Sen. Boxer slams Dr. Rice's lack of children

[RegBarc]

This was pretty distasteful. I would have guessed she was going to run for President with an attitude like this.

Fox News Story (http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,243359,00.html)

"Who pays the price? I'm not going to pay a personal price. My kids are too old and my grandchild is too young," Boxer said. "You're not going to pay a particular price, as I understand it, with an immediate family. So who pays the price? The American military and their families."

I have no idea why it's relevant if she has kids or not. Having military-aged children is not a qualifying demographic to be empathetic. Shame on Senator Boxer for the ad hominem.

[JPriller]

Senator Boxer's statement on the matter is:

"I spoke the truth at the Committee hearing, which is that neither Secretary Rice nor I have family members that will pay the price for this escalation. My point was to focus attention on our military families who continue to sacrifice because this Administration has not developed a political solution to the situation in Iraq."

I think it's a stretch to make this into something to get worked up over, sorry.

[Mikkel_Knight]

So, you need to have children in order to execute the full powers of the Presidency (in order to have a full understanding of the death of "our children"?)

Who is this nutjob?

[Gus]

She didn't slam Rice for not having children. She merely said that neither she (Senator Boxer) nor Rice will make a personal sacrifice in the fighting of this war, as neither have any immediate family members who are eligible to join the military. Reading more into it than that is just spoiling for a fight.

[Martin Tupper]

Translation of Boxer's statement: "Easy for you to say, you don't have family members fighting over there (and neither do I)."



Translation of FOX's statement: "Hey look over there! I think I see something shiny."

[RegBarc]

She didn't slam Rice for not having children. She merely said that neither she (Senator Boxer) nor Rice will make a personal sacrifice in the fighting of this war, as neither have any immediate family members who are eligible to join the military. Reading more into it than that is just spoiling for a fight.
I think it's a slam, because having a family member fight is not a necessary thing you need in order to make sacrifice or service.

Boxer saying brining it up to Condi was itself spoiling for a fight, and a shot across the bow. She knew what she was doing.

[RegBarc]

Translation of Boxer's statement: "Easy for you to say, you don't have family members fighting over there (and neither do I)."
If that's what her statement amounts up to, it's a logical fallacy anyway.

[Martin Tupper]

If that's what her statement amounts up to, it's a logical fallacy anyway.
Maybe it is, and maybe it isn't. I haven't gotten my hands on a full transcript to be able to know for certain. But I do know that the furor over the exchange is laughable and is intended to shift focus away from an actual discussion of the situation in Iraq.

[smak]

Translation of Boxer's statement: "Easy for you to say, you don't have family members fighting over there (and neither do I)."



Translation of FOX's statement: "Hey look over there! I think I see something shiny."

Translation of right wingers outrage:

"No, she's not a lesbian, no way, no way, she's not a lesbian, no way."

-smak-

[jgickler]

She knew what she was doing.

I don't think that Boxer has show enough intellect for you to make that assumption.

IMO, she has a big mouth, but not much in the brains department, my guess is that the question was fed to her by some aid who probabily meant it as a dig. But I can believe that Boxer herself did not mean anything by it, she was just reciting her lines.

[RegBarc]

I don't think that Boxer has show enough intellect for you to make that assumption.

IMO, she has a big mouth, but not much in the brains department, my guess is that the question was fed to her by some aid who probabily meant it as a dig. But I can believe that Boxer herself did not mean anything by it, she was just reciting her lines.
I'm not quite sure she is as sumb as people portray here. It takes brains to be a Senator in and of itself, it's more of a question if they are using the Senator post for personal gain (as I mentioned her quasi-nomination to run for Presidnet).

[RegBarc]

Maybe it is, and maybe it isn't. I haven't gotten my hands on a full transcript to be able to know for certain. But I do know that the furor over the exchange is laughable and is intended to shift focus away from an actual discussion of the situation in Iraq.
I have this little inkling we all knew this was sort of inevitable when debating what is the best decision.

[pseudonym]

Reg, as moderator I'd appreciate it if you'd move this to the "eye roll" thread where it belongs.

[Gus]

I think it's a slam, because having a family member fight is not a necessary thing you need in order to make sacrifice or service.Rice is certainly doing a service for her country (or a disservice, depending on your point of view). But Boxer was talking about a specific type of sacrifice that Rice is definitely not making. You, on the other hand, are intimately familiar with the sacrifice that some American families are making. Boxer's point is that Rice cannot fully understand what it means to make that sacrifice. She can be empathetic. We all are. But empathizing with what the families of the men and women serving in Iraq are going through and truly understanding what they are going through are two very different things. Rice cannot really know what it means to make that sacrifice. It has nothing to do with her being childless.

[aindik]

The reason we have a volunteer army is that the "forced sacrifice" of a war is borne not just by those fighting, but by everyone in the form of higher taxes to pay the higher wages needed to attract people to volunteer.

Everyone, that is, except people who pay no income taxes.

Not saying that the troops don't make sacrifice. But their sacrifice (while commendable) is voluntary.

[RegBarc]

Rice is certainly doing a service for her country (or a disservice, depending on your point of view). But Boxer was talking about a specific type of sacrifice that Rice is definitely not making. You, on the other hand, are intimately familiar with the sacrifice that some American families are making. Boxer's point is that Rice cannot fully understand what it means to make that sacrifice. She can be empathetic. We all are. But empathizing with what the families of the men and women serving in Iraq are going through and truly understanding what they are going through are two very different things. Rice cannot really know what it means to make that sacrifice. It has nothing to do with her being childless.

When Boxer was talking about her children and how they're too young, then flows directly into comparing Rice and her in the same exact aspect, it was "cutting off the nose to spite the face" type of deal. If I were on the other end of the microphone and she directed that at me, I'd feel that it was a shot at being childless (which I am for now).

[Mikkel_Knight]

So I still don't get it...

Is Boxer saying that only a Commander-In-Chief who has children (of military-required age) (or anyone in the position to influence/make a decision) should be allowed to deploy the U.S. Armed Forces?

[RegBarc]

So I still don't get it...

Is Boxer saying that only a Commander-In-Chief who has children (of military-required age) (or anyone in the position to influence/make a decision) should be allowed to deploy the U.S. Armed Forces?
Her secondary point is that people without a vested, immediately family interest have no moral authority to dictate that decision.

And her point falls apart because, while President Bush's daughters have not served in the military, President Bush himself was a commissioned officer in the Texas Air National Guard.

[pseudonym]

Her secondary point is that people without a vested, immediately family interest have no moral authority to dictate that decision.

And her point falls apart because, while President Bush's daughters have not served in the military, President Bush himself was a commissioned officer in the Texas Air National Guard.
So the military has finally gotten so desperate that they've reactivated Bush's commission and are deploying him to Iraq? Cause otherwise you aren't making a bit of sense.

[RegBarc]

So the military has finally gotten so desperate that they've reactivated Bush's commission and are deploying him to Iraq? Cause otherwise you aren't making a bit of sense.
No, it does make sense, he served in the military and earned his commission. He knows sacrifice, as he made it to serve with the military.

[aindik]

No, it does make sense, he served in the military and earned his commission. He knows sacrifice, as he made it to serve with the military.

Boxer's point was solely that only people whose relatives are going over there now feel the brunt of the "surge." Bush doesn't fall into that category.

[RegBarc]

Boxer's point was solely that only people whose relatives are going over there now feel the brunt of the "surge." Bush doesn't fall into that category.
But I think that, while they actively have no horse in the race so to speak, that in order to empathize in the truest sense of the word, they'd need to understand exactly what it means to sacrifice.

Empathy meaning that not only can you sympathize with someone, but you've been there before and been in their shoes.

[aindik]

But I think that, while they actively have no horse in the race so to speak, that in order to empathize in the truest sense of the word, they'd need to understand exactly what it means to sacrifice.

Empathy meaning that not only can you sympathize with someone, but you've been there before and been in their shoes.

Boxer wasn't talking about who "empathizes." She was talking about who "pays the price." Her answer is, people who go over there and their immediate families, and nobody else.

Of course, taxpayers don't count as paying any sort of price in the mind of Senator Boxer.

[RegBarc]

Boxer wasn't talking about who "empathizes." She was talking about who "pays the price." Her answer is, people who go over there and their immediate families, and nobody else.

Of course, taxpayers don't count as paying any sort of price in the mind of Senator Boxer.
As Rice pointed out with Jim Angle: "That the only question is are you making good decisions because you have kids?"

[aindik]

It's a dumb point. But the point, on its own, doesn't "fall apart" because Bush served in the Air National Guard. That service doesn't make him "pay" any "price" related to the increase in troop deployment.

[RegBarc]

It's a dumb point. But the point, on its own, doesn't "fall apart" because Bush served in the Air National Guard. That service doesn't make him "pay" any "price" related to the increase in troop deployment.
Boxer not making the point solely about having children or not, but about who can possibly comprehend the sacrifice required during this surge. More of a rhetorical question to make a much larger point. That much larger point was a cheap shot across the bow to Condi, and generally, it's a rhetorical questions who's point that people extend to Bush would not hold up. Despite people's feelings on National Guard service in and of itself (which people seem to not knock on so much any more, thank God), President Bush has worn the uniform and understand sacrifice and Boxer's attack on Bush's plan seems to revolve around not understanding or having a steak in the current troop deployment.

The current troop deployment is a red herring for the general idea of keeping troops in Iraq at all. She wants them out totally, so it's beyond me why she is focusing solely on this specific increase.

[Gus]

When Boxer was talking about her children and how they're too young, then flows directly into comparing Rice and her in the same exact aspect, it was "cutting off the nose to spite the face" type of deal. If I were on the other end of the microphone and she directed that at me, I'd feel that it was a shot at being childless (which I am for now).I still cannot see how one can interpret Boxer's statement that way. I see no implication that Rice's childlessness is an issue. All I see is Boxer saying that you can't understand the sacrifice unless the life of a member of your immediate family is at risk in Iraq.

[aindik]

Boxer not making the point solely about having children or not, but about who can possibly comprehend the sacrifice required during this surge. More of a rhetorical question to make a much larger point. That much larger point was a cheap shot across the bow to Condi, and generally, it's a rhetorical questions who's point that people extend to Bush would not hold up. Despite people's feelings on National Guard service in and of itself.

Again, you're putting this word "comprehend" out there. It's not "comprehend." I can "comprehend" a cost, but that's different from actually "paying" the cost. That's what she's talking about.

[RegBarc]

I still cannot see how one can interpret Boxer's statement that way. I see no implication that Rice's childlessness is an issue. All I see is Boxer saying that you can't understand the sacrifice unless the life of a member of your immediate family is at risk in Iraq.
First, it's irrelevant to the point of sending more troops or not because it's not a logical statement in itself.

Second, it sets a standard for that in order to understand sacrifice, you must have immediate family in Iraq and they must face the distinct possibility of deployment.

[RegBarc]

Again, you're putting this word "comprehend" out there. It's not "comprehend." I can "comprehend" a cost, but that's different from actually "paying" the cost. That's what she's talking about.
I'm trying to find the YouTube of her statements overall, but I interpret her slam as one that addresses the whole military family unit, not just whether the soldier dies or not. That's inclusive of not only death and injury, but all the emotions that come with it.

[Gus]

First, it's irrelevant to the point of sending more troops or not because it's not a logical statement in itself.

Second, it sets a standard for that in order to understand sacrifice, you must have immediate family in Iraq and they must face the distinct possibility of deployment.To truly understand the particular sacrifice Boxer was talking about, yes, you do need to have an immediate family member deployed or facing deployment in Iraq. She was addressing one kind of sacrifice. Others may make other types of sacrifice in the war effort, but the people serving in Iraq and their families make a sacrifice that the rest of us really cannot comprehend.

[RegBarc]

To truly understand the particular sacrifice Boxer was talking about, yes, you do need to have an immediate family member deployed or facing deployment in Iraq.

I disagree. I felt the same way before and after.

[aindik]

I'm trying to find the YouTube of her statements overall, but I interpret her slam as one that addresses the whole military family unit, not just whether the soldier dies or not. That's inclusive of not only death and injury, but all the emotions that come with it.

Sure. To the family member because their loved one is at risk of dying. Not to someone without a family member at a risk of dying (even if such a person served in the military 40 years ago and knows what it's like).

[RegBarc]

Sure. To the family member because their loved one is at risk of dying. Not to someone without a family member at a risk of dying (even if such a person served in the military 40 years ago and knows what it's like).

And this is where my point diverges with yours; Boxer's slam on Condi itself is tacky enough. However, it's also a general slam on the President's plan that's poorly argued itself, and on a side note seems to denote that this plan (the Presidents plan) has a flaw because neither her nor Rice has a personal stake in the matter.

[bigpuma]

Despite people's feelings on National Guard service in and of itself (which people seem to not knock on so much any more, thank God), President Bush has worn the uniform and understand sacrifice and Boxer's attack on Bush's plan seems to revolve around not understanding or having a steak in the current troop deployment.


I'm sorry but during the Vietnam War many children of the rich and powerful joined the national guard to avoid having to go to war. This is why the National Guard was knocked as you say. Since the first Gulf war this is clearlyl no longer the case since we don't have a draft anymore. The National Guardsmen have to be prepared to make the ultimate sacrifice. Bush was never at risk in the National Guard.

[RegBarc]

Bush was never at risk in the National Guard.
Flying a jet fighter during a time of peace is taking a huge risk. And on top of that, he wasn't a coward by fleeing the country or totally avoiding the draft. He actually enlisted in a position that he knew darn well could be federalized.

ETA: After typing the coward thing, I can see how it can be connected to President Clinton, that was not my intention. A generality, it was.

[pseudonym]

So now, on top of trying to make a case that Boxer was somehow trying to insult Condeleeza Rice for not having any kids, you've also set out to convince us that George Bush's Vietnam-era Texas Air National Guard was a selfless sacrifice on his part?

You're ambitious, I'll give you credit for that....

[RegBarc]

So now, on top of trying to make a case that Boxer was somehow trying to insult Condeleeza Rice for not having any kids, you've also set out to convince us that George Bush's Vietnam-era Texas Air National Guard was a selfless sacrifice on his part?

You're ambitious, I'll give you credit for that....
I'm not out to convince any of that, that's just my personal opinion. I don't know military service. I didn't bring myself down to that horrid level to go after Kerry's honorable service, and I won't do it for Bush.

[heySkippy]

How was what she said a slam?

[RegBarc]

How was what she said a slam?
How I feel (http://www.mainsquare.org/showpost.php?p=9743&postcount=6), at least, it was a slam.

[pseudonym]

I'm not out to convince any of that, that's just my personal opinion. I don't know military service. I didn't bring myself down to that horrid level to go after Kerry's honorable service, and I won't do it for Bush.
Refusing to go after Bush's service is not the same as citing his honorable sacrifice in order to argue an entirely different point, as if it were some universally acknowledged truth. It isn't.

Not that your point made any sense either way, as has been pointed out by a few of us.

[smak]

It wasn't a slam pure and simple. Laura Bush said almost the same thing about Condi, something to the effect that Condi couldn't be President because she doesn't have a family to support her.

I know that changing the subject when talking about Condi and her time as SOS, and the horrid job she's done is a given, but this is a Mr Fantastic type of stretch here.

As for Bush's laughable National Guard service, I'm sure the sons of the rich and politicians that were also in his unit would be shocked to know that they had a chance to go to Viet Nam. Wasn't Bush training in a Zeppelin?

-smak-

[BrettStah]

Yeah, I don't see Senator Boxer's statement as a slam against Rice for being childless at all.

[Mikkel_Knight]

Boxer wasn't talking about who "empathizes." She was talking about who "pays the price." Her answer is, people who go over there and their immediate families, and nobody else.

Of course, taxpayers don't count as paying any sort of price in the mind of Senator Boxer.
If that's the case, Boxer really is retarded.

Immediate families pay the price of their loved one being gone. But, employers also pay the cost (and will pay a higher cost when the deployed serviceman returns). The community pays a cost (a Den Master or city councilman or volunteer fireman doesn't do the community a whole lot of good while deployed).

If that's really what she meant, she doesn't deserve the office to which she was elected to.

[Gus]

If that's the case, Boxer really is retarded.

Immediate families pay the price of their loved one being gone. But, employers also pay the cost (and will pay a higher cost when the deployed serviceman returns). The community pays a cost (a Den Master or city councilman or volunteer fireman doesn't do the community a whole lot of good while deployed).

If that's really what she meant she doesn't deserve the office to which she was elected to.Again, she was talking about one, specific price that must be paid. She used the words "personal" and "particular". These words limit the scope of what she was talking about. She simply did not say what people are attacking her for saying.

[pseudonym]

If that's the case, Boxer really is retarded.

Immediate families pay the price of their loved one being gone. But, employers also pay the cost (and will pay a higher cost when the deployed serviceman returns). The community pays a cost (a Den Master or city councilman or volunteer fireman doesn't do the community a whole lot of good while deployed).

If that's really what she meant, she doesn't deserve the office to which she was elected to.
I don't think it is what she meant, but surely the servicepeople and their families are the ones who carry the heaviest burden. Losing a volunteer firefighter is bad; losing a father is much worse.

[JPriller]

Again, she was talking about one, specific price that must be paid. She used the words "personal" and "particular". These words limit the scope of what she was talking about. She simply did not say what people are attacking her for saying.Dick Durbin never called our troops "Nazis" either, and Howard Dean never said there was anything wrong with being a minority and working at a hotel. Neither stopped the rightwingers from working themselves into a manufactured tither over their remarks.

[pgogborn]

The dead tree newspaper I was reading this morning mentioned the story in passing and although it did mention the 'no children' angle in total I have been left with a sightly different impression of what Senator Boxer said.

Perhaps it is Fox News and the White House spokesman Tony Snow who for not entirely honorable reasons are choosing to highlight the no children 'allegation'.

Ewen MacAskill in Washington
Saturday January 13, 2007
The Guardian (http://www.guardian.co.uk/)

Barbara Boxer repeatedly asked her: "Who pays the price?" Ms Rice would not, she went on, because she didn't have "an immediate family". Ms Rice defended herself, saying she often visited families and talked to relatives of victims >
full report (http://www.guardian.co.uk/international/story/0,,1989391,00.html)

Reading the Guardian report I get a greater impression that Senator Boxer was talking about "immediate family" and to me "immediate family" goes far wider than children - it includes brothers, sisters, same sex / different sex husbands / wives / partners, mothers and fathers.

[Pendragn]

Yeah, I don't see Senator Boxer's statement as a slam against Rice for being childless at all.
I saw a snippet of this. While I think the content of the statement could go either way, the delivery is what made it a slam. It was very accusatory, very confrontational. I don't support the war in Iraq. I think Boxer's point, even if it wasn't a slam on Rice was pretty weak, and really has nothing to do with Rice's decision making abilities.

tk

[Michael]

I looked up Mountian out of Mole hill on wiki and this thread was there... :)

[BrettStah]

I saw a snippet of this. While I think the content of the statement could go either way, the delivery is what made it a slam. It was very accusatory, very confrontational. I don't support the war in Iraq. I think Boxer's point, even if it wasn't a slam on Rice was pretty weak, and really has nothing to do with Rice's decision making abilities.

tk
I based my comment on RegBarc's quote in the first post. Does anyone have a link to youtube of the actual exchange between Boxer and Rice?

[RegBarc]

All I found so far was Rice's response; for some reason the YouTube folkes are unusually slow with this.

[Pendragn]

I based my comment on RegBarc's quote in the first post. Does anyone have a link to youtube of the actual exchange between Boxer and Rice?
Sorry, I saw it on the news. I don't have a link.

tk

[heySkippy]

How I feel (http://www.mainsquare.org/showpost.php?p=9743&postcount=6), at least, it was a slam.

Interesting how different people see that statement. For my own part, I pretty much agree with what she said and don't see it as a slam, backhanded or otherwise, against anyone.

[Pendragn]

Interesting how different people see that statement. For my own part, I pretty much agree with what she said and don't see it as a slam, backhanded or otherwise, against anyone.
I don't disagree with the statement (as far as I know Rice doesn't have any children) but if it's not a slam then what is the point of bringing it up? Rice already knew she didn't have any children. The whole reason Boxer said it was to undermine Rice and question her ability to make decisions. If you disagree, then why do you think Boxer said it? Why not say "Secretary Rice, your shoes are black." It's also accurate.

tk

[Martin Tupper]

I don't disagree with the statement (as far as I know Rice doesn't have any children) but if it's not a slam then what is the point of bringing it up? Rice already knew she didn't have any children. The whole reason Boxer said it was to undermine Rice and question her ability to make decisions. If you disagree, then why do you think Boxer said it? Why not say "Secretary Rice, your shoes are black." It's also accurate.

tk
I think Boxer brought "it" up in an attempt to make the administration appear coldly detached from the human costs of the "surge".

[heySkippy]

It was just rhetoric, IMO. Not something to take personally. I feel like she's saying that both her and Rice aren't in a position to feel the most personal and immediate loss because neither has children of that age. I don't think she's saying childless people are heartless bastards, just that they can't possibly be as affected as those who are parents of soldiers.

[Pendragn]

It was just rhetoric, IMO. Not something to take personally. I feel like she's saying that both her and Rice aren't in a position to feel the most personal and immediate loss because neither has children of that age. I don't think she's saying childless people are heartless bastards, just that they can't possibly be as affected as those who are parents of soldiers.
I agree, but why bring it up now? Think of all the times that administrations have sent soldiers into battle. At any of those times did any of the key decision makers like Rice have children whose lives were at stake? Like MartinTupper said, I think Boxer said the comment just to make Rice and the administration about to be a bunch of cold, heartless people. In reality they are no different than the ones that went before them, or the ones that will follow.

tk

[heySkippy]

I agree, but why bring it up now?
Does that presume she hasn't ever said something like that before? I don't pay that much attention, so I don't know.

But mainly I think it's because she's a politician and flapping their jaws is what they do. I heard similar rhetoric during the Vietnam war, that's for sure. I recall Michael Moore asking congressmen outside the capital if they would let their kids join the service towards the end of Fahrenheit 911. Roman mothers probably asked the same of their old men senators 2000+ years ago.

[JPriller]

It was just rhetoric, IMO. Not something to take personally. I feel like she's saying that both her and Rice aren't in a position to feel the most personal and immediate loss because neither has children of that age. I don't think she's saying childless people are heartless bastards, just that they can't possibly be as affected as those who are parents of soldiers.I agree, but why bring it up now? I think that's quite simple - because the administration is escalating the war now. Many, many people had been hoping the administration would listen to the ISG and to the public, but instead they've launched "Stay The Course II".

[JPriller]

Roman mothers probably asked the same of their old men senators 2000+ years ago.I don't know about that, back in Roman times a military officer career was more or less expected of youth in the Senatorial class. For one thing, you needed all the loot you could haul in to throw all the public spectacles (gladiator contests and whatnot) it took to get the public to vote for you.

(sorry, can't help being a history nut, and now back to the regularly scheduled thread... :))

[rhuntington3]

I completely disagree with her. :down:

[RegBarc]

I don't know about that, back in Roman times a military officer career was more or less expected of youth in the Senatorial class. For one thing, you needed all the loot you could haul in to throw all the public spectacles (gladiator contests and whatnot) it took to get the public to vote for you.

(sorry, can't help being a history nut, and now back to the regularly scheduled thread... :))
I'll second this. Military service was not only something expected of the upper class and some plebs, but it was also a way for the dishonorable to fight for their honor.