January 12, 2007
Barbara Boxer: Childless Rice Makes No Sacrifice
Will the chutzpah never end? Sen. Barbara Boxer (D-CA) told Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice that she has nothing to lose in Iraq because she has no "immediate family" serving. Rice, as always, kept her cool despite having to once again endure the type of personal insult that liberal Democrats seem to love slinging about. (Never mind the fact that we will all lose something if the situation in the Middle East is not resolved. Al Qaeda is playing for keeps. We need to do the same.)
As today's NY Post editorial page notes:
The junior senator from California ap parently believes that an accom plished, seasoned diplomat, a renowned scholar and an adviser to two presidents like Condoleezza Rice is not fully qualified to make policy at the highest levels of the American government because she is a single, childless woman.
And:
The vapidity - the sheer mindlessness - of Sen. Boxer's assertion makes it clear that the next two years are going to be a time of bitterness and rancor, marked by pettiness of spirit and political self-indulgence of a sort not seen in America for a very long time.
As a long-time supporter of "women's rights," which one would logically think includes the right to choose a demanding career instead of marrying and having children, Boxer's hypocrisy is stunning. But coming off Nancy Pelosi's focus on "the children" at last week's swearing-in ceremonies, I suppose we shouldn't be surprised. The Democrats are going to milk "the children" for all they can. (This new political tool is somewhat amusing, considering their stance on children in utero.)
Boxer's assertion also slams our military professionals: adults, not children, who make the decision to join the armed forces fully aware of what the stakes are. (And fully aware that they swear to defend and protect ingrates like Boxer.) Yes, all soldiers are someone's children. But so are those who join police and fire departments. Would Boxer suggest that they not be sent out on patrol or out to fight fires because, if they die in the line of duty, their parents would be sacrificing them? The whole notion is ridiculous.
Somehow, when Americans voted for "change" last November, I don't think the change they were looking for was a sharp drop in civility and common sense. But as the NY Post noted, we're in for a heaping helping of nastiness from a party that, even in victory, can't play nice.
Crowned Queen of Chutzpah and Hypocrisy
On a tip from Cookiewrangler
Show Comments »
simnply disgusting...
she has done this before...
Boxer treated the first elected President of Afghanistan, in the most disgraceful manner.
what in the hell are people supporting this unethical party for?
they like slander, taxation, corruption?
Posted by: hnav at January 12, 2007 12:39 PMThe FACT is Barbara Boxer FIRST stated that her own children were too old and her grandchildren too young for Boxer to be feeling a personal sacrifice.
It was a professional discussion, NOT a catfight.
Be a little more accurate.
Posted by: Monica at January 12, 2007 02:39 PMHaving seen and heard enough Of Barbara Boxer it is my less then professional belief that she is suffering from an inferiority complex that compels her to say and do things for attention.
Posted by: learner at January 12, 2007 02:44 PMBut do either of those points have a place in the debate? As I stated, parents don't send their children off to war. The children, as adults, make a choice to join the armed forces knowing full well that they may be deployed to battle. We are not talking about a draft (which would still be involving adults, BTW), we are not talking about marching 10-year-olds off to war, as happens in places around the world:
http://hrw.org/campaigns/crp/index.htm
We bring our children up with the hopes that they will live their adult lives responsibly. You may not always like the choices your children make, but once they become adults, your job is done, and it's their turn to live their own lives.
If Boxer thinks the war is wrong, that is one thing. To constantly drag emotion-laden reasoning into the debate does nothing to enlighten, but muddies the process.
Posted by: Pam at January 12, 2007 02:50 PMCan you imagine if Rice was part of a Democrat administration and a Republican lobbed that beauty at her?
The radical feminists would be taking to the streets screaming "sexism"!
Of course you realize this is merely a variation on the tired "chickenhawk" meme.
Boxer has zero class. I might even quantify that in terms of negative numbers.
Posted by: Gary at January 12, 2007 04:23 PMThe POINT Monica is that Senator Boxer had no business bringing up the subject of either her own or Dr. Rice's personal life in the context of this hearing because our military are all VOLUNTEERS. I am deeply offended by her remarks and I HAVE someone in harm's way right this moment. It is just another way in which Senator Boxer (and others of her ilk) make one set of rules for themselves and then they want to apply a different standard altogether to anyone who doesn't walk in lockstep with them.
Senator Boxer has the IQ of lettuce and has only succeeded because she is from California. Any other state (except maybe New York and Massachussetts) would reject her candidacy and have hysterical laughter while doing it. And it's bad enough that Senator Boxer is a bonehead - she has a nasty and vicious temperament along with it. I've observed her over a long period of years because until 13 years ago, I lived in California (and campaigned against her).
Posted by: Gayle Miller at January 12, 2007 04:27 PMWhat 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.
Posted by: cutter at January 13, 2007 09:56 PMA couple of points:
1. The argument Senator Boxer and Cutter above makes is the moronic "Chicken-Hawk" argument. Having someone in the service or having military experience is not a prerequisite for making decisions in US Politics. If it was, Senator Boxer should shut up since she has neither.
2. The US has a little thing called civilian control of the military and it works pretty darn good. I'd suggest that before anyone uses the chicken-hawk argument again they check out life under a military dictatorship.
3. Senator Boxer's children are younger than me and I am currently serving in the military, so how is it they are to old? Maybe Senator Boxer should start speaking "truth" before she tries speaking "truth to power".
Posted by: Soldier at January 14, 2007 12:27 AM
Senator Barbra Boxer has about as much class as Rosie and the Donald. Having severed in the United States Air Force (now retired) I would hate to have Barbra Boxer making any military decision.
Posted by: Jim at January 14, 2007 03:04 AM
