[QUOTE=acsenray]
Pretty much the entire OP, except from the direct quote of Boxer, is completely fabricated by the New York Post. Astro, please show me where in Boxer’s statements you find anything to support the conclusino that Boxer said that Rice’s childless status “makes her unqualified to hold an opinion about the war.”…
[/QUOTE]
Would you believe the answer to this question is ‘no’? I would.
Boxer isn’t talking about moral authority, she’s just talking about how the “sacrifice” is being born by so few people. I think it was a little odd the way she phrased it, and maybe a bit classless, but the OP (and the Post) have read waaaay too much into that brief clip. People are going to be very passionate about this subject, though, and Rice is thick skinned enough to take it. She’s defending a position that is pretty much indefensible.
BTW, does anyone have a link to the actual transcript? I think it’s pretty clear what Boxer was saying, but maybe a little more context will make it clearer to the OP.
I don’t see much of a debate here, except how the NY Post is now making Wingnut Daily look worthy of a Pulitzer Prize. The OP accurately quoted the only words by Boxer in the linked article. The conclusion that Boxer in some way claimed Rice was not qualified to do anything seems to have been made up of whole cloth by the reporter, make that letterer, in crayons no doubt, of the linked article.
Boxer carefully put herself in the same category as Rice - in fact she put herself there first, then added Rice as an afterthought.
The fact that most of us have no personal stake in this war at all is hardly a new or controversial point.
[QUOTE=pool]
That is the thing about opinions, you don’t have to be qualified to have one. I’m against the war but I think Boxer’s reasoning is complete bullshit. It would be like Rice saying that if you have kids you are unqualified to hold an opinion because you cannot think about the situation logically without your emotions getting involved.
[/QUOTE]
I guess you missed the part where Boxer says that she (Boxer) also has ‘no personal stake’ because her children are the wrong age to be involved, huh.
:rolleyes:
[QUOTE=Maeglin]
This is exactly why this country should bring back the draft.
[/QUOTE]
So we should force adults into a war against their will because their parents support it? :dubious:
Well if all she is saying is that she has no personal stake, so the fuck what? Neither does she and the majority of Americans.
If you define personal stake as having kids in the military of or military age that is.*
[QUOTE=spazattak]
Wow.. That’s some quality journalism right there. Taking:
I don’t see any insults or low-blows in there. I see her making a point that while this isn’t affecting either of their lives directly in terms of their family, it is affecting other people’s families. She didn’t slam Condi for not having kids or anything - just pointed out that since she doesn’t have anyone closely related at that age, she might not be intimate with the damage a protracted war can cause to a family. I really don’t like Barbara Boxer, but I despise this type of ‘journalism’ even more. They made a 3 page story out of a 10 second sound-bite.
[/QUOTE]
What do you expect when someone grabs an “outrage” from Foxnews?
Other “news” on the front page of their site - **#
Bias Alert: Which NBC Biggie Said, ‘Cheney … Always Wants to Kill’?
Was it NBC’s Brian Williams, Chris Matthews, David Gregory, Jeff Zucker or Bob Wright?
**
If it was from an actual news source (rather than “news source”) I might bother finding out what the “…” actually replaced.
-Joe
So the people in Washington are making decisions that don’t really affect them or their immediate families, is this something new?
Marc
[QUOTE=pool]
Well if all she is saying is that she has no personal stake, so the fuck what? Neither does she and the majority of Americans.
[/QUOTE]
Boxer said FIRST that she herself (Boxer) will pay no personal price. The distinction is that Boxer (and the majority of Americans) don’t support making OTHERS pay a price.
[QUOTE=MGibson]
So the people in Washington are making decisions that don’t really affect them or their immediate families, is this something new?
Marc
[/QUOTE]
That’s not the story or the reason for the OP. The story is that the right wing media is dishonestly trying to claim that Boxer made any kind of statement about Rice’s qualifications based on her childless status. I just saw John Gibson on Fox lying through his teeth about what Boxer said and demanding an apology. What a tool.
[QUOTE=Diogenes the Cynic]
I just saw John Gibson on Fox lying through his teeth about what Boxer said and demanding an apology. What a tool.
[/QUOTE]
That’s the sort of thing that pisses me off, lately. I can’t stand it when they manufacture outrage- it bothers me that it works so well, that the average voter can’t spot the obvious political maneuvering.
We need another Joseph Welch (“At long last…”) to call 'em on it. Neither side should be able to get away with that sort of thing.
[QUOTE=Diogenes the Cynic]
That’s not the story or the reason for the OP. The story is that the right wing media is dishonestly trying to claim that Boxer made any kind of statement about Rice’s qualifications based on her childless status. I just saw John Gibson on Fox lying through his teeth about what Boxer said and demanding an apology. What a tool.
[/QUOTE]
John in DC over at Americablog has an interesting theory as to why the right is getting so bent over Pelosi’s comments: I have no idea if Condi Rice is a lesbian
So does this confirm that Rice is, in fact, gay? I can’t imagine any other reason the right-wing and White House would be so up in arms about this.
It’s a standard boilerplate Democratic charge. It’s an invalid one when taken too literally beyond being just a emotional appeal, just like the idea that you need to have served in order to send people into war. But it’s not a particularly exciting or interesting remark, nor is it new.
It’s news because Republicans and FoxNews and drudge are all trying their best to find reasons to attack the Dems in every way possible, and they’ll say or do anything to get there. And it’s news because it was said to Rice, who has long been rumored to be gay (which really got weird when during a FOX appearance, an anchor reportedly jokingly tried to set Rice up with another female anchor)
Seems to me like the noise machine is yelling a little too loudy, a little too soon, because of their fears of what they saw as a potentially damaging accusation for a reason Boxer clearly was not making. Oops.
Beat me to it. That FOX incident certainly is bizarre, isn’t it? I wonder if there is a cite or a YouTube of it?
[QUOTE=astro]
Boxer’s low blow.
I’m not a Bush Admin. cheerleader by an means, but IMO that’s a pretty crass statement. Does Boxer have any justification to offer that as an agrument agaisnt Rice’s moral authority to promote the addition of more troops?
[/QUOTE]
I think Sen. Boxer was only trying to emphasize the fact that “kids” are dying in this failed war, which Ms. Rice is trying to justify for this Administration.
[QUOTE=Squink]
John in DC over at Americablog has an interesting theory as to why the right is getting so bent over Pelosi’s comments: I have no idea if Condi Rice is a lesbian
[/QUOTE]
Boy, that would sure be a surprise to Peter McKay
[QUOTE=Voyager]
Boxer carefully put herself in the same category as Rice - in fact she put herself there first, then added Rice as an afterthought.
[/QUOTE]
Actually, I read it as a double insult: firstly that Rice has had no children herself, never been a mother, Boxer while elevates herself as a mother and grandmother and family person; and secondly that because she’s had no children herself she’s unqualified.
Clever, really.
I DID notice that Boxer failed to ask about the last time Rice left a young lady to drown in a car after driving off a bridge while drunk.
I would have thought that her performance to date would make any question of being “qualified” moot.