Friday, January 12, 2007

Simply breathtaking.

Rice appeared before the Senate in defense of President Bush's tactical change in Iraq, and quickly encountered Boxer.

"Who pays the price? I'm not going to pay a personal price," Boxer said. "My kids are too old, and my grandchild is too young."

Then, to Rice: "You're not going to pay a particular price, as I understand it, with an immediate family."


Simply breathtaking.

We scarcely know where to begin.

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.

It's hard to imagine the firestorm that similar comments would have ignited, coming from a Republican to a Democrat, or from a man to a woman, in the United States Senate. (Surely the Associated Press would have put the observation a bit higher than the 18th paragraph of a routine dispatch from Washington.)

But put that aside.

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...

... But even to suggest that Condoleezza Rice is not fit to serve her country because she is childless is beyond bizarre.

It is perverse.

Sen. Boxer needs to apologize.

And she needs to do it today.

I'm not holding my breath.

Wow. Just...Wow. Unfortunately, I think this is just the tip of the proverbial iceberg of what is yet to come from this Congress.
I heard about this, listening to Rush while I was playing taxi for my mom. Nothing the Dems do or say will surprise me anymore - disgust me, yes, surprise me, no...
First, there's the Democrats' assumption that our military are children - incapable of making their own decisions - being sacrificed by some diabolical adult figure (President Bush) for an impossible goal. Next, if only families who have relatives fighting this war have any right to decide how this war is to be fought, then the Democrats have NO say in it at all.
Methinks this is an alternate version of the 'chickenhawk' put-down. Instead of requiring a war-supporter to actually be willing to sign up for the service, this argument requires war supporters to actually have children under threat. Echoes of that old Vietnam canard - "Who are YOU to ask OTHER PEOPLE's children to die for a lost cause." - and just as vacuous.

It goes hand in hand with Michael Moore asking Congressmen whether they have children serving in the military, or the "absolute moral authority" of Cindy Sheehan. But hey, this is Barbara Boxer we're talking about here so no surprises.
Maybe Boxer's been reading Heinlein's "Starship Troopers" in which a basic premise is that the only full citizens allowed to vote are those who have served in the armed forces.

Then again, this is probably just a childish, pointless attack by one who should be careful what she asks for. An astute and agile news organization could have already finished a poll asking military families if they want a democrat-flavored surrender in Iraq. I've no doubt suchy a poll would reflect overwhelming support for victory and disgust at surrender monkeys.
Post a Comment

This page is powered by Blogger. Isn't yours?

Site Meter

Prev | List | Random | Next
Powered by RingSurf!

Prev | List | Random | Next
Powered by RingSurf!