Boxer to Rice: You don't have children

GMA Highlights Boxer's Jab at Condi's Personal Life
Posted by Mark Finkelstein on January 12, 2007 - 08:22.
As NewsBuster Warner Todd Huston has noted, Sen. Barbara Boxer took an unseemly jab at Condi Rice yesterday.

An interrupting Boxer: "Madame Secretary, please, I know you feel terrible about it; that's not the point. I was making the point about who pays the price for your decisions. 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, with an immediate family."
newsbusters.org...

WOW comedy and politics together! what do ya all think about these remarks?


[edit on 12-1-2007 by conspiracymaster]

Hey It's OK because Rice is a Republican!

If this tasteless insult was perpetrated against a Democrat. Heads would have rolled.

I can't see how people can't see the double standard.

Where is NOW or as I call them NAG (National Association of Gals)? Once again if this happened to a Democrat, I can guarantee they would be talking about how this sets back Womens rights 30 years.



[edit on 12-1-2007 by RRconservative]

maybe it was something that 'just came out' but personal comments are supposed to be left OUT of politics i would like to think.

Barbara Boxer is a twit of the grand order. How insulting...I think she needs to reconsider all those women out there who followed the women's lib and didn't have children - i.e. Condi - and instead chose a different life. I mean, that's what women's lib was originally about; blasting throught the original stereotype, and reaching for levels unheard of, and unacceptable, before.

A woman doesn't need to have children to "pay the price." Dollar to a donut Condi Rice pays the price her way...

And another thought...according to Boxer, she hasn't paid the price, either. So perhaps her price should be voted out of office...her and Dianne "I have a gun but you commoners can't" Feinstein.

Bah. Bah to Boxer.

Regards-
Aimless

Originally posted by RRconservative
Hey It's OK because Rice is a Republican!

If this tasteless insult was perpetrated against a Democrat. Heads would have rolled.


I can't see how people can't see the double standard.

Really? I remember Mccain's dirty personal attack on Hillary Clinton, which had no direct consequences for Mccain's position.

Don't be upset about this little Rice incident.

The way this administration makes decisions that have the potential to ruin so many childerens/parents lives I think they need a bit of a personal hit to understand that they obviously DONT understand the grativity of the events they are putting in place.

How can you say to a panel, you understand the hardships people have to make over this troop withdrawl.

When its not YOUR son or daughter being sent into a war, where victory isnt achievable, and further blood shed is assured?

Your crying because a panelist told RICE she doesnt understand the situation being she doesnt have kids?

Jesus,

How about you jump up and down like a spoilt brat about the fact that 20,000 MORE OF YOUR HARD worker, honest citizens are being sent into this illegial war, with the HOPE they can bring a more positive outcome, when the reality is 20,000 wont do JACK, all it will do is bring MORE coffins home, devestate more lives and put the USA into an even further UNWINNABLE position.

your cyring over a comment?

But you ignore the blatant disregard for your citizens lives?

I ask where your morals are at.



[edit on 13-1-2007 by Agit8dChop]

[edit on 13-1-2007 by Agit8dChop]

@ Agit8dchop

So what you are saying is Rice should resign her position because she has no children?

Condi Rice is the posterwomen for the Women's Rights Movement. She gave up marriage and children to advance her career. This is totally opposite of Hillary Clinton, who had to have a man to be successful. Hillary's future endeavors rely solely on Bill Clinton.

This is not an illegal war. The UN approved this action, and the U.S. Congress also approved it.

The same people who think the War is going badly are the same people who don't want more troops to help out? This is really confusing to me. Well...not really confusing, after all it is all political.

Democrats have to ask themselves if they really want to win this war. I think they would rather our defeat. Words mean nothing, look at their actions.

The UN did not AUTHORIZE a US invasion and occupation.
Check the FACTS!
Just because CONGRESS said so, doesnt mean on the INTERNATIONAL arena the war is LEGAL.
Typical, because YOUR country says its legal, regardless of what the WORLD says, or what LAW says.. you claim its legal.
the world is bigger than the US congress.

I never said condi should resign, your stretching what people are saying.

All I said, was instead of crying like a baby over some stirn words, start crying over the INNOCENT CIVILIANS THAT ARE BEING SLAIN because of this war.

How can you pipe up about a sly comment that really had NO MEANING, yet you cant criticise this massacre that is NOT JUSTIFIED!

And I can gaurantee you this,
had the evidence not of been maniuplated and exaturated congress WOULD NOT of gone along with this war.

How is it after everything that has happened , there are living beings still believing this war was LEGAL and JUSTIFIED.

I thought humans were meant to be INTELLEGENt!

Originally posted by RRconservative
Hey It's OK because Rice is a Republican!

Once again if this happened to a Democrat, I can guarantee they would be talking about how this sets back Womens rights 30 years.

Originally posted by RRconservative
This is totally opposite of Hillary Clinton, who had to have a man to be successful. Hillary's future endeavors rely solely on Bill Clinton.[

Reread your first statement rather than using a weak way of avoiding my reply. I like to know whether you think the same about Bush JR. According to your theory he's become America's president solely because his father enjoys so much influence and is a former president.

Originally posted by RRconservative
This is not an illegal war. The UN approved this action, and the U.S. Congress also approved it.

It is an illegal war. If you think I'm wrong answer the following question: Have there been any weapons of mass destruction found in Iraq, like US authorities claimed - the predominant reason for the congress to approve an invasion?

Originally posted by RRconservative
The same people who think the War is going badly are the same people who don't want more troops to help out? This is really confusing to me.

I noticed that you are kind of a confused person.

Read this external source of a US veteran:

Clearly every military expert understands the 20,000 more troops entering Iraq will not lead to long term security. We have done this before, before, and before that. We now have a carrier group in the region, a battle group on the way, and for the first time that I can remember an Admiral in charge of CENTCOM.

Source

and this

In embracing a new counter insurgency plan in Iraq that calls for an additional 20,000-plus American troops in Baghdad and in Anbar province, Bush took a step he'd hoped to avoid. He publicly disagreed with his generals. The president is especially fond of General George Casey, the commander on the ground in Iraq.

Source

So let´s see, we've:
General Casey
Baker report
Veterans

But hey, if the president says so, it must be right! Those generals have no strategy knowledge.

Originally posted by RRconservative
Democrats have to ask themselves if they really want to win this war. I think they would rather our defeat. Words mean nothing, look at their actions.

This stupid war, your kind of people were so desperately looking for, has only increased the terrorist threat level for the entire (Western) society. I'm directly effected because some warmongering persons in Washington want to play cowboy games, and now you are expecting me to support this war?

No way! This war is lost and apparently some people haven't studied Vietnam well enough. Do you think the US will win the heart and minds of the Iraqis by sending in 20k more troops? Do you think 20k more troops will stabilize the country? If so, you should wake up.




[edit on 13-1-2007 by Mdv2]

@ Agit8edchop

So 18 UN Resolutions condemming Sadamm Hussein means nothing? Or was the UN surprised that someone actually enforced one of their resolutions?

You are agreeing with Boxer right?

You stated "The way this administration makes decisions that have the potential to ruin so many childerens/parents lives I think they need a bit of a personal hit to understand that they obviously DONT understand the grativity of the events they are putting in place."

Sounds like a call for resignation to me? If they don't have a "personal hit" they don't have understanding?

Originally posted by Agit8dChop
I thought humans were meant to be INTELLEGENt!

Humans are intellIgent! Our intelligence is reflected in the fact that we all don't think the same way. I'm not taking either side in this debate because I have already heard it all before in previous threads. I just was a bit perturbed by your angry post.

18 resolutions?

I dont understand this crap.

He had no WMD's.

Dont you get it?
All that hype and FACT and EVIDENCE that the US told the world was lies.
Do you understand this ?

THE UN wanted more time to check the accusastions, because they had NO EVIDENCE to backup what the USA was stating.

do you understand this ?

SO, there fore..
The UN did not authorise MILITARY occupation. They may have had disagreements iwth IRAQ, about them not opening there doors, but the UN Would of slapped more sanctions or continued inspections.
The UN would never of allowed such drastic military action.
Ever.

It Is because the US, invaded so pre-maturely that you now are in a war you CANT WIN.
Because the GOAL, and the REASON for this war, never EXISTED.

So when you say this war was LEGAL, you are talking complete horse raddish.
The only person who claims this was is legal, is president BUSH.

And of course the blind patriotic americans, who would rather follow than question.


And I never said she should resign.
I said winging bloody republicans shoulds stop crying over a sly comment directed at her.
She DOESNT know what it is like to be a parent, when they say they understand the HARDSHIPS this troop surge is causing its nothing but poltiical BS.

and what the Panel is saying, is that because she isnt a PARENT, and her KIDS arent being sent in this TROOP surge, she has NO IDEA what it is like.

if you want to go overboard and say im declaring her resignation, go for it.

but your talking sh1t.

Fair enough lost sailor, I stand corrected.

I just get so damn angry when basic intellegence is lacking.

Back on topic... You'all did notice that Boxer puts herself in the same position as Rice, that is, not having to pay the personal price with her children... Right? So if she meant it as an insult to Rice, she also insulted herself.

I'm not sure what the big insult is, anyway... Pointing out that someone doesn't have kids to die in this war isn't an insult. It's a matter of fact. Sometimes I think people are just searching for something to be offended about. Aren't you the ones usually complaining about all the PC crap? And now you're suggesting that Boxer should be more sensitive and politically correct when speaking to Rice about the war?

If these were men, I doubt you'd feel the same way. :shk:

Originally posted by Agit8dChop
18 resolutions?

I dont understand this crap.

He had no WMD's.

Dont you get it?
All that hype and FACT and EVIDENCE that the US told the world was lies.
Do you understand this ?

THE UN wanted more time to check the accusastions, because they had NO EVIDENCE to backup what the USA was stating.

Seems like it wasn't only Bush that thought there were WMD's

Here's some quote to remind you of that...

"One way or the other, we are determined to deny Iraq the capacity to develop weapons of mass destruction and the missiles to deliver them. That is our bottom line."
--President Bill Clinton, Feb. 4, 1998

"If Saddam rejects peace and we have to use force, our purpose is clear. We want to seriously diminish the threat posed by Iraq's weapons of mass destruction program."
--President Bill Clinton, Feb. 17, 1998

"Iraq is a long way from [here], but what happens there matters a great deal here. For the risks that the leaders of a rogue state will use nuclear, chemical or biological weapons against us or our allies is the greatest security threat we face."
--Madeline Albright, Feb 18, 1998

"He will use those weapons of mass destruction again, as he has ten times since 1983."
--Sandy Bergler, Clinton National Security Adviser, Feb, 18, 1998

"[W]e urge you, after consulting with Congress, and consistent with the U.S. Constitution and laws, to take necessary actions (including, if appropriate, air and missile strikes on suspect Iraqi sites) to respond effectively to the threat posed by Iraq's refusal to end its weapons of mass destruction programs."
Letter to President Clinton, signed by:
-- Democratic Senators Carl Levin, Tom Daschle, John Kerry, and others, Oct. 9, 1998

"Saddam Hussein has been engaged in the development of weapons of mass destruction technology which is a threat to countries in the region and he has made a mockery of the weapons inspection process."
-Rep. Nancy Pelosi (D, CA), Dec. 16, 1998

"Hussein has ... chosen to spend his money on building weapons of mass destruction and palaces for his cronies."
-- Madeline Albright, Clinton Secretary of State, Nov. 10, 1999

"There is no doubt that ... Saddam Hussein has reinvigorated his weapons programs. Reports indicate that biological, chemical and nuclear programs continue apace and may be back to pre-Gulf War status. In addition, Saddam continues to redefine delivery systems and is doubtless using the cover of a licit missile program to develop longer-range missiles that will threaten the United States and our allies."
Letter to President Bush, Signed by:
-- Sen. Bob Graham (D, FL), and others, Dec 5, 2001

"We begin with the common belief that Saddam Hussein is a tyrant and a threat to the peace and stability of the region. He has ignored the mandate of the United Nations and is building weapons of mass destruction and th! e means of delivering them."
-- Sen. Carl Levin (D, MI), Sept. 19, 2002

"We know that he has stored secret supplies of biological and chemical weapons throughout his country."
-- Al Gore, Sept. 23, 2002

"Iraq's search for weapons of mass destruction has proven impossible to deter and we should assume that it will continue for as long as Saddam is in power."
-- Al Gore, Sept. 23, 2002

"We have known for many years that Saddam Hussein is seeking and developing weapons of mass destruction."
-- Sen. Ted Kennedy (D, MA), Sept. 27, 2002

"The last UN weapons inspectors left Iraq in October of 1998. We are confident that Saddam Hussein retains some stockpiles of chemical and biological weapons, and that he has since embarked on a crash course to build up his chemical and biological warfare capabilities. Intelligence reports indicate that he is seeking nuclear weapons..."
-- Sen. Robert Byrd (D, WV), Oct. 3, 2002

"I will be voting to give the President of the United States the authority to use force -- if necessary -- to disarm Saddam Hussein because I believe that a deadly arsenal of weapons of mass destruction in his hands is a real and grave threat to our security."
-- Sen. John F. Kerry (D, MA), Oct. 9, 2002

"There is unmistakable evidence that Saddam Hussein is working aggressively to develop nuclear weapons and will likely have nuclear weapons within the next five years ... We also should remember we have always underestimated the progress Saddam has made in development of weapons of mass destruction."
-- Sen. Jay Rockefeller (D, WV), Oct 10, 2002

"He has systematically violated, over the course of the past 11 years, every significant UN resolution that has demanded that he disarm and destroy his chemical and biological weapons, and any nuclear capacity. This he has refused to do"
-- Rep. Henry Waxman (D, CA), Oct. 10, 2002

"In the four years since the inspectors left, intelligence reports show that Saddam Hussein has worked to rebuild his chemical and biological weapons stock, his missile delivery capability, and his nuclear program. He has also given aid, comfort, and sanctuary to terrorists, including al Qaeda members ... It is clear, however, that if left unchecked, Saddam Hussein will continue to increase his capacity to wage biological and chemical warfare, and will keep trying to develop nuclear weapons."
-- Sen. Hillary Clinton (D, NY), Oct 10, 2002

"We are in possession of what I think to be compelling evidence that Saddam Hussein has, and has had for a number of years, a developing capacity for the production and storage of weapons of mass destruction."
-- Sen. Bob Graham (D, FL), Dec. 8, 2002

"Without question, we need to disarm Saddam Hussein. He is a brutal, murderous dictator, leading an oppressive regime ... He presents a particularly grievous threat because he is so consistently prone to miscalculation ... And now he is miscalculating America's response to his continued deceit and his consistent grasp for weapons of mass destruction ... So the threat of Saddam Hussein with weapons of mass destruction is real..."
-- Sen. John F. Kerry (D, MA), Jan. 23. 2003

RRconservative

You made up all those quotes, didn't ya?



On Boxer:
No WAY did she put herself in the same place..She has kids, they are just older.
and she would know how it felt if she lost one, even though they are older.

Rice is childless, as Boxer put, in her oh so subtle way. Those, are called "digs".

Originally posted by RRconservative
Seems like it wasn't only Bush that thought there were WMD's

And yet, not one of these other people managed to kill hundreds of thousands of people because of what they (mistakenly) thought.... Hmmm...

urrrm, 1998 they said they want to deny him the ability
they didnt say he HAD them
and all the government officials who said he HAS them NOW, well, obviously they are wrong, being he had none..

so whats the point in posting all those quotes when they are all FROM current governemnt members, who lied...

OR from 1998, when they simply said they want to STOP him getting them.

no matter how you spin it.


Bush said he had them, invaded and occupied due to this.
It turned out, all the evidence bush USED, was fake, forged or maniuplated.

Originally posted by Benevolent Heretic

Originally posted by RRconservative
Seems like it wasn't only Bush that thought there were WMD's

And yet, not one of these other people managed to kill hundreds of thousands of people because of what they (mistakenly) thought.... Hmmm...

only because of lack of opportunity.
I think your numbers are exaggerated.

Back on topic.
Does anyone think we'll ever be able to actually fight a war (to win) again, ever?






[edit on 13-1-2007 by spacedoubt]