?

Log in

BACK DOOR BOY IN A FRONT DOOR WORLD
OUTSIDE OF SOCIETY - THAT'S WHERE I WANT TO BE
This one is AWESOME! 
14th-Jan-2007 11:55 pm
Pro Life
In a clip from This weekend's McLaughlin Group, Newsweek editor Eleanor Clift defends Sen. Barbara Boxer's questioning of Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice at a Senate committee hearing on the war in Iraq.

Conservative pundits had accused Boxer of inappropriately mentioning Rice's marital status and the fact that she did not have children or grandchildren eligible for service as a way of demonstrating that neither of them would pay a personal price for the Iraq war.

At the hearing, Boxer included herself in the description of those who would not 'pay a personal price.' With children too old and grandchildren to young to be eligible for service in Iraq, Boxer asked, "So who pays the price?" The American military and their families," she said, answering her own question.

Newsweek editor Eleanor Clift
defends questioning of Condi Rice
by Senator Barbara Boxer

Comments 
15th-Jan-2007 06:12 am (UTC)
I think it was entirely appropriate for Sen. Boxer to make her point. The cabal running this fiasco is too detached from the reality of the war. They can try to claim empathy for the families of those serving but then why would they disregard the counsel of the generals, the bi-partisan commission or the electoral voice of the people.
And Ms Rice is patently lying - any military operation must have an analysis of what the costs will be in life and dollars - although for this group I'm sure the political costs trumped everything else in their thoughts. Once Bush said he wanted to accomplish "X" the next thought would have to be what do I need to have in place to do it. What else did he take so long to consider?
15th-Jan-2007 09:59 am (UTC)
If they would try to claim empathy for the families of those who serve, I would ask them why they try to hide the coffins from the media, instead of treating them with the respect and recognition that fallen war heroes deserve, rather than treating them the way a factory treats embarrassing waste that exceeds EPA standards by burying it and hoping nobody notices.
15th-Jan-2007 03:52 pm (UTC)
I think they think it would enrage us and not want this war. Like no one notices the fact that these people are not coming home. I agree with you; the fallen need to be addressed with respect and recognition. Neither side has the right to showboat those coffins or hide them. Those images - or lack thereof - are used for political reasons, and that sickens me.

And it enrages me to think these soldiers, who willingly put themselves in harm's way, bound by duty, are coming home maimed, waiting forever for their benefits.
15th-Jan-2007 08:07 am (UTC)
I heartily agree with brindledbear--it was entirely appropriate for Senator Boxer to frame things the way she did, *especially* since Miss Condi is one of the people responsible for the mess. The Senator was talking to people who view our soldiers and marines as "assets"--expendable by definition, to be used up on a mission that has never been defined, by a president who keeps moving the goal line on a field without hash marks or yard lines, and by a party that *insisted* prior to this that our armed forces under *previous* commanders-in-chief should never be put in harms way without an exit strategy and precisely-defined objectives. The junior senator from California very deftly reminded us that these "assets" are real people...something the administration and the 109th Congress has ignored in their rush to push their neoconservative agenda down the throats of the world's population. They are squealing like stuck pigs BECAUSE they know they are painted into a corner by their own doing...and their bullshit of assuming a conclusion to thoughts expressed by the non-Republic non-neocons--like they have done to the Dems for *years*--is so transparent that it would be laughable if the overall situation they've single-handedly created in Iraq weren't so tragic.
15th-Jan-2007 08:19 am (UTC)
One other thing, besides my wish that Eleanor Clift would run for elected office--there have been several polls reflecting that a large majority of the public is opposed to W's "surge" (let's call it for what it is: throwing thousands more Americans into the meat grinder for no good reason with no exit strategy or measureable goals). But there hasn't been anything in the polls about the intensity of opposition: I'm hearing a LOT of people who weren't too engaged before who are *PISSED* about W's newest attempt to snatch defeat out of the jaws of re-deployment. Maybe it IS time to start impeachment proceedings against Bush and Cheney, and let Nancy run the show.
15th-Jan-2007 12:55 pm (UTC)
Go Ms Clift!

Also, what I think is telling is that the overall tenor on that group in the clip is to acknowledge that the war is not going well. I don't think that always would have been the case. It seems like even Buchanan isn't thrilled with it, though he apparently sees no way out. For McLaughlin himself to essentially agree with Boxer is, in my mind, quite something.

And finally, I agree that Ms Rice is either woefully uninformed or else is lying; projects like wars don't get undertaken without an estimate of how effective they would be at solving the problem, and an enstimate of how many lives could be lost in the process. To say she has no idea. . . well, she may not, but somebody does.
15th-Jan-2007 03:45 pm (UTC)
Since when is it an offense NOT to have children? Not to mention the Senator included herself to make the argument that the two women speaking have no immediate family in harm's way out in Iraq; what is so offensive in the statement "you don't have any husband or children," which is not what she said at all, but what she MEANT. That becomes offensive to Repubs who are still entrenched in the mentality that that is the highest of women's position in life (although, granted, motherhood IS extremely important!)? Who made Condi feel that that was an affront?

If someone comes up to me and says, "you have no children, you may not have a handle on the importance of hot lunches in school," I may have to either A.) Express a concern for the well-being of kids whether I'm a mom or not, or B.) admit that it doesn't probably hit home as hard as it does a parent or guardian with 3 kids in school, but to be offended by someone pointing out the obvious? What is also known as the truth?

WTF?

But I have to admit, when Clift says that Cambodia happened 30 years ago (in reference to the idea that the U.S. pulling out of Iraq will be the same as when the U.S. pulled out of Cambodia), and that was an entirely different time in history, what does she have to say to Democrats who pull out the spectre of Viet Nam when discussing this war?
This page was loaded Jul 27th 2017, 2:51 pm GMT.