Dems Burn A 'kidless' Rice

[stephanie]

'KIDLESS' RICE
By GEOFF EARLE
January 12, 2007 -- WASHINGTON - Condoleezza Rice came under a shocking Democratic attack yesterday - as a childless

woman who can’t understand the sacrifices made by families of U.S. troops in Iraq. In a bitter personal

assault on the secretary of state during her appearance before the Senate Foreign Relations Committee, anti-war Sen. Barbara Boxer fumed that Rice didn't comprehend the "price" of the war.

"You're not going to pay a particular price, as I under stand it, with an immediate family," Boxer (D- Calif.) ranted.

"Who pays the price?" she repeatedly demanded during Rice's Capitol Hill grilling.

"I'm not going to pay a personal price. My kids are too old, and my grandchild is too young . . . So who pays the price? Not me, not you."

Boxer continued:

"You can't begin to imagine how you celebrate any holiday or birthday. There's an absence. It's not like the person's never been there. They always were there, and now they're not, and you're looking at an empty hole."

The unflappable Rice responded at the packed hearing that she well understood the sacrifice of service members and families.

"I visit them. I know what they're going through," said Rice, who has never been married and has no children.

"I talk to their families. I see it. I could never and I can never do anything to replace any of those lost men and women in uniform, or the diplomats, some of whom . . ."

At that point, Boxer cut her off.

"Madam Secretary, please," Boxer said. "I know you feel terrible about it. That's not the point. I was making the case as to who pays the price for your decisions."

Boxer's over-the-top broadside stunned lawmakers and congressional aides.

"We were all just shocked. It was pretty sickening," one GOP staffer said. "I guarantee there were Democrats in there thinking, 'Shut the f- - - up. Just shut up. Stop going overboard.' "
http://www.nypost.com/seven/01122007/news/nationalnews/dems_burn_a_kidless_rice_nationalnews_geoff_earle. htm

This is what you call *CLASS* in the Democrat party...So let me crawl down to their class level...
Condi has more intelligence in her little toe than baba boxer has in her botox puny head....:lmao:

[avatar4321]

If Boxer admits she doesn't pay the price then she should exempt herself from giving any opinion about the war. That is what she is advocating isnt it?

[No1tovote4]

If Boxer admits she doesn't pay the price then she should exempt herself from giving any opinion about the war. That is what she is advocating isnt it?

Well, clearly she can't know what it is like either... but she had a D by her name and they have the magic ability to "feel your pain"... If you have n R by your name and can't know you have a "hard heart"...

Yes, we are a nation run by platitudes and bumperstickers perpetuating stereotypes.

[MtnBiker]

I heard an audio clip of the exchange, Senator Boxer come off as an asshole!

[jillian]

I heard an audio clip of the exchange, Senator Boxer come off as an asshole!

Boxer came off as silly, no question. But Rice came off like a liar with her calling the troop increase an "augmentation" and refusal to call it what it is.

[Abbey Marie]

Boxer's comments were condescending and ironically, quite anti-feminist.

[jillian]

Boxer's comments were condescending and ironically, quite anti-feminist.

OK... I already said she sounded silly. Doesn't make Condi any less of a prevaricator.

[Gunny]

Boxer came off as silly, no question. But Rice came off like a liar with her calling the troop increase an "augmentation" and refusal to call it what it is.

If it isn't an augmentation, then what do you call it?

[jillian]

If it isn't an augmentation, then what do you call it?

Truthfully? It's stay the course under another name. Still the same failed policy. Essentially, Bush is talking about raising troop levels to where they were a year ago. So nothing's changed. Difference is the country isn't behind him and said so clearly on election day.

[Dilloduck]

OK... I already said she sounded silly. Doesn't make Condi any less of a prevaricator.

Condi should have said " well Teddy knows what it's like to kill people--maybe he should be asking me these questions "

but she's far too classy.

[Gunny]

Truthfully? It's stay the course under another name. Still the same failed policy. Essentially, Bush is talking about raising troop levels to where they were a year ago. So nothing's changed. Difference is the country isn't behind him and said so clearly on election day.

He also said the military would be given the "green light" to go after the terrorists/insurgents/whathaveyou's.

If the troop level increase involves a modified/different strategy and tactics, then it is not "stay the course" and remains to be seen if it works.

"Stay the course" has a different meaning apparently to you lefties than it does those on the right. You keep presenting as the same-old same-old when Bush clearly presented in the context of finishing what we started.

The only alternative offered by the left is immediate withdrawal; which, is an unacceptable alternative.

[Bubbalicious]

He also said the military would be given the "green light" to go after the terrorists/insurgents/whathaveyou's.

What have they been doing this whole time so far?

[jillian]

He also said the military would be given the "green light" to go after the terrorists/insurgents/whathaveyou's.

There's the problem. What you have in Iraq is a combination insurgency made up of Iraqis who want us to get out of their country and folk shipped in from elsewhere to stir things up. You also have the Sunni/Shi'a civil war. Try telling the difference between an Iraq who wants us out of their country and someone shipped in. The more people die there, the more they'll support the insurgency just to get us out of there.


If the troop level increase involves a modified/different strategy and tactics, then it is not "stay the course" and remains to be seen if it works.

There isn't anything new. Same ole same ole from a prez who is using our soldier's lives as a political ploy to try to shove his falures onto the Dems.


"Stay the course" has a different meaning apparently to you lefties than it does those on the right. You keep presenting as the same-old same-old when Bush clearly presented in the context of finishing what we started.

Why don't we start by getting rid of that "lefty" garbage. You're not talking to some "peace at any cost" person. I believe there are things worth fighting and dying for. This just isn't one of them and it's totally FUBAR. Time to get our men and women home.


The only alternative offered by the left is immediate withdrawal; which, is an unacceptable alternative.

Who said "immediate"? I was all for the phased withdrawal recommended by Baker's commission.

It isn't the "left" who opposes this war... it's most of the country. Your guy has simply messed up for too long and people don't want him touching anything dangerous anymore.

By the by, whatever gains your guy thought he was going to make by sending 20,000 more of our bravest into harm's way, Blair told him to shove it because he's reducing the Brit's troop level.

[Gunny]

There's the problem. What you have in Iraq is a combination insurgency made up of Iraqis who want us to get out of their country and folk shipped in from elsewhere to stir things up. You also have the Sunni/Shi'a civil war. Try telling the difference between an Iraq who wants us out of their country and someone shipped in. The more people die there, the more they'll support the insurgency just to get us out of there.



There isn't anything new. Same ole same ole from a prez who is using our soldier's lives as a political ploy to try to shove his falures onto the Dems.

Assumption on your part. As far as shoving things off on the Dems, I don't see it.

Why don't we start by getting rid of that "lefty" garbage. You're not talking to some "peace at any cost" person. I believe there are things worth fighting and dying for. This just isn't one of them and it's totally FUBAR. Time to get our men and women home.

No matter how you spell it out, it amounts to "cut-n-run." We can't afford that. But you can't see it because it's as much a political goal on your part as it is a strategic goal on AQ's part.


Who said "immediate"? I was all for the phased withdrawal recommended by Baker's commission.

It isn't the "left" who opposes this war... it's most of the country.

You would be incorrect. What is opposed is how it is being conducted, not the war itself.

By the by, whatever gains your guy thought he was going to make by sending 20,000 more of our bravest into harm's way, Blair told him to shove it because he's reducing the Brit's troop level.

Must you be such a fountain of misinformation? Blair did not tell Bush to "shove it." If Britain reduces its troop levels, who cares? They've been bit players in the game from the beginning.

And before you go painting me with your broad brush, perhaps you should look around the board more and see what I've had to say on the topic. You jump to absolute conclusions way too fast.

[jillian]

Assumption on your part. As far as shoving things off on the Dems, I don't see it.

Well, might be an assumption, but seems pretty clear to me. And I wouldn't expect that you'd see it because you don't look at his actions with the same jaundiced eye that I do.


No matter how you spell it out, it amounts to "cut-n-run." We can't afford that. But you can't see it because it's as much a political goal on your part as it is a strategic goal on AQ's part.

That's a bunch of garbage, IMO. Having had a bit of close experience with the results of terrorism, I can assure you that no one wants AQ to succeed and saying that is just a way to vilify those of us who disagree with you. But what I will say this. I think it is the natural inclination of a soldier to thing military solutions are the only option in the same way that a surgeon will think that surgery is the only medical solution. In both cases, I think it's important to seek a second and third opinion.


You would be incorrect. What is opposed is how it is being conducted, not the war itself.

Same thing to most of us now. Your guy screwed up big and no one has yet given any legitimate miltary objective which would define success.


Must you be such a fountain of misinformation? Blair did not tell Bush to "shove it." If Britain reduces its troop levels, who cares? They've been bit players in the game from the beginning.

Misinformation? Not hardly. Why do you think Blair made his announcement right after Bush's "stay the course" speech. As for "bit players"? The Brits might disagree with you and I think it's unfair to denigrate their contribution. As a matter of fact, if their contribution is so negligible and they were Bush's biggest supporters in his war of adventure, why do you guys insist we ever had a coalition?


And before you go painting me with your broad brush, perhaps you should look around the board more and see what I've had to say on the topic. You jump to absolute conclusions way too fast.

Well, I don't think I've jumped to any conclusions about your views. Please show me where I'm incorrect about your positions and I'll certainly retract any misstatements I've made in that regard.

[avatar4321]

how exactly is the President shoving resposibility for Iraq onto Democrats by taking full responsibility himself? And who on earth is going to trust Democrats with the responsibility?

I just have to also reiterate Gunny's comment on "Staying the Course" meaning something different from Democrats, although I think Democrats try to blur the two when it suits them best.

The fact is we cannot pull out of Iraq without achieving victory. Not only would it be incredibly stupid, but it would open ourselves up to attack. The President is never going to adopt "Run away screaming" as a military strategy. Thus regardless what he does you we will always be "staying the course" because the only option is winning. If we don't win, the death toll is going to be far larger than it is right now. Democrats don't seem to get that, or they don't care. And Im not sure which is worse.

[Gaffer]

I've said it before. The dems hate Bush and anything they can do to making him look bad they will do, including undermining the war and causing casualties among the military. They are in a struggle to get power, which they will only use for their own personal gain. boxer showed a sample of that hatered.

iraq has to be passified before we can pull out. More troops allows that to happen by taking areas and holding them instead of having to pull out and letting the islamist go back in. Bush talked with the iraq govenment and told them, we are going into the militia areas and cleaning them out and they are going to help us. From the way he said it in the speech, it sounded like an ultimatum.

Our enemies: AQ, saddam diehards, ali baba's, sunni militia, shea militia, and finally the paid numbnuts that set explosives or take potshots to make a weeks pay in an hour or two. AQ usually funds these guys.

If its not pasified then the militias will fight it out. AQ will attempt to get control as will iran. Saudi will enter the conflict on the side of the sunni's as will others in the region and we will end up going back into an even bigger clusterfuck than is already there. Personally I could care less if they kill each off. But either iran or AQ will end up in charge and baghdad will become a terrorist haven and base of operations.

So we are staying the course, with augmentation and new rules of engagement. Which includes clearing areas we were previously not allowed to go into.