Boxer to Rice - beyond the pale....for mean

Yeah, like in the British House of Commons.

 

Coulter is not a Senator. Nor is she a Senator speaking to a person that holds the honored and important office of Secretary of State.

But, for democrats, being a Senator today must not mean what it used to mean. Decorum and respect doesn't seem to matter to many of them any more.

Boxer is a disgrace to the office.

 

What she said wasn't vicious or particularly personal.

Some people can find evil in anything. To call that vicious or a low blow is simply reaching for something, anything, bad to say about Boxer. Why bother with such a misplaced attack?


I believe the right-wing machine chose this issue to distract from all the facts Boxer is bringing to the forefront concerning Rice's culpability in the drive to invade Iraq.

 

Same applies to Bush. He doesn't have a dog in this fight. Closest his daughters have gotten to Iraq is South America. Maybe the daughters should join the CSO and go to Iraq and entertain the troops. fat chance of that!

I'd rather see my kids in Canada than Iraq.

 

Boxer brought it on herself and her buddies aren't too happy about the distraction.

"Some Democratic Senate staffers complained privately that Ms. Boxer’s exchange with Ms. Rice allowed the Bush administration to turn the tables on Iraq critics and sidestep the larger issue of the almost uniform opposition to the president’s new plan to send an additional 21,500 U.S. soldiers to Iraq."

She's not only a disgrace. She's stupid.:laugh:

 

Sure, she dared to give Rice a hard time.

Only if the right-wing can keep up the noise on this ridiculous farce.

She's neither a disgrace nor stupid. She's right.

She was right back before this administration invaded Iraq and she is right now that this administration is mired in a possibly unwinnable situation. She's right and the right-wingers can't tolerate that.

 

What almost no one except a diehard liberal can tolerate is a US Senator who turns every policy debate into a personal attack at the expense of good manners and good taste.

I've known for a long time that Boxer was not the sharpest tack in the box. I just didn't know how small minded and vindictive and ill mannered she was.

Condi's reaction:


"In the interview, Ms. Rice said that at first, she didn’t understand what Ms. Boxer was saying. “It didn’t actually dawn on me that she was saying, ‘you don’t have children who can go to war,’ ” she said. “Which seems a rather strange comment, to be quite frank.”

Ms. Rice has more class in her pinky than Boxer can even comtemplate having.

 

People who throw around personal attacks do so for one of several reasons. It could be that they don't know enough about the issue(s) at hand to have a intelligent discussion, it could be that they are threatened by the person whom they are attacking, or it could be because they want to get attention. Either way these kind of remarks make the person who made them look very bad. I don't know if Boxer was trying to take a shot at Condi or if her comment just came out wrong. I don't know (after all she did say that she did not have any children in the war either). Personally I don't have any children, brothers, or sisters in Iraq. I have some friends at church who are in Iraq from time to time, I have a cousin who has been to Iraq. However I, and I imagine this is true for Condi Rice as well, take every loss personally. I hate the way the media adds up the death toll like it is some sort of board game, and I hate the way some of the deaths have been used for political purposes.

Btw. I don't believe we should give one more American soldier in defense of Iraq or the Iraqi people. They have had their chance at a new life, the vast majority of Iraqis have failed to take that, so now we need to leave them to the fruit of their national failure.

 

I think this is a good description of the way most people felt immediately upon hearing or reading Boxer's comments:

"The junior senator from California apparently believes that an accomplished, 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."

 

Except this was not a personal attack nor was it in bad taste.

You people say it's low and disgusting to say that the military and their families pay the price, not politicians like Rice and Boxer? I find that an exceedingly odd point of view.

Pure spin unadulterated by facts.

At first, she hadn't been scripted by her handlers, now she has. Great.

That's Dr. Rice to you, bub.

Sen. Boxer is right and right-wingers are having twisty fits.

 

Correct. And she certainly earned the respect that comes with the title.

Someone should tell Boxer.

 

Classic liberal debating "techniques" in this thread. The big theme: take control.

Change the subject as quick as you can, attack the other poster .

Again, refocus the topic on the other poster, then attack, and state an obvious fact

Tell them they're too trivial and small-minded, unlike us

Pointing out an obvious fact, deflecting criticism away for original target

Personal counterattack

trying to put things in another context

Dismissive and arrogant

take control and define the argument.

Distortion, accuse the other side of "pure spin"

Define and distort 'till ya drop

accuse them of parrotting and misunderstanding the "too complex"

Attack the other poster, deflect attention

Right about what? That only parents with grown children should make military policy, except for anti-war liberals like herself?

 

This is same old same old when you touch a nerve with right wingers...the truth

For years now it is rumored that Condi Rice is gay and the right wing want to keep that suppressed and what Boxer did and she played hardball (which you must do against the incompetent bush culture that is hurting our nation).

1. Boxer politically included herself but at the same time is trying to stop the re emergence of Rice as a come back kid since she has been buried politically because of Iraq and the lame brain statement she made about jets hitting buildings back in 2001.

2. What Boxer said was true and nothing worse than what Laura Bush said ....yes Laura Bush!






Dr. (Condoleezza) Rice, who I think would be a really good candidate, 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.

??Should Laura Bush now apologize for saying much more about Condi's personal life than Barbara Boxer has said? I mean, Laura Bush just suggested that single women aren't capable of being president without a good man helping them out.??

My comment: which only leads to conclusions of gay rumoring as well such as what Boxer did.

The White House and right wingers have some other reason for freaking out about the fact that a sitting US Senator mentioned that Condi Rice has no immediate family that might serve in Iraq.
They freaked out because for years there have been rumors - unsubstantiated from what I know - about Condi's true sexual orientation. She doesn't appear to date men. She's around 52 years old and has never been married. Her life's dream is to become the commissioner of the National Football League. And she had a very strange exchange on FOX News a few years back in which one of the FOX hosts seemed to be trying to set Condi up on a date with a female anchor at FOX .

None of this proves that Condi is a lesbian. But it explains why there are rumors about Condi, rumors about which the White House is most certainly aware.

Which brings us back to our original question: Why are the White House and conservatives so freaked out about this innocuous quote from Barbara Boxer? Larua Bush said the same and even worse since it was back when Condi was riding high the family values people did not need to hear that it only puts pause in their voting minds.


Most important it is about the war


3. What Daisy said is very valid Iraq has gotten that bad and the executive branch could continue on unfettered to do damage to our nation ..so Patriots must pull out all stops to stop the incompetence...bush in my view is dysfunctional but knows Jesus and the civil war inside of him could choose to ignore our nation and continue on with war and death and leave it un-responsiblely to the next President to clean up his mess which makes me righteously angry that he would do a premeditated selfish act such as that...again the bush culture of incompetence and mean spiritedness to hurt our nation.
Rumors of war with Iraq and Syria are everywhere on the net. and bush is ignoring the will of the American people
so he goes the way of LBJ and provokes war. So those in the know in Washington watching all this unfold must push back and Thank you Jesus for Barbara Boxer and nailing the truth on the chicken hawks who want perpetual war to keep cronies and contractors rolling in money.


So if the rumors are growing that Condi Rice will bump Cheney very soon and position herself for the V.P. or even run against Boxer in California...Boxer just wants people to know with the support of what Laura Bush said
​

that leads to the gay rumoring and that is fair game for the right wing voter crowd ..who want you to have a family or at least a boyfriend.

But I think the main reason is number 3 that war and rumors of war have gotten dangerous under the bush culture who
seem to ignore the will of the people along with the checks and balances of congress.



Good for Boxer but will it stop the bush culture of ignoring the will of the people and causing more war and death with them personally having no stake.

bottom line Boxer is doing her job and being a Patriot imho...the stakes are that high ladies and gentlemen and men, women, and children are dieing and will die if no accountability ever comes to the bush culture.

So blow up her words right wingers and try to change the subject but why not blow up Laura Bushes words as well????

 

Well yeah.

That's cute~~~ You're trying to make this about me instead of answering valid arguments. Your entire post is beautifully ironic example of your doing precisely what you falsely acuse me of doing. :laugh:

I did not attack you, I pointed out that you were attributing words to Boxer that you know she didn't say. That was distortion on your part. Pointing out your, um, mistake is on topic, not changing it.

Save for the last sentence, your entire post is an attempt to refocus the topic on me.

The "obvious" fact - that what Boxer said was true - has been apparently deliberately overlooked in this tirade against her. It bears stating and restating.

A deliberate distortion on your part - I said this attack on Boxer is about a trivial matter, which it is. I did not say nor do I think that the right-wing is either trivial or small-minded. "Small-minded" is your word and thought alone; attributing that to me is wrong on more than one level.

You need to recant this.

Obvious facts about the OP, such as Boxer saying that neither she nor Rice have an immediate family member in danger in Iraq, needs pointing out when they are being ignored.

Your entire post is an attempt to focus on me rather than the points I have presented, namely that Boxer put Rice in the same category as she put herself.

There was no personal attack on my part; I attacked your argument. You used the words "a dried-up old maid" which is an insulting, misogynistic phrase. Boxer didn't say that nor did she imply it as she put Rice in the same category as herself which is those who are not going to pay a personal price.

It was also you and not Boxer who brought specualtion of abortion into the issue. Why would you do that?

True, I was trying to find a context where the right-wing attack would be valid - the only one I found was contrary to reality.

As befits dismissing an unwarranted, clownish attack based on a phoney argument. The right-wing position is that Boxer attacked Rice becasue Rice has no children, but that is totally bogus as Boxer put Rice in the same category she put herself - those not paying a personal price.

Well yeah.

No distortion on my part. Pretending that

"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, within immediate family. So who pays the price? The American military and their families, and I just want to bring us back to that fact."​

=

"You're a dried up old maid"​

is pure spin and distortion.

If you disagree, point out how - using actual facts rather than pure rhetoric.

You have yet to address a single actual arugment or say anything on topic. Is that what you mean by define and distort?

Um, I haven't. You seem to have made this accusation with no factual basis whatsoever. Making things up and pretending another poster said it is wretched debating technique. There is even a name for it - strawman.

There is another name for it, forbidden to use here.

Again, no attack on my part, but this entire post of yours is one long attack and deflect.

Rice's title is Dr. not Ms. Sen. Boxer addressed her thusly throughout her questioning. Presumably, carpro meant to be, uncharacteristically, PC and feminist - I'm guessing to contrast with Sen. Boxer's supposed anti-feminist statement. Boxer showed more respect to Rice by using her proper title than Rice's defender did. Pointing this out is neither an attack nor a deflection.

At last, an actual argument! Whoohooo!

However, you are wrong on both points. First, the issue was not who should make military policy, it was who pays the price.

Second, Boxer included herself with Rice that neither of them were the ones, that the military and their families were.

 

And as far as I recall you are on the only poster on this board who has ever brought this rumor up. And you keep repeating it.

And, as a Christian, you should be deeply ashamed of yourself for doing so.

 

Does DU have a direct link to this place?

Oh, so now you contend that the Senate session was about who'd paid the biggest price in a war? Isn't that kind of obvious? The soilders???

They're all around my age and they all volunteered. It's not the same thing as sending a five-year-old into battle, and you know that.

Barbara Boxer used to be a housewife, a rich limousine liberal housewife, that is. She doesn't understand someone like Condi Rice and never will. This isn't the first time she's insulted Rice at all, the conservative female minority thing must really get under her skin.

This exchange, which you probably inspired to make that tsumani thread, is just another example of Boxer going personal and emotional on Rice:

http://www.sfgate.com/cgi-bin/article.cgi?file=/c/a/2005/01/18/RICEBOXER.DTL

Again, typical liberal debating techniques, her remarks are on record and speak for themselves. But at least there's someone else in the world that can't understand this:

LOL, Barbara Boxer lecturing someone else on the necessity of tact.

 

I wouldn't know.

No, that is not I contend. Yes, it should be obvious who pays the biggest price, so why you making such a fuss about her statement?

Has anyone said or implied otherwise?

More likely, she's opposed to Condi Rice's role & actions in the Iraqi invasion as she maintains she is. Why would you attribute racism to her? Do you think that is a legimate debate tactic or mere mud-slinging?

Well, that's the darnedest thing about this whole brouhaha - her words are on record and obviously don't match what the right-wing attack dogs are saying she said. Did they/you think no one would check?

While there is irony in that, Rice is up for Secretary of State which encompasses the diplomatic corps.

 

I didn't make the title thread. I didn't break the story.

Yes..."sending our children into battle", all of the "children" are adults that volunteered.

Boxer has made it clear all along that she opposed the war in Iraq. This isn't the first time she's made an emotional, personal, attack when she had to defend. During the confirmation hearings about two years ago:

http://www.washtimes.com/national/20050123-112502-7061r.htm

As in putting words in her mouth? She does that to herself, no shift blamey here.

They're making the mistake of trying to figure out what Barbara Boxer's point is this time. Your mistake is that remarks are on record and, as Boxer herself says:

http://www.sfgate.com/cgi-bin/article.cgi?file=/c/a/2005/01/18/RICEBOXER.DTL&type=printable

Diplomacy is also a preferred quality in a U.S. Senator.

 

Senator Boxer comments to Secretary Rice, and her questions - or, rather, statements to the media audience in general - demonstrate that, in company with so many of her liberal friends, she has this completely wrong. Her line follows the thinking that if people are dying so we must stop fighting. The question should have been "Who will pay the price if we don't have an absolute and complete victory in Iraq and over terrorism in general?" and the answer is "America" - the generations to come.

War is about defending the nation against an evil that can not be addressed by civil means in order to secure or maintain the peace and security which was bought with blood. We're facing such an evil right now and some of best are taking a first hand stand against it. The Senator does not understand that service to the nation is a yielding of self in exchange for the continued security of this and future generations.

To suggest that only those with family involved in the actual fight have a right to decide the matter of war is shallow and ridiculous. The nation, in fact, demands the service of its citizens when needed. It can, indeed, call upon any one of us. For the present our military is staffed with volunteers but they are still serving because the nation requires it.

The risks range from mere inconvenience to serious injury or death. Everyone who's called to serve knows this is the case and does it because they know the nation expects it of them. They don't do it for personal gain because there is none!

Those serving and their families may indeed pay a "particular price" as have many before including the very first who suffered just to create this nation. The choice does not rest with the individuals nor their families. The choice rests with the nation. Certainly those who serve and those who give so much of themselves are due the respect of the nation for their service. They also deserve the support of the nation for the causes for which we send them to fight instead of the constant doubting and second guessing. The families of those who've suffered are certainly due our understanding and comforting for their loses. No one but our enemies enjoys seeing their pain.

Those who serve, and who have family who serve, must also be every mindful that if it did not fall upon them it would fall upon someone else. Everyone's child is a precious to them as another's are to them. No matter how painful, they have no special preemptive vote over the will of the nation. No one serving has any special right to choose what they will or will not do.

We'd all best realize our enemy is serious - deadly serious - and we'd better be tougher than they are. We'd best outlast them and be perpared to suffer doing it and, hopefully, continue to make them suffer so much more that they decide to quit - not us - or they aren't enough of them left to continue the fight. There's going to be some dying involved in that.

The duty is simply to serve if called. The duty of all is also to give support to those who serve including the assurance that what we've asked them to do is worth the price they may have to pay.

The greatest of honor is due those who do more than duty calls and so many have.