Milbank, Goldberg falsely claimed Sen. Boxer "belittled" Rice for being "childless"
In his January 24 "Washington Sketch" column for The Washington Post, Dana Milbank wrote that Sen. Barbara Boxer (D-CA), at a January 11 Senate Foreign Relations Committee hearing, "took a dig at Condoleezza Rice because the secretary of state is childless." Similarly, National Review Online editor-at-large Jonah Goldberg, in his January 24 nationally syndicated column, claimed that Boxer "belittled" the secretary of state "because Rice doesn't have children and therefore cannot appreciate the full impact of war the way Boxer can." In fact, Boxer, rather than attacking Rice for not having children, drew a comparison between Rice and herself, noting that neither of them will "pay a personal price" for the Iraq war because neither has immediate family serving in Iraq.
At the January 11 Senate Foreign Relations Committee hearing, Boxer said:
BOXER: 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 immediate family. So who pays the price? The American military and their families.
Milbank, however, wrote in his January 24 column on the State of the Union address:
Other lawmakers used the moment in the spotlight to display their quirks and eccentricities. Sen. Barbara Boxer (D-Calif.), who recently took a dig at Condoleezza Rice because the secretary of state is childless, walked right past Rice without even a pause at the start of the speech. Rep. Zach Wamp (R-Tenn.) greeted Bush with cheers of "way-oh," as if watching a football game, then later found time to peruse his BlackBerry -- as did Sen. Charles Grassley (R-Iowa). Rep. Sheila Jackson Lee (D-Tex.), who claimed her favorite seat on the aisle at 8:06 a.m. -- 11 hours and 54 minutes before the speech -- was there to shake the notables' hands in front of the cameras.
Goldberg went a step further -- not only did he falsely claim Boxer "belittled" Rice for not having children, he also suggested that Boxer was somehow being hypocritical in doing so because she "doesn't have any kids in uniform, nor would they be eligible for a draft if there was one." From Goldberg's January 24 column:
In her first appearance as a presidential candidate, Hillary Clinton spoke at a community center while holding the hand of small child. Nancy Pelosi has said that when she took the Speaker's gavel, she took it "from the hands of the special interests and (put it) into the hands of America's children." Sen. Barbara Boxer recently belittled Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice because Rice doesn't have children and therefore cannot appreciate the full impact of war the way Boxer can.
Of course, there's no draft, and Boxer doesn't have any kids in uniform, nor would they be eligible for a draft if there was one.
However, as the transcript above makes clear, Boxer herself noted that her own children and grandchild are not eligible to join in the military.
As Media Matters for America noted, Republicans and conservative media figures seized on Boxer's remarks to Rice as an attack on single, childless women.
Boxer knew exactly what she was saying and how she was saying it. All politicians rarely make verbal gaffes, especially in such a setting as a committee hearing. It was an inappropriate comment for her to make..........Rice's childless situation is irrelevant to any pertinent situation as is Boxer's personal life.
so show us
where boxer used the word "childless". she said immediate family. that could extend to brothers, sisters.
Because Boxer referenced her own children, not her brothers and sisters.......and then told Rice she wouldn't pay a price with her immediate family.
that still does not exclude the fact that boxer did not define immediate family as children. in fact, no one does.
Google it, you will find you are wrong.
if she has no children, her siblings, parents are her immediate family.
Of course Boxer would have been referring to immediate family as in brothers and sisters when speaking about her comparison with Rice as to who is sacrificing. Rice is a single woman with no children (not really sure why people think that is insulting...but that is another debate) so of course if you were trying to relate you would talk in terms of her immediate family. It was a valid question...most Americans are so far removed personally and there lives are unaffected unlike those who are truly putting it on the line for their country and their families.
Lost,
It doesn't even matter. I don't want public policy based on any particular person's personal situation. That is absurd and very dangerous.
but now you're changing the subject.
I am not taking it the way you are. It had nothing to policy based on personal situations. It had to do with it was time to get brutally real and stop this vague generality discussion that goes on about the cost of this ill conceived war.
Wait, I don't understand your point.
Why is it "absurd and very dangerous" for people to have some personal stake in the result of laws that they pass and policies they support? As a general principle, I think that every legislator should act as if the policies they back will directly affect them or their families. I can't imagine how it could be a bad thing when it actually does...
I've got to disagree Tommy.
I think it's vital that politicians think about all the lives they will affect with their decisions. I think it's crucial for them to put themselves in the shoes of the people their decisions affect.
If politicians just made decisions in a vacuum, without any thought of the lives those decisions affect, those politicians are more likely to make reckless decisions.
It was not inappropriate. It was not an attack it made a relevant point.
Solon,
I didn't say it was an attack, I said it was inappropriate.
Thats right and I disagreed. Had she phrased it as an attack you would have a point. She didnt, it made a good point, I dont think it was in appropriate
What exactly was Boxer's point that you agree with? That public officials make policy decisions based on their personal lives?
I can say what I took away from her comments. That so many of us are too far removed from the realities of war. That the injured and devastated families are rarely mentioned in these discussions. We don't see the injured...we don't discuss the horrible injuries suffered...we don't discuss the after care...we don't talk about veterans rights...I guess I'll stop now...you get the pisture. By the way notice no mention of veterans issues in the State of the Union...pretty telling. Use 'em up and then forget about 'em.
Lost,
I understand what you are saying and I am not in any way defending this war - but you cannot let emotion get in the way of public policy, on any issue. It has to be removed otherwise it possibly clouds judgement and affects strategy and policy. The militay does not engage in ctruggles and confrontation based on such emotions, they simply cannot.
Of course there is a horrible price to pay for war, especially this ill-conceived mess in Iraq. And we should honor and revere those who have served and are serving. But to inject emotion in policy decisions is the absolute wrong thing to do.
I disagree. Taking into account the loss to be born by taking military action should always be part of the analysis. Its not an emotional argument...it is a reality based analysis. The lives destroyed and lost is not an insignificant emotional issue as you seem to be implying.
Taking that into consideration is a strategic decision, not emotion.
ill conceived mess in iraq. as i recall when they had the elections over there you claimed it proved bush right?
No taking suffering into account is basically a textbook definition of empathy which is absolutly an emotion
again you've changed the argument from your first post about boxer.
No it isnt. Politics is a series of cost benifit ratio analyses. The horrific cost to Americans should ALWAYS be part of that equation, its ludicrous to think it should be kept out.
There's a difference between emotion getting in the way (which some suspect is partially why we're in Iraq in the first place), and allowing personal ties to add weight and severity to the policy decisions you're making.
To me, Boxer's comments were a start revelation of one of the key problems with this administration in terms of war -- hardly any of the policy makers have any skin in the game if there are casualties on the ground. Instead of weighing policy decisions with a distinct value for American lives, one can easily argue that this Administration has been treating soldiers as numbers (or "commas," Mr. Bush?) that can be thrown at a perceived problem. Perhaps if one of the Bush twins or maybe one of Rice's nephews or cousins were on the front lines, we'd see soldiers' lives treated with more care and respect.
The "let's see if this works" surge mentality from the administration is further evidence of this brand of thinking, in my opinion. 20,000 more troops is not a solution, it's a delay tactic, and it shows no foresight and no respect for troop lives and soldiers' families. Boxer's comment may have been overly personal, but it was not in any way inappropriate.
Tommy....You know who didn't let emotion get in the way of important decision making...? Bush and this current republican't (borrowed from another MMFA contributer) administration...They have ZERO immediate family in the war and make cold calculated decisions and the result..? A F-ING WASTE OF TIME, MONEY AND LIVES!!!
[Emotion] has to be removed otherwise it possibly clouds judgement and affects strategy and policy.
I would not want a leader who was capable of this. We are not machines.
If you read the transcript, it looks like she is taking Rice to task for her happy talk on the "stand-up-stand-down" policy. She's saying, in essence, 'it's easy for you to just repeat Administration spin, you don't have any skin in the game.'
I think that's a fair point. If any of these people - Rice, Bush, Cheney, Gates - had family members in theatre, would they be so quick to send more troops in, knowing as they must that they will almost certainly be there a long time, multiple tours of duty?
That is the point. It doesn't matter who has family in the war or not. That is not the way policy is formed based on who will be personally affected or not. Is that the way you want decisions made? Then how can lawmakers debate welfare, they are not affected. Should they have a say in education funding and reform if they have no children in school? What about abortion rights? How can a man possibly have a say in this?
I'm not talking about how policy "should be" formed, nor was Boxer. Read the transcript again. She is saying, "...who pays the price? The American military and their families, and I just want to bring us back to that fact."
In other words, if I could paraphrase, she was saying it is easy for those of us who don't have family in the military to forget how high the price is that they pay. And, again, I think this is a valid point.
I don't think you have to be directly affected by every decision you make as a member of the government... to the degree, however, that you are or can imagine being negatively affected by the result of policies you support, that's a good thing.
No, that is absolutely not a good thing. Do you want your elected officials making decisions on how issues affect them personally? If you cannot see the inherent danger and misguided logic in that, then we strongly disagree. I have already given you examples.
So, I am an elected representative and a bill is on the floor to remove a tax credit on big oil companies, and I own stock in a big oil company.......well, with your blessing I will not support that bill because of the way it affects me.
Wow, big difference there. YOUR analogy is about voting on what would BENIFIT them. We are talking about having the empathy to see the COST to others. IF Rice had say a son in Iraq would she be so sanguine about the war? I would be happy if administration officials when deciding whether to send people off to die considered it as if they were sending their own children off to die if you think THAT is a bad idea then we strongly disagree
No difference. You said a personal stake, that is the example I gave you. In your scenario, there would never by any conflict waged ever. Because of one's personal stake.
Exactly what I said was:
I stand by that statement. Your objection was to something I never said.
No difference? Are you kidding me. YOU are oversimplifying not me. You are now saying there is no difference between empathy and greed because they both involve personal feelings. The proposition is ludicrous
changing again. i believe we were discussing "the price you pay". enriching yourself is hardly a price to pay.
Your missing the point. Sending our men and women into harms way should only be undertaken if the threat outweighs the sacrifice. You have to fully realize what that sacrifice is and what the repercussions of those sacrifices will be in the future to make the call. This isn't a game of GI Joe..these are real lives and they shed real blood.
Lost,
But what about certain very dangerous missions? They are planned and undertaken so the fewest number of casualitites will occur, obviously......but you don't abandon that mission if you are the General due to personal reasons - one way or the other.
who said you did. more answering things not said.
Yeah, Tommy... the goalposts have moved awfully far in this discussion.
Not abandoned necessarily, but either it is so important that the decision maker would sacrifice his own child or it is not necessary enough to sacrifice someone elses child
Exactly. That is the exact analysis that they are expected to do...its what they owe to the men and women who serve.
The context is responsibility. When you decide to go to war you are responsible for every death and every maiming and all the misery inherent in war. Even if you feel it is justified and worth the sacrifice of human life and even the temporary sacrifice of humanity itself, it does not eliminate your accountability as to its effects. Boxer was pointing out to Rice her lack of empathy and accountability, by reminding her she might have a less rosy view if she had skin in the game.
This whole administration has an incredible lack of gravitas about war. The term shallow comes to mind often when thinking of this bunch. Attacking Boxer for trying to get Rice to show some responsibility for the effects of her actions is a good example of shallowness.
if you did support it then you have to admit that you have done something that will take money out of your pocket. so therefore your motives would not be questioned.
Wrong, Tommy...
The point is that certain elements of the media distorted (predictably) what Barbara Boxer said in an attempt to inflame ant-Democratic Party sympathies. They do this all the time...
Ask yourself this... ifGeorge W. Bush had a child serving in Iraq do you not think that at least once in Bush's many pronouncements about the Iraq war he would have said: "Laura and I personally know the sacrifices that Americans are making in the War on Terror."
In my opinion, remarks such as that would NOT be inappropriate... but apparently you think it would be imroper. At any rate that's not the real issue here...
So if Rice, Bush, Cheney, et al had kids in the Iraq
War then that would make you support it?
Not me. However it would make their happy talk about Iraq more palatable. What we are saying is it is acceptable to take personal feelings into account when making a decision and there would be personal feelings we could point to if they had children serving in Iraq, that still doesnt automatically make their decision correct.
I agree with Valentinian. Policies SHOULD be made as if there were a personal stake in them. If it wouldnt be important enough for Rices own child, brother or sister to die for she shouldnt be sending ANYONE to die for it. Rice is paying no price for her oblivious behavior. She has no personal stake in this, just like the rest of the administration and they are acting like it. When Jenna and Barb are over there we will see how long the conflict lasts.
Solon, That's ridiculous. Personal situations have no place in policy decisions. Are you prepared to be consistent on that assertion of yours?
Its not ridiculous, I am absolutly willing to be consistant in the concept, when considering the cost in suffering of a policy that suffering should be considered as if it effected them personally. Its known as empathy its good thing. I guess you think all decisions should be made with Mr Spock type detachment. I dont like that idea
I am a Senator whose about to vote on whether to overturn Roe v Wade. I have always been pro choice. But just last week a female relative of mine who jst had an abortion was so distraught by her choice, that shortly afterwards she committed suicide.
Now, I have been so personally affected and have such empathy and emotion invested in this issue that now I cannot vote to uphold Roe v Wade. I have to, based on my personal situation, vote to overturn it. I cannot in good faith vote to keep a procedure legal that just caused my relative to kill herself.
This is a perfect example of what you are in favor of. A person voting on policy based on their personal experiences.
Yes that would be reasonable. Not only that but I think it happens all the time. I notice Nancy Reagan left her pro life position to support stem cell reserach when her husbands alzhiemers left a personal impression on her. I didnt consider that hypocrisy. I would still have my opinion but I would not blame someone for seeing it that way. Of course I would make the argument that a single example was hardly representative but it would be valid to take it into account
Fine, Then you're consistent.
The next time a right wing politician votes against gay rights, or against abortion, or to put prayer in school because their personal feelings and emotions dictate them to do so.....because they have seen the value of religion in one's life and some gay person was walking down the street kissing his or her partner, and abortion is murder to them......Well, you will be the first to come on these boards and defend their votes.
Tommy, I literally have no idea what premise you are defending.
Is it that personal beliefs have no place in the public arena? If so, why have political parties? Why vote at all, in point of fact... why not just have a dictatorship of the incredibly uninvolved?
What should, in your analysis, inform political leaders' decisions?
dictatorship of the incredibly uninvolved
LOL...great one. Mind if I borrow that one?
Sure...
Dedicator makes this dedication for the benefit of the public at large and to the detriment of the Dedicator's heirs and successors. Dedicator intends this dedication to be an overt act of relinquishment in perpetuity of all present and future rights under copyright law, whether vested or contingent, in the Work. Dedicator understands that such relinquishment of all rights includes the relinquishment of all rights to enforce (by lawsuit or otherwise) those copyrights in the Work.
Dedicator recognizes that, once placed in the public domain, the Work may be freely reproduced, distributed, transmitted, used, modified, built upon, or otherwise exploited by anyone for any purpose, commercial or non-commercial, and in any way, including by methods that have not yet been invented or conceived.
what was that about goal posts
no you're making comparisons to someone who votes to have others be forced to participate in religious rites they do not wish to take part in.
No I wont. I didnt say it automatically makes them right only that it is a valid way to approach a decision. Your example is not in any way analogous. No one has a right NOT to be offended, he doesnt like seeing someone else kissing is NOT a rationale to demand people not kiss in public. I have no problem that people have religious beliefs. I will make the argument that they shouldnt, according to the constitution, demand everyone be bound by THEIR religious beliefs. I understand their empathy believing a child is being killed. I disagree. I have always said there are good people on both sides of this debate and never demean religious people for their stance on emotion.
Excuse me for jumping into this line of discussion.Tommy, as human beings - politicians or not - we constantly make decisions based on our personal experiences and there emotional repercussions. Politicians are elected by their constituents to make policy decisions that will benefit American Families. Personal experiences and emotions always play a part in those decisions. The positions you take in your own postings are based on your own personal experiences and the emotions you have attached to those experiences. Now, when you start advancing positions based on a text that is 2000 years old, that condones slavery, killing your children if they are disobedient, and loads of other nonsense, some people are going to have a problem with it.
Oh, and Nancy Reagan is not an elected official who is voting on anything. She is a private citizan and that is not what we are talking about.
She is a prominent public figure speaking on a policy issue the difference isnt that big
Nancy Reagan is a private citizen. And a phony just like her husband was.
It isn't? She is a private citizen who is not voting on public policy. She is not an elected representative of anyone but herself. I would say the difference is very relevant.
The point is how her decisions about policy were made. An analogy doesnt have to fit every detail to be relevant thats why its an analogy. She was effected by personal considerations to come to a decision on a policy matter, in THIS regard whether or not she is going to vote on it isnt relevant.
This posts proves the point. Many are so far removed from the reality of combat that they don't get it. If you cannot see the difference between the awesome responsibility of sending our men and women into combat and a vote on abortion then I think you have perfectly illustrated the problem. The decision to send our troops into combat it to be taken in a much different manner then these votes you name. Your vote on abortion is not going to result in you sending women to the abortion clinic for an abortion or holding them down while you inpregnate them and them making them carry the child. The risk benefit analysis is simply not equal. If you are going to sewnd troops into combat then they expect you have weighed the sacrifice to the threat and determined that as serious the consequences the threat was worse.
Lost,
The analogy was making policy decisions based on one's personal feelings, lives or situations. I am against such decisions, you obviously feel they should be a consideration. We disagree. The analogy was apt.
It's not apt, because in addition to factors already mentioned, your example is extreme. Someone could certainly take that occurance into account in making a decision, but they need to consider others as well. Nobody's talking about opposing war solely because they have a personal stake in it, as your comparison suggests. For example, a President who kept us out of a worthwhile and just war solely because they lost someone in a previous war would be acting irresponsibly. That's not what anyone here is talking about, and so your analogy is just a straw man.
Kant's categorical imperative:
The Golden Rule:
Ridiculous concepts all.
Tommy, I'm not sure what you are counter-proposing as a moral standard.
"Personal situations have no place in policy decisions."
Thomas don't you think it would be better to state that personal decisions should cloud your judgment when making a policy decision?
Stop painting with such a broad brush just to prove your point. We all evaluate and relate to situations and make decisions based off of our own personal experience. While it's not always necessary most people make better and more informed decisions when they have some actual first hand experience in any given situation.
Politicians and policy decisions are no different. Why bother asking our military leaders what their opinions is on the war if personal situations have no bearing? Why not just ask the boardroom at Haliburton?
that would be "should not cloud"
Tommy, I think you're misunderstanding the point. Solon and others aren't advocating that policy be made based on the personal benefit to the policy maker, nor soley upon their personal stake. They are, however, stating that policy should be made with an appreciation for the costs. With respect to Iraq, Boxer's concern is that the Administration continues to advocate the "wrong" policy because they have no appreciation of the costs.
This isn't that difficult. Don't kill yourself with a philosophical debate over who, in general, makes for the best decision maker.
I completely understand their point, and I disagree. Of course costs are weighed in any decision, but not personal costs. Emotions and feelings have no place in policy decisions, they are based on facts, intelligence, strategy, achievable success, possible downsides - all serious, nonemotional factors that make up important decisions. They are made on what is right and what is wrong, not what "feels" right.
I completely understand their point,
No, it doesn't seem that you do:
what is right and what is wrong, not what "feels" right
Who has advocated making decisions on "what feels right?"
Of course costs are weighed in any decision
Umm...that's debatable...and exactly what's at debate with respect to Iraq policy, i.e., that not all of the costs are being honestly considered.
All costs are personal to someone. The whole idea that decisions are best made with no emotional input is not based on facts in evidence. The concept that a cost to another be seen personally as if it were a cost to the person making the decision is not a bad one. You are basically saying that empathy should never have any place in making policy, I find the proposition untennable
Senator Webb has a very clear understanding of Iraq, Bush does not... mmmm oh yea Sen. Webb has a son serving there and Bush does not.....
Tommy Did you even read this post and/or the comments that Boxer made?
"You're not going to pay a particular price, as I understand it, with immediate family" is not some sort of slight about not having children. Perhaps "Immediate family" in this instance is referring to her not having any siblings in the armed forces. And even if she was also referring to Rice not having any children who cares. I don't have any kids either and it's not an insult if someone makes reference to that fact. Neither Boxer or Rice will "pay a personal price" was Boxer's point. Boxer says "who pays the price" three times in close succession it her comments! Her point is as plain as day.Also, Goldberg made some comments about Boxer's kids not being eligible for the draft which Boxer clearly stated in her remarks.i think tommy has conceded the point on that. which is why he's off in 20 different directions since his original post.
So is your point that if Boxer isn't a military family
she can't speak for military families?
I can't believe you people can't recognize a cheap shot
as blatant as that one.
We can. This just wasnt one.
This is much ado about nothing. Boxer's point was that Rice didn't have something to lose by supporting the war.
Tommy, Boxer started her comments by stating that she did not have any children eligible for service because her children were too old and her grandchild was to young, She then stated that Rice did not have any family members in the service. She was stating her comments to Rice regarding who was paying the highest sacrifice in the continued recall of soldiers to serve. She was discussing the fact that many in the military have had two, three and four calls to service. She was asking Rice how can we continue to ask so much of our service members when we have a "commander in chief" that never had a plan to win, still does not have a plan to win and is not sure what "victory" means. I also want to have that question answered by Dr. Rice. I don't give a s*** if she has children or not but each time I hear of the continued deaths of young men and women I wounder how their families endure.
"Boxer knew exactly what she was saying and how she was saying it."
Exactly right Tommy. She basically said the Boxers and the Rices wouldn't be the ones sending their children to Bush's stupid war. It would be regular people who don't have Condeleesa's power and privilige.
It's funny how this story outraged me until I saw the actual video of the exchange between Rice and Boxer and saw that everyone took it out of context and spun it to be something it wasn't intended to be. Even O'Reilly didn't pounce on Boxer (MMFA should give him credit for it). I should demote these two.
If O'Reilly needs credit for not being a liar, can I be given credit for never having robbed a bank?
Col, Bill has too many lies in his column to give him credit for telling the truth once. When he can find the truth, lets say at least once a day for 365 days then he can receive credit.
Dana Milbank is one of Keith Olbermanns regular guests. I wonder if Olbermann will name him worst person in the world?
"Sen. Barbara Boxer recently belittled Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice because Rice doesn't have children and therefore cannot appreciate the full impact of war the way Boxer can."
How dumb, or mendacious, is Jonah Goldberg. Sen. Boxer's point was specifically that neither she nor Sec. Rice would have to pay a personal price in terms of death or injury to their loved ones. She then queried rhetorically who would pay the price... meaning that Americans whose destinies are in the hands of Washington would pay the price and it is their interests therefore which are paramount in the Iraq debate. Did Goldberg even listen to Sen. Boxer's comments to Sec. Rice?
You are eaxctly right...the issue is where does their sacrifice come into the discussion and how is it weighed when these decisions are made. Webb said it well last night. I am paraphrasing but it was something along the lines of the men and women and their families who serve this country expect that a real analysis is done before they are put in harms way. That the level of threat is acuratley weighed against the loss and harm that will be suffered by our brave men and women who serve this country. I don't think that was done and I still don't think we have had that conversation in the public arena.
This is the right's latest overwrought fake suffering. Much in the same vein as Kerry "outing" Mary Cheney.
Spin away Tommy. Once again you have managed to overlook the crust of Sen. Boxer's arguement. Who is paying the price for the mistakes that this administration had made in Iraq? I will repost her entire quote so that you may rethink your analysis. "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 immediate family. So who pays the price? The American military and their families." You may not like Sen. Boxer but to draw false conclusions about her exchange with Sec. Rice shows a lack of critical analysis on your part.
Goldberg and Milbank apparently have some kind of learning disability, as Boxer clearly did not say what they think she said.
Dana Milbank- Todays worst person in the World/
PLEASE DON'T FEED THE TOMMY
He sounds like a child with too much time on his/her hands. Nothing has ever been gained by replying to Tommy. He will change his topic, change his mind, and in general wastes too much space on MMFA.
Ever argue with a 10-year-old? If so, you know what I am talking about.
Oh, and Boxer most certainly did not belittle Rice. Rice belittles rice on a daily basis as she does BushCo's bidding, but Boxer had a great point. I'm sure Rice was not insulted. and if she was, it was because Fox News said she should be.
I disagree, Tommy can usually raise interesting and valid issues in a debate. Sometimes, he gets too caught up in defending his arguments to the point where he starts flailing around (as, IMHO, this discussion), but I wouldn't say this is his general pattern.
Speaking of which, where'd Toob go...?
"I'm sure Rice was not insulted. and if she was, it was because Fox News said she should be."...by scooter
=====
Hey Scooter you gotta read this column by Nora Ephron, it's called:
Condi's Diary
Get ready to laugh your ass off ;-)
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/nora-ephron/condis-diary_b_38619.html
"Oh, and Boxer most certainly did not belittle Rice."
No kidding. Boxer is too damned stupid to come up with something like that. You'd have to live in California to understand.
Hi, troll.
Bye, troll.
Even a blinded Lefty like you Val would have to agree that a thumb-sucking idiot like Boxer isn't worthy of sitting in the shadow of Dr. Rice.
the same dr. rice that ignored every warning about 9-11 when she was national security adviser?
Only a koolaid guzzling rightwing moron like YOU would attack Boxer's intelligence. Compared to her YOU have the IQ of a dustbunny
I live in California and I KNOW California politics. The only person out here with less intelligence than Boxer is Loretta Sanchez. If you put these two together in a room, you might get a combined IQ of 7, with Boxer scoring 7.
Oh, and throw in "Ah-Nold" and the group score would soar to 15.
It's kind of funny because we all know that conservatives love to attack liberals by saying they don't have children or don't get married. Oh, sweet hypocrisy!
Oh, and sweet new editing box, too!
What Boxer said: Neither Rice nor I will pay a personal price for this war in terms of loss of a family member.
What the wingers (including Tommy) said she said: Boxer "took a dig" at Rice, she "belittled" her, it was "inappropriate."
Correlation factor: Zilch.
Cynicism is blinding. Anyone who can come to the conclusion that bad old Barbara Boxer was just picking on little old Condi Rice have to want condemn Boxer. You have to be pretty cynical to think a sitting Senator would intentionally pick on someone's family or lack there of. And as far as it being personal. That was Boxer's point. That's all she was doing. Just trying to emphasize that people who don't have anyone in danger of getting swept up in a war in Iraq don't really pay the price. They don't feel it directly. But Tommy and the "others" insist that something sinister and devious was afoot. Anything to avoid the truth. And shame on Condaleeza Rice for being such a whiny cry baby running to Fox and making such an insinuation. Lame.
Much has been made in this thread about what should or should not inform and motivate our elected officials when making policy decisions. Some say Boxer's comment was inappropriate because it was a personal, ad hominem type belittling comment. No one seems to want to recall what has been informing the decisions of members of the Republican Party throughout the DeLay years and the Age of the K Street Project, namely, "If you don't tow the Party Line and repeat the Talking Points verbatim, well you ain't gettin' a Party Dime and you ain't gettin' re-elected."
So Boxer was being somewhat more humane to point out the fact that Rice and she herself were not seriously jeopardizing anything personally by supporting, or not supporting the war. Of course humanity is something world leaders rarely seem to need to succeed.