Can\’t these women just get along? Short answer: no. Many will remember Boxer
going
for Rice\’s jugular in 2005 over the Iraq war. Well, the love loss continues.
But never fear, the New York Post is here. They\’ve really done it
this time.
Honestly, what are they talking about?
Oh right, that.
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 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.
Childless, right, the worst crime a woman can commit! That\’s especially true for conservatives, at least usually. Now, it\’s NYP to the rescue. Puh-leaze.
But wait a minute. Boxer isn\’t saying Condi isn\’t \”fully qualified\”
to make policy because she\’s child free. She\’s saying Condi doesn\’t
appreciate the ramifications because she has no children, so Mr. Bush\’s policies
will have no affect on her immediate family. Condi\’s kids won\’t pay the price
because she has none.
Is that a \”low blow\”?
Being child free by choice myself, I think there is some truth to the fact
that if you have no children it\’s hard to understand what it means to be a parent. However, that being said, knowing
the military as I do, as well as my husband\’s children, I have no problem understanding
the depth of misery knowing your kid is going to fight in a war or pay the price
for policies that doom future generations to suffer from Bush\’s policies.
The trouble with Condi is that she is a presidential lap dog, regardless of the consequences.
But this Boxer baby flap being blown up in this headline? They are just
fishing for sympathy, while trying to make Democrats out as the bad guys for
blaming Bush and his people for the mess we\’re in. A mess, let me remind everyone, that they are ready to make worse because Bush and Condi can\’t admit this is a disaster.
However, if the New York Post thinks Boxer is tough, I\’m glad they don\’t watch Charlie
Rose. Republican Senator Chuck Hagel was a guest last night and his performance took yesterday\’s
hearings and amped it up to a level I\’ve not seen since the Watergate hearings. Scathing indictment of Bush doesn\’t come close to a description.
Condi has no kids. Bush has no conscience. They\’re both leading us into
full scale escalation in the Middle East, with a strike on Iran next. Period. I\’d say Boxer could not deliver a blow
low enough for these people.
But ultimately, Rice could not avoid quarrels. Hagel, a Vietnam veteran, angrily condemned the \”escalation\” of the war. \”To ask our young men and women to sacrifice their lives to be put in the middle of a civil war is . . . morally wrong. It\’s tactically, strategically, militarily wrong.\” \”I don\’t see it, and the president doesn\’t see it, as an escalation,\” Rice replied.
Hagel looked stunned. \”Putting 22,000 new troops, more troops in, is not an escalation?\”
\”Escalation is not just a matter of how many numbers you put in,\” Rice ventured.
\”Would you call it a decrease?\” Hagel pressed.
\”I would call it, Senator, an augmentation.\”
UPDATE (1:15 p.m.): TIME has Boxer\’s statement. As an aside, O\’Reilly is evidently going to jump on this tonight. Ratings, baby, anything for ratings.
Comments are closed.