Rice Criticizes Sen. Boxer's Comment on War

what a far fetched cocky comment from condi---just as cocky as tony snow!


Rice Criticizes Sen. Boxer's Comment on War
Associated Press
Saturday, January 13, 2007; Page A15


Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice yesterday criticized Sen. Barbara Boxer's suggestion that, because she does not have family in harm's way, she will pay no "personal price" in the Iraq war.

"In retrospect, gee, I thought single women had come further than that, that the only question is, 'Are you making good decisions because you have kids?' " Rice said on Fox News.



Boxer's comment came during a Senate Foreign Relations Committee hearing Thursday, in which Rice was grilled on President Bush's new war strategy in Iraq.

-............

Boxer defended herself in a statement. "I spoke the truth at the committee hearing, which is that neither Secretary Rice nor I have family members that will pay the price for this escalation," she said.
.............

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2007/01/12/AR2007011202414.html?nav=hcmodule

I see no reason all women should have children and if you do not want them fine but I must say it does seem to get to women if you ever say a thing about it. I am not sure why. I am an old women and it is one thing I learned not to say much about to women who have had no children and to also shut up if any one else brings it up in a group.

This reminds me of a class reunion I was at years ago. When we were having dinner on a loooong table, a lady friend asked me in front of everyone "How do you feel about not having a child?" with pitiful look on her face. They all looked at me and I just smiled and replied "Blessed". They were stunned, looked at each other and then burst out laughing! :P

They do brake ones heart at times but it has been a subject I found that was best not to get into. It seems to make a lot of women very mad. No matter what you say some one gets mad.

just like that hag Lynne cheney getting upset over Kerry mentioning her lesbian daughter, yet saying nothing about ALan Keyes calling her daughter degrading names.

and now Condi who said nothing about Laura Bush's comments towards here which WERE offensive trying to make Boxer's comments into something it's not.

and stupid fucking whore media repeats right wing victim game.

The Post & Fox: two peas in a pod.

Odd that there's no mention of Laura Bush's statement. Or maybe not so odd.

BTW, this is a letter to the editor of the New York Post I just sent:



So, the New York Post is upset at mundane comments made by Sen. Boxer to Dr. Rice, eh? Well, where was the outrage when First Lady Laura Bush said this to People Magazine just last month:

"Dr. Rice, who I think would be a really good candidate (for President), is not interested. Probably because she is single, her parents are no longer living, she's an only child. You need a very supportive family and supportive friends to have this job."

Enough with the feigned indignation already.

went unchecked because she's perceived as a kindly person, who wouldn't offend anyone. While Boxer is ...well, a boxer in the verbal sense.

If I were still single and someone told me I couldn't do something because i was single, that would piss me off.

Rice being single and having no children and nothing is farther from the truth. Her comment was aimed at Rice not having anyone in harms way, the same as Boxer, which is a whole other meaning. Rice got her Fox guys she loves so much to get this BS going and now she is spewing the same BS. Rice knows exactly what Boxer meant and can't handle the truth.

get over it

That's the first thing I thought of - maybe she could have phrased it you've no one who's going to personally sacrifice for your bloodlust. No one you love is going to, perhaps, pay the ultimate price - death.

People wonder what kind of life she leads, why she is alone. It will certainly become a bigger issue if and when she ever seeks elected office (and may be a reason she does not do so). Being unmarried and "of a certain age" was also a thorn in Ralph Nader's side during his various forays into presidentidal politics.

that issue had nothing to do with what Senator Boxer was saying. If we elect officials because of their marital status we haven't come very far. She is probably not married because she was more interested in her career or it could be no one ever asked her, either way you are probably right.

with Boxer's comments to Condi that they did with Kerry's joke: they are in deep, deep shit and they are making SOMETHING out of NOTHING in hopes that it STICKS to the Democrats and changes the subject.

has come down to her insulting Rice for not being married. Even when the change of subject doesn't make sense they still do it and some people still buy it.

Boxer didn't misspeak. Kerry screwed up what he intended to say, and was forced to clarify. Barbara Boxer meant to say what she said exactly the way she said it.

in the war?

I fail to see what's so upsetting about the comment in the first place. It's the simple truth--as long as you don't try to twist it into something completely different than what it actually says.

Sheesh.

is that neither Boxer or any other liberal would care or negate Condi for not having children. She is attempting to project a Republican prejudice upon us. All Boxer was pointing out was that she had nobody she cared about at risk. And that is a fact. It really doesn't apply to all childless people because many people childless or not care about all people. But to be in that group, you would have to care about all people (including Iraqi, Iranian, American soldiers etc.) also and Condi has already proven she doesn't.

.

the buck-toothed bitch should have the money from WHATEVER she did to get her name on a fucking oil tanker.

It shouldn't surprise anyone that the wingnuts attacked her for it.

Just like her academic school. When you read the foreign policy literature from the mid-late 90's you quickly discover that the neo-con's are relegated to a brief mention if they get any play at all, and Condi is the arch neo-con of the administration right now.

http://news-service.stanford.edu/news/1998/october28/riceteach1028.html
http://www.npr.org/templates/story/story.php?storyId=5516648
http://www.rider.edu/~phanc/Phanc/JoKorbel.htm
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Josef_Korbel
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hoover_Institute

From the first link:

"The academic literature, she said, often misses the complexity of foreign policy making. States are seen as billiard balls, she said. "We talk about the balance of power and the clash of interests as if we didn't care what was going on inside of them." Domestic policy is discussed not as a constraint on foreign policy makers, but as the "sum total of domestic institutions," such as Congress, bureaucratic agencies and interest groups. Students do not get from it, she said, a good understanding of how a country's foreign policy is complicated by different issue that range from national security to agriculture to moral values.

Political science literature is particularly poor, she said, at explaining the roles of the press, personality and symbolism in policy."

Condi totally mischaracterizes the billiard ball analogy, which is a classic "realist" analogy in international relations in which states are seen as unitary actors in a causal relationship. Condi then carries on the misunderstanding by asserting that we act "as if we didn't care what was going on inside of them," when the real question if one wants to carry on the analogy is not what's inside the ball, because all billiard balls are fundamentally the same except for the paint, but rather what are the qualities that make a great billiard player in the "game" of international relations. So Condi has a very poor grasp of realism, which is not surprising given that she worked for the Hoover Institution, one of the most biased nationally known collegiate think tanks in existence. Condi then mischaracterizes one of the basic arguments of "liberal" scholars of international relations that the foreign policy reflects the process of the domestic policy by turning it into a zero-sum game when in actuallity the liberal critique is that the "game" is incredibly complex and that foreign policies are never unitary in causation and effect. Of course this is not surprising given that Condi was a failed concert pianist before she was a "scholar." Her academic focus is of course totally irrelevant to her current predicament as she is a Soviet scholar and not a Russian scholar (which would have real benefit). Condi just doesn't get it. At least Kissinger had some real depth to his understandings and could understand the meaning of what he said. Christ.

this is nothing but a diversion to take the focus off her ....not answering the questions directly......the Medias is pushing this and NOT pushing the fact that she was cornered like a trapped rat........she had no answers.....she would not take blame.....nor would she say that * f'ed up in Iraq!

Oops.

Boxer's words showed the truth of the Bush administration and how little they care for the American people. "The sacrifice was worth it," said Rice. How dare even presume to know if the sacrifice was worth it.

The media and their friends want to change the subject.

anybody with a brain knows that. If say, Rice had a lover in the fight, that would count! Or a close cousin even! Something. But none of the elite utopian neo-cons ever actually know what it means to shed blood to change the world according to their "vision." That's why they have always been so damn scary. It's never been JUST greed with them. It's a fantasy of how the world should be. They don't live in reality. Those that do can see the war is folly and should be stopped. THEY don't fucking get the most obvious thing right in front of their face. They are the scariest people on earth. Delusional. With Rice and the rest-how can you separate the lies from the delusion?????

I don't believe that Condi was personally offended by the remarks initially, but now she comes out in a huff after the latest talking points have been sent out. She is just trying to stoke up the distraction to shield her from the point that Sen. Boxer was making. She knows that Sen. Boxer's comments had absolutely nothing to do with her being single.

experience with something - it allows the families of the troops to push us around when they are repukes - how dare you oppose the war my son is in harm's way fighting for you, blah, blah, blah, and the motherhood thing as well - instead of coming up with something rational, a person you are debating accuses you of "not being a mother" and that's supposed to mean your opinion does not count.

We should look at both sides, too. They troops are not "targets" and "in harm's way" without also being armed to the teeth themselves. They are over there killing people and it is evasion to pretend they aren't. If we must use personal experience, then why not count equally those of us whose experience is more like mine: My personal experience with the troops is my cousin who does not think he's in harm's way, they are, and he's there to kill as many of those terrorist Muslims as he can. If he dies we are not to mourn because he "died doing what he loved" which means it is not a burden or a sacrifice, but we are subsidizing his "doing what he loves."

The war is a political question and we have to quit using the personal issues to try to guilt people - it goes both ways. It is just a emotionalist distraction. Granted it is hard to blame Barbara for trying it when it has so relentlessly been used against the left for at least six years, and no doubt Condi and her ilk will use "the troops" and their support to guilt war opponents, but the bottom line is we do not have to support a war just because someone is there fighting it and we do not have to cave to someone else just because they have fought it or are using one of their relatives who did to emotionally prop themselves.

Have you ever heard such whining before?

The GOP must be suffering from a talcum shortage.

she should just stay out of sight and go shopping or play the piano.

LOL