactly who is still in the bunker with the president besides the first lady and Barney,"
Gee is he alluding to Hitler? Lemme guess, thats ok with you bunch of crybaby loonie leftist hypocrites. But let Rush mention lynching and you erupt in sanctimonious outrage.
boo hoo
"...crybaby loonie leftist hypocrites...."
So, you read the book, "How to Make Enemies and Not Influence Friends," eh?
Here's why Rush doesn't get to say "lynching."
A. He's a bigot.
B. He dishonors the horror of lynching by comparing it to one woman talking to another.
Now, lets go of your ad hom hyping. You're hysterical. And not the least bit funny.
WWWAAAAAHHHHHH, ONLY us moron wingnuts get to be rude. We are far too stupid to talk facts so its the only way we can even the playing field. Its hard work warmongering and making sure that we can get as many Americans killed as possible especially when all the reasonable people already KNOW Iraq is a disaster, you cant expect us to push this nonsense WITHOUT lies and idiocy can you? Stop treating us the way we treat you. Its hard work being a delusional moron cut us some slack
I though Limbaugh wasn't going to "carry anymore water" for the Republican Party? He's still yapping on and on incessantly,dredging up the most inane, pointless-but always offensive-gotta think about those ratings-talking points in radio land. Can someone explain to me what the hell this mental midget is mewling about with the Gloria Stein"Drum her out of the feminist movement" crack? Also the whole "lynching" motif is adorable Rush considering your racist bigot slag heap past. Someday people are are gonna finally grok your subnormal hate filled slathering jive for what it is.
Limbaugh may have 13.5 million listeners, but so what? There are another 140 million people on the left side of the normal curve as well, so he's only capturing about 10% of his potential audience. I'd say he's a abject failure.
"I'd say he's a abject failure."
Then what does that make the far left wingers at Air America who only get about 100,000 listeners per week?
...that I'm frankly reluctant to mention, but:
Education and political affiliation correlate: the greater your education, the more likely you'll be progressive.
Prosperity and political affiliation also correlate: the 10 poorest states are red. 9 of the 10 richest states are blue (and Virginia is purple).
So, when conservatives are given a chance to run a state, they run it into the ground, as Bush has done to the country.
But hey, you've got several million angry white dittoheads adoring Rush. Should I now vote Republican?
I'm actually a fiscal conservative, which makes me antithetical to neocons, who are such wastrels that they'd make Marie Antoinette and Paris Hilton blush.
Bush is waging his "WWIII" while cutting taxes. And Rush beats his drum.
This is merely Rush being Rush - the pot calling the kettle black. Boxer wasn't being sexist and she wasn't being racist. She had already included herself in what she said. Limbaugh just likes to make trouble. I'll bet the number of his mental slaves has gone down a lot lately. He's starving for attention.
Why should it be any surprise that any real, genuine criticism of the Bush war policy be reduced to hysterics and looking to shift the argument off the formulators of that policy.
Boxer makes an extremely valid point that too many of the Iraq war's staunchest supporters do not have children in active military service. She doesn't as she said her own children are too old and her grandchildren are too young. By pointing out that Rice does not have family in active service, she is not saying "Well, you don't have children so you can't know what it's like." She made no comment at all about Rice's childless status. She comments about Rice's immediate family, that there are no people in active service. It's a fair comment, and Boxer could have easily gone on that neither President Bush, nor Vice President Cheney who both have family members of age to go into military service know what that sacrifice is like.
Limbaugh's hypocrasy is, most definately, entertaining because I keep expecting his head to explode one of these days, but it's astonishing that he decided to play the race card here. Boxer is a wealthy woman? So what. Rice grew up in an affluent home, insulated from the hardships that millions of other African Americans endured during the civil rights movement. She hardly lead a hardscrabble life, but one of unique priviledge in the African American community.
It's a non-argument. Boxer made her very valid points and Rice is a big girl. She can take the lumps.
Once again Limbaugh show's exactly what he thinks of women. Too bad Bush can't be asked, " When are your two, enlistment eligible daughters going over to fight the terrorists? Most Republicans are chickenhawk cowards, that all there is to it led by Rush and listened to by Tommy.
These are words I apply to neocons, but I note that I'm not alone in affixing them to the neocons. That Rush would say that Boxer is "trying to lynch" Rice is an hysterical response. Remember that Rush hid from Vietnam because of a pimple on his butt, so his manliness was suspect way back.
The Bush administration is equally hysterical. Rice rushing to Fox to be soothed is an hysterical response. Bush rushing into Iraq post-9-11 is an hysterical response. Hysteria governs the neocons.
SIMILAR GOALS?
Both Bush & LBJ Do not adjust war policies to follow opinion, but rather, They adjust opinion to support war policies.
Bush tried to adjust my opinion last night on 60 Minutes. The interviewer failed to press him on a number of his false assertions.
LBJ and Bush also said the exact same thing about losing. They said if we lose the war, the war will be here at home tomorrow. Bush is wrong because we just want to fight a smarter war on terror than he is waging. With less people dying!
When reporters repeatedly pressed Johnson in late 1967 on why he was so committed to the war, Johnson exposed an old war wound to them and said, That is why!
Bush and most of his administrators have no battle wounds to expose. When the call went out during Vietnam they did not answer that call.
Johnson announced to the nation on October 31, 1968, that he had ordered a complete cessation of "all air, naval and artillery bombardment of North Vietnam," and he supported the peace talks in Paris.
Bush refuses to negotiate with anyone.
Unlike Bush, Johnson passed major legislation for We The People. LBJ also waged a well intentioned war on poverty, improvement of civil rights, rights for seniors, voting rights and others.
The Lyndon Baines Johnson Library and Museum is on the campus of The University of Texas at Austin. It is the most visited presidential library in the nation with over a quarter million visitors per year.
When all is Said and Done with the Iraq War, and the Bush Legacy, I hope the Bush Library gets plenty of visitors too.
Right now that doesn't look too promising.