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

[Petra-O IX]

Nice to have you on board again Dragoon, I've been thinking about you lately and have wondered if you would be involving yourself in the dialogue about the war in Iraq.
There have been camparisons of Iraq to Viet Nam and many believe that we left Viet Nam before the job was done yet Viet Nam does not make itself a threat to the U.S.

I believe that everything that can be done in Iraq has been done and America has achieved a victory in lots of ways in that country
I do believe that if America wanted to unleash all it's might it could decimate Iraq but that would require destroying many of Iraq"s natural resources that we value. It would also cause disrupting the delicate balance of peaceful relations we have with other countries (Russia and China to name a few).
I believe also that if America was to leave Iraq that you would be seeing countries in the Mideast beating their chest claiming a victory while fearing the might of America. I believe that our country has demonstrated that we can and will fight the just war but it is up to the people of Iraq to fight for their country , we cannot continually veiw these people as being helpless without us being there to train them.
We will always have the threat of terroisim no matter what even if we were to totally destroy Iraq but if we were to leave and if many can say that Iraq compares to Viet Nam then how can one say that they will be a viable threat even though Viet Nam has not been a threat since we left .
Sincerely Dragoon it is good to see you back maybe we will kick up a little dust on this issue but in the end I will always value your opinions and you as a brother in Christ.

 

[Dragoon68]

Thanks Rocko9 for the kind words!

North Viet Nam was not a specific threat to America but Communism around the world certainly was and viewed very seriously in that era. By taking a stand in Viet Nam we helped curb its growth in Southeast Asia. In that respect we won something. In the beginning we boldly took on the fight claiming "we'd bear any burden and pay any price" but when it became unbearable at home and things didn't go as smoothly as we'd hoped we were very pleased to leave it behind by signing a "peace" treaty forced upon our friends. In the end South Viet Nam lost that war because their enemy was stronger especially with the continued support of its allies under cover of the treaty. We did nothing when the terms of that treaty were blatantly disrespected by those enemies even though we'd promised that we would. We just wanted to forget it all and we're content to write it off as a Vietnamese problem. We sure didn't keep our word and many people suffered greatly because of it. By this action we lost a lot of respect around the world and the result went down in history as our loss. All our individual and corporate failures took center stage in the world wide press. Our enemies took historical note that America seemed not to have the will to continue a prolonged fight nor hold together amidst self criticism of its own fallibilities.

Afghanistan and Iraq were not specific threats in the sense of armed nations posed to strike America's heartland but terrorism with its radical Islamic backing breeding in the area was and is an active threat to America that had struck deeply into our homeland as well as abroad in recent times. By taking a stand there we put the world on notice that we would do so and they'd we take the fight to them whever they were. Once again we told the world we'd do whatever it took for as long as it took. Iraq, with it's tyrant at the helm, was a prime source of support for terrorism and, as proved by previous actions, a serious threat to the region. We also believed, even if by flawed evidence, that this unpredictable dictator had the impending means to launch biological warfare upon us. We solved that problem even though we've beat ourselves silly over it. Iraq certainly needs to be responsible for their own nation and they have been taking a more active role as every day passes. I don't think the positive results get nearly enough press. The troops kept telling us that but we won't listen to them because we enjoy the negative news report far more. Iraq certainly does have problems and reforming the nation is not an easy for them. A complete and lasting peace is still elusive with serious discord amongst their own factions. There have been disappointments. There have been individual and corporate failures and, once again, our own press has eagerly spread the word. Our enemies exceedingly appreciate this news knowing well that America can be its own worst enemy turning its freedoms into a weapon of self destruction! Even with terrorism defeated the roots of it in radical Islam beliefs are likely to be difficult to destroy as evidenced by others in that fight longer than us. So all that just makes the fight that much more challenging but no less avoidable.

We have established a foothold in the region and we've made it known to the world that we will act even when many other nations won't and don't want us to. We should maximize it! We've drawn the terrorists of the region into the fight and we've killed many times more of them they have of us. We've forced several nations to play their hands. We've rid Iraq of Saddam's regime and given the people of Iraq a chance to do something positive with their government in hopes it will be a long term improvement. Some of them have embraced this opportunity thrilled at the chance of representative government. Others have capitalized on the chaos of war to cause more trouble. It's not over yet and it's going to be a long hard fight. We'd better have the will to continue it even for generations beyond our own. We'd better not be spoiled by our world of instant success and gratification. Our enemies sure aren't.

 

[carpro]

Ahhhh....

The big picture and the long view.

Anathema to politicos scrambling for power for today.

Thanks for a good post.

 

[Daisy]

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

True enough even if no one said you did. However, you jumped into the fray readily enough to defend the right-wing lie.

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

Yeah, same age as you and you're all growed up. They are nonetheless someone's children.

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:

She didn't attack Rice. She included Rice in the same category as herself. To continue to pretend that this was an attack is disingenuous crossing into deceit.

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

She did not call Rice a "dried-up old maid". You tried put those words in her mouth, no pretending you didn't - the post is still there.

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:

No, that's not my mistake - I've been quoting her actual words to contrast with the lies being told.

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

Preferred but not part of the actual job.

Afghanistan and Iraq were not specific threats in the sense of armed nations posed to strike America's heartland but terrorism with its radical Islamic backing breeding in the area was and is an active threat to America that had struck deeply into our homeland as well as abroad in recent times. By taking a stand there we put the world on notice that we would do so and they'd we take the fight to them whever they were.

Hello, I hope you're well.

The Taliban and al Qaeda were specific threats. They were in Afghanistan, but not Iraq. Now, since the invasion, al Qaeda has a heavy presence in Iraq and the Taliban is making a comback in Afghanistan.

We've rid Iraq of Saddam's regime and given the people of Iraq a chance to do something positive with their government in hopes it will be a long term improvement.

Plunging the country into war, chaos and destruction of the infrastructure is not giving the common people as very good chance of influencing this tenuous, unstable government for the better, imo.

 

[777]

True enough even if no one said you did. However, you jumped into the fray readily enough to defend the right-wing lie.

If it's the "lie" that Boxer made another personal attack, it's no lie.

Yeah, same age as you and you're all growed up. They are nonetheless someone's children.

Aren't we all?

She didn't attack Rice. She included Rice in the same category as herself. To continue to pretend that this was an attack is disingenuous crossing into deceit.

Okay, then Barbara Boxer lied when she said:

"When you really don't know what to say about a specific, you just attack the person who is asking the questions," Mrs. Boxer told CNN.

She did not call Rice a "dried-up old maid". You tried put those words in her mouth, no pretending you didn't - the post is still there.

This was the post?

So in effect, she's calling Condi Rice a dried-up old maid, therefore she has no perspective on the war. Only women that have borne a child are qualified to have an opinion, since they haven't "paid a price". Not even an abortion or two under Condi's belt, hmmmm.

I stand by that.

No, that's not my mistake - I've been quoting her actual words to contrast with the lies being told.

The keep up the good work. I'm afraid there's more to come, this is Barbara Boxer, after all.

Preferred but not part of the actual job.

Ditto for Sec. of State. Have a nice day!

 

[Dragoon68]

Hello, I hope you're well.

The Taliban and al Qaeda were specific threats. They were in Afghanistan, but not Iraq. Now, since the invasion, al Qaeda has a heavy presence in Iraq and the Taliban is making a comback in Afghanistan.

Plunging the country into war, chaos and destruction of the infrastructure is not giving the common people as very good chance of influencing this tenuous, unstable government for the better, imo.

Thanks Daisy! I'm doing well and shouldn't complain at all because I'm very blessed by all the the Lord has provided. I hope you're also well.

 

[The Galatian]

Of course not. Being a liberal, she probably didn't even realize that anyone would take a reference to childlessness as an insult.

 

[Daisy]

If it's the "lie" that Boxer made another personal attack, it's no lie.

It sure is. I've quoted the actual words and what you claim she said - no match, no personal attack.

Aren't we all?

Of course, but you are the one claiming that referring to them as such is saying that we are "sending a five-year-old into battle". You can't have it both ways.

Okay, then Barbara Boxer lied when she said:

Full quote:

I gave Dr. Rice many opportunities to address specific issues. I had the quotes on the boards there, and I showed her what she said.

For example, she said the aluminum tubes that were being sought by Saddam Hussein could only be used -- could only be used -- for nuclear weapons. And it is very clear that that wasn't so, and she should have known that at the time.

And she refused to answer it. Instead, she said I was impugning her integrity.

You know, it's a very good debating technique. I mean, I've been in this debating business for a while now. And when you really don't know what to say about a specific, you just attack the person who is asking the questions.

You know, I also asked her questions about her statements that Saddam Hussein trained al Qaeda operatives. And I showed her that the State Department had a little map out there about a month after 9/11 that said there was absolutely not a trace of al Qaeda in Saddam Hussein-controlled Iraq.

Now, we're all glad Saddam is gone. You know, he's a dictator, and as far as I'm concerned he can rot. That's not the point. The point is we went into a war based on these statements that she made, and she could have addressed that.

She didn't address it. She turned and attacked me. It's fine; I don't care. But she has not corrected the record, and I worry about somebody who had a chance to correct the record who didn't do so.

CNN Transcript (linkie)

In context, Boxer was the questioner and Rice the attacker. In taking the words out of context, you are trying to pretend that Boxer said she was attacking Rice. See the difference?

This was the post?

The words from the post, yes.

I stand by that.

Why as it obviously isn't true?

The keep up the good work. I'm afraid there's more to come, this is Barbara Boxer, after all.

Yeah, and there are Boxer bashers at large sowing lies and distortions.

Ditto for Sec. of State.

Uh no, it's an actual part of the job:

All foreign affairs activities -- U.S. representation abroad, foreign assistance programs, countering international crime, foreign military training programs, the services the Department provides, and more -- are paid for by the foreign affairs budget, which represents little more than 1% of the total federal budget, or about 12 cents a day for each American citizen. This small investment is key to maintaining U.S. leadership, which promotes and protects the interests of our citizens by:

• Promoting peace and stability in regions of vital interest;
• Creating jobs at home by opening markets abroad;
• Helping developing nations establish stable economic environments that provide investment and export opportunities;
• Bringing nations together to address global problems such as cross-border pollution, the spread of communicable diseases, terrorism, nuclear smuggling, and humanitarian crises.

State Department Organization Page (linkie)

Have a nice day!

Thanks, I will.

 

[777]

Of course not. Being a liberal, she probably didn't even realize that anyone would take a reference to childlessness as an insult.

Being a liberal, she probably just didn't care.

Barbara Boxer
January 15, 2007

I think Barbara Boxer’s getting a bum rap.

Unless you’ve been on the moon, you know Boxer’s under attack from the right-wing hate machine for taking on Condi Rice last week.

Talking about who would pay the price for escalation of the war in Iraq, Boxer first told Rice: “My children are too old, and my grandson is too young. So I’m personally not going to pay the price.”

Then she continued: “You’re not going to pay any particular price, as I understand it, with an immediate family.”

And for that Boxer’s being accused of being anti-feminist, anti-single women, anti-professional women.

Give me a freakin’ break. First of all, what Boxer said is true: Neither Boxer nor Rice are going to send a son or daughter to fight in Iraq.

Second, the larger point she was making is also true: Namely, that there is no shared sacrifice among Americans in Iraq. Just a few families have been asked to pay the price for all the rest of us.

And that starts in the White House. If George Bush really wants all Americans to support sending more troops to Iraq – why haven’t Barbara and Jenna put on the uniform?

That’s my parting shot for today. I’m Bill Press.

http://www.billpress.com/blog.html

There ya go. Somebody needs to tell him there's no draft, how could Bush send them to war if he wanted to? This is just old.

Cry cry cry.

 

[The Galatian]

Originally Posted by The Galatian
Of course not. Being a liberal, she probably didn't even realize that anyone would take a reference to childlessness as an insult.

Being a liberal, she probably just didn't care.

True. It's an insult only to people for whom childlessness is shameful. All she was saying was that having a child of draft age, makes one more concerned about pointless wars.

I can assure you, that is true.

 

[Daisy]

Of course not. Being a liberal, she probably didn't even realize that anyone would take a reference to childlessness as an insult.

First off, it isn't.

Secondly, she didn't make a reference to childlessness - the reference included any immediate relative - parent, sibling or child - or significant other.

Thirdly, Boxer put Rice in the same category as she put herself. Do you think she was insulting herself?


ETA: posted before your post above.....um, never mind.

 

[Daisy]

There ya go. Somebody needs to tell him there's no draft, how could Bush send them to war if he wanted to? This is just old.

He didn't say he had to send them, he asked why they hadn't gone. I think Press's point was silly, but get it right if you're going to criticize it.

Cry cry cry.

Yeah but you're the one crying about how mean ole Barbara picked on poor little Condi, so....

 

[777]

True. It's an insult only to people for whom childlessness is shameful. All she was saying was that having a child of draft age, makes one more concerned about pointless wars.

I can assure you, that is true.

You may know that's true, but how would she?


I'm not going to nitpick this anymore, you think her remarks were acceptable and understandable, I don't. Impasse reached.

 

[The Galatian]

You may know that's true, but how would she?

Observation.

I'm not going to nitpick this anymore,

Good idea. It was a silly complaint in the first place.

you think her remarks were acceptable and understandable,

I'm a parent, and I love my kids.

I don't.

I guess there must be a reason for that.

Impasse reached.

It appears so.

 

[777]

Vicious little flying pattern ya got there, Boxer and Press aren't alone.

The original:

you think her remarks were acceptable and understandable, I don't.

Translation:

My original quote:

you think her remarks were acceptable and understandable,

which was then broken up as:

you think her remarks were acceptable and understandable,

And the non-answer:

I'm a parent, and I love my kids.

Further parsing...


I don't.

If I was an admin, I'd ban you on the spot for this:

I guess there must be a reason for that.

Beyond the pale indeed.

 

[Daisy]

My original quote:

you think her remarks were acceptable and understandable,

which was then broken up as:

you think her remarks were acceptable and understandable,

And the non-answer .....

Hmm, I don't quite get the difference.

 

[777]

Of course you don't.

you think her remarks were acceptable and understandable, I don't.

Part 1:

you think her remarks were acceptable and understandable,

And the non-answer:

I'm a parent, and I love my kids

.


Part 2:

I don't.

His "reply":

I guess there must be a reason for that.

One or the other.

 

[The Galatian]

Vicious little flying pattern ya got there

You might want to tone it down a bit yourself. Getting mean and aggressive here is a bad decision for a lot of reasons, not the least of which is the fact that you aren't very good at it when you try.

you think her remarks were acceptable and understandable, I don't.
We all got that. I pointed out that her remarks are acceptable and understandable to me, because I'm a parent, and I love my kids. You knew this. Everyone else did, too. So why play it differently?

If I was an admin, I'd ban you on the spot for this:

Barbarian writes the "bannable" phrase:
I guess there must be a reason for that.

My suggestion that there's a reason you don't think it's acceptable is perfectly within the board rules. I could have been a lot more blunt than I was. Do yourself a favor; if you don't like Irish tag, don't play the game.

 

[777]

You might want to tone it down a bit yourself. Getting mean and aggressive here is a bad decision for a lot of reasons, not the least of which is the fact that you aren't very good at it when you try.

you think her remarks were acceptable and understandable, I don't.
We all got that. I pointed out that her remarks are acceptable and understandable to me, because I'm a parent, and I love my kids. You knew this. Everyone else did, too. So why play it differently?



Barbarian writes the "bannable" phrase:
I guess there must be a reason for that.

My suggestion that there's a reason you don't think it's acceptable is perfectly within the board rules. I could have been a lot more blunt than I was. Do yourself a favor; if you don't like Irish tag, don't play the game.

Don't you patronize me.

 

[Daisy]

My original quote:

you think her remarks were acceptable and understandable,

which was then broken up as:

you think her remarks were acceptable and understandable,

Sorry, I still don't see how "you think her remarks were acceptable and understandable" can be said to be broken up from "you think her remarks were acceptable and understandable". I just don't get that.