Originally Posted By Darkbeer <a href="http://www.nypost.com/seven/01122007/postopinion/editorials/boxers_low_blow_editorials_.htm?page=0" target="_blank">http://www.nypost.com/seven/01 122007/postopinion/editorials/boxers_low_blow_editorials_.htm?page=0</a> >>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." Breathtaking. 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. <<
Originally Posted By Dabob2 <But even to suggest that Condoleezza Rice is not fit to serve her country because she is childless is beyond bizarre.> What's bizarre is that that was Boxer's assertion. Obviously, it wasn't anything like that. She observed that NEITHER she nor Rice had immediate family in the war zone. She could have said the same thing to a male Secretary. This is another lame attempt to generate outrage where none is warranted. Very typical of the NY Post, and papers like it.
Originally Posted By cmpaley >>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......<< You mean like the eight years from 1993 to 2001?
Originally Posted By SingleParkPassholder I see nothing wrong with Boxer's line of questioning. Here's the part that kills me: "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." Prior to serving with Bush II, she was at Stanford, where she was universally known to struggle in her job. She served in a lower level capacity in Bush I prior to that. To paint her as an "accomplished diplomat" is solely the work of someone giving their slanted opinion. What a joke.
Originally Posted By gadzuux Did boxer say that rice is "not fit to serve her country" for ANY reason? No, so no apologies necessary. Rice got beat up in the senate yesterday, which is fitting given her pivotal role as one of the architects of this war. Some people seem to be concerned about matters of propriety and deference. The senate foreign relations committee is more concerned with accountability - finally. <a href="http://sfgate.com/cgi-bin/article.cgi?file=/c/a/2007/01/12/MNGDLNHJV11.DTL" target="_blank">http://sfgate.com/cgi-bin/arti cle.cgi?file=/c/a/2007/01/12/MNGDLNHJV11.DTL</a> EVEN GOP SENATORS RIP RICE ON IRAQ Hostile lawmakers question her credibility, blast Bush plan >> Republican support for President Bush's Iraq policy shattered Thursday as top administration officials ran into a wall of skepticism and even damnation of his plan to send more troops to Iraq. Hostility was especially intense toward Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice at the Senate Foreign Relations Committee. Rice called the troop increase an augmentation, angering some senators. Senators of both parties clearly have wearied of her analyses, and, one after another, even normally quiescent backbench Republicans questioned her credibility. "I have to say, Madam Secretary, that I think this speech given last night by this president represents the most dangerous foreign policy blunder in this country since Vietnam," Sen. Chuck Hagel, R-Neb., said of Bush's plan to add 21,500 troops to secure Baghdad in concert with Iraqi forces. "If it's carried out, I will resist it." More surprising was the grilling Rice took from Sen. John Sununu, a New Hampshire Republican facing re-election in 2008, and Alaska Sen. Lisa Murkowski, who said she agreed with Sen. Barbara Boxer, D-Calif., that Great Britain's announcement of troop withdrawals leaves the United States isolated in Iraq. Ohio Republican Sen. George Voinovich, a former supporter of the president's Iraq policy, told Rice he had "bought into (Bush's) dream. And at this stage of the game, I don't think it's going to happen." << So in short, republicans can save their indignation for something less important. The proposal to send yet another 20k american soldiers into the hellhole of iraq doesn't appear to be going down well - with congress or with the public - with the notable exception of orange county.
Originally Posted By DAR <<This is another lame attempt to generate outrage where none is warranted. Very typical of the NY Post, and papers like it.>> Yes and papers like the NY Times and Washington Post never did such a thing.
Originally Posted By Dabob2 <<This is another lame attempt to generate outrage where none is warranted. Very typical of the NY Post, and papers like it.>> <Yes and papers like the NY Times and Washington Post never did such a thing.> Not nearly so often. I live in NY and the Post really is a joke.
Originally Posted By friendofdd The Senate could do it's business a lot more effeciently if the committee hearings were not televised. It is much harder to posture for voters on the radio 'cause the sound bites don't show your steely-eyed resolve to be the most ethical politician on Capital Hill.
Originally Posted By DAR <<Not nearly so often. I live in NY and the Post really is a joke.>> Newsflash just about every newspaper is a joke in this country, whether or not they lean to the left or the right.
Originally Posted By Dabob2 Most are not too good, but there are still some fine ones left, luckily. Part of me wonders if, with so much available online and a greater percentage of the population going online all the time, if they'll go the way of the political pamphlet and broadsheet, or if we'll still have daily papers 50 years from now.
Originally Posted By cmpaley >>And 1964 - 1993?<< I was not referring to the Democratic Congress, I was referring to the Republican party's shameful behavior over the eight years of the Clinton Administration. I remember that, from day one, it was about "getting Clinton." The hatred and vitriol that could be heard from right-wing radio (and later FAUXNews talking heads) was palpable.
Originally Posted By friendofdd I realize that, CMP, but it started with Nixon and continued through Reagan/Bush. Although both sides didn't care much for Carter. My point is that it is not new and both parties are at fault.
Originally Posted By ecdc >>Part of me wonders if, with so much available online and a greater percentage of the population going online all the time, if they'll go the way of the political pamphlet and broadsheet, or if we'll still have daily papers 50 years from now.<< I really hope not, though it's a definite possibility. I've given up my local Salt Lake Tribune, owned by Dean Singleton who owns about 80 gillion other newspapers, for the New York Times recently. The difference is *enormous*. I know conservatives complain the Times is liberal, but it's national and international coverage is top-notch. I can't see myself going back.
Originally Posted By ecdc BTW, the criticism by Boxer is 100% valid. It wasn't a personal attack on Rice, anymore than Kerry's comment about Mary Cheney was a personal attack. To have policymakers, both Democrat and Republican, making life and death decisions without any way to relate it to themselves is ridiculous.
Originally Posted By friendofdd Perhaps the decisions should be made by concensus and only those having an immediate family member in the armed services could partake in the discussion and voting. The rest of us are not qualified.
Originally Posted By gadzuux 70% of americans oppose sending additional troops to iraq. In a wild coincidence, 70% of americans also disapprove of bush in his iraq effort - and have for quite a while now. Obviously the views of the american people are irrelevant to this white house - they answer to a different master.
Originally Posted By DlandJB She observed that NEITHER she nor Rice had immediate family in the war zone. She could have said the same thing to a male Secretary. This is another lame attempt to generate outrage where none is warranted. Very typical of the NY Post, and papers like it.>>> That was my take. It is starting to appear that the strategy on the right (whether GOP sponsored or not) is to hit/attack/nitpick everything right out of the gate that the new Congress is trying to do. Try to get the stories to focus on these nitpicky things rather than on the bigger pictures and paint the new Congress as ineffective. Can't say I am surprised, but I am dismayed that all that seems to matter is politics and not policy.
Originally Posted By gadzuux Republicans are uncomfortable with actual oversight from congress. They haven't had it for six years, and now that it's a "new day" they're uncomfortable. The reason is because deep down inside they know that the actions of this white house can not withstand close scutiny.
