Third Party & Independents Archives

Barbara Boxer - Out of Line?

Ok.
Condoleeza Rice.
Secretary of State.
Her job description requires her to follow the President of the United States’ Foreign Policy.

Does this give an Elected Official the right to personally attack her?

Boxer voted against Ms. Rice in her confirmation hearing so I guess that gives her free reign to say whatever she wants.
Or does it?
Is Barbara actually defending the safety of our young people in the Military or is this all a Political ploy?
A chance to tug at the heart strings of the American public and gain more support for the anti-war crowd?

We have an ALL voluntary Military.
Granted, alot of us don't see 21 year olds as 'adults', but that is the average age of NEW recruits, and they are NOT 'children'.
Those who join our Military do it for about as many different reasons as there are recruits...

My main problem with what Boxer said and what Kerry implies ... and whoever else says they are just trying to 'keep our young people safe' ... IS .... THEY are in the MILITARY.

Our Military - all of them - are great!
They will take a bullet so the rest of us don't have to.

What happened after Israel flattened Lebanon? Many Nations said they will not send their 'troops' into harms way. Excuse me? Pathetic.

Anyone who thinks that pulling out, or pulling back, from Iraq will make our Military (and the rest of us) safer is just a loon.
I don't want our Military in the middle of a civil war.
I don't believe one can pick and choose where to send troops based on whether we will win, and win quickly, or not.
I don't believe we can send troops the 'European Way' - to keep the peace established by someone elses Military.

Bush believed intelligence reports about WMD's. These reports were wrong. I myself said that he better be right or this will blow up in his face. SADDAM HAD HIS CHANCE TO PREVENT THE WAR AND DIDN'T DO IT. Was he also fooled by international intelligence reports?
Bush gave more reasons for taking out Saddam but they have been lost in the bashing over not finding the WMD's.

We are constantly being told that our young people are dying in Iraq for no reason.
We are updated regularly on body counts, both US and Iraqi.
How many places have we sent our Military and pulled out -ONLY to send them back again when the situation is worse?

I am waiting for the ONE leader that will tell all voices to shut the hell up for a minute. Stop worrying about your own career AND get people together to solve this problem we (and the rest of the NON- RADICAL MUSLIM World) has.

We are fighting an entity that has no regard for human life. They will blow themselves up in a heart beat to martyr themselves and fight for a cause that is considered JUST PLAIN CRAZY to the majority of us in the 'Free World' - including Moderate Muslims.

What I find 'most amusing' is that the people who are the most against the fight we are in, are the same ones our enemy would kill first. Those who want gay marriage, abortion - even basic rights for women.

A comment made in another post tried to claim that it wouldn't really effect us if we were attacked on our own soil. That we would be able to get past it.
It would not take much to cripple us.
A few bombs strategically placed around the country - we'd run and hide.
We all just better hope that there are enough of us with pick-up trucks, weapons, and ammunition, to defend our way of life when the enemy comes to roost.

With people like Barbara Boxer , Nancy Pelosi, Hillary Clinton, John Kerry, and Kennedy in charge of our Nation - I have my doubts.

They are waiting for a weak leader who will convince us that the threat isn't 'real'.
Are we about to elect the Al Queda favorite in '08???


Posted by Dawn at January 13, 2007 1:43 AM
Comments
Comment #202993

Umm…nope, too easy! See Kevin23, restraint.

Posted by: Kim-Sue at January 13, 2007 1:39 AM
Comment #202996

Kim-Sue -

What are you talking about?

Posted by: dawn at January 13, 2007 1:51 AM
Comment #202999

Barbara Boxer out of line? No Dawn, you are.
For telling us that:

We all just better hope that there are enough of us with pick-up trucks, weapons, and ammunition, to defend our way of life when the enemy comes to roost.

With people like Barbara Boxer , Nancy Pelosi, Hillary Clinton, John Kerry, and Kennedy in charge of our Nation - I have my doubts.

They are waiting for a weak leader who will convince us that the threat isn’t ‘real’.
Are we about to elect the Al Queda favorite in ‘08???

I’m getting pretty sick and tired of seeing this kind of low-down attack in this blog. And I find it very sad to see that it’s now creeping from the red column into the center column, because there is nothing independent, moderate or centrist about such a sentiment. Indeed, it is more worthy of Little Green Footballs, or Coulter or Malkin’s blogs, rather than Watchblog’s Third Party & Independents.

Let us look now at what Rage Manufacturers Inc. has made into the Left-bashing Phony Outrage of the Day:

Barbara Boxer to Condi Rice:
“Now, the issue is who pays the price. Who pays the price? I’m not going to pay a personal price. My kids are too old and my grandchild is too young. You’re not going to pay a particular price, as I understand it, with immediate family. So who pays the price? The American military and their families.”

Guess what? She’s absolutely right. Neither the Senator, nor Ms. Rice, nor many of the other people who are so gung-ho on escalating the number of our troops into Iraq’s civil war are going to pay a personal price. But hatefilled spinmeisters are claiming that the Senator was insulting Ms. Rice for being a childless woman! It’s nothing but pure, unadulterated BUNK. Just because Ms. Rice doesn’t have children, doesn’t mean she doesn’t have immediate family.
This is carefully orchestrated spin. Nasty twisted spin. Spin worthy of Karl Rove.

“Boxer voted against Ms. Rice in her confirmation hearing so I guess that gives her free reign to say whatever she wants.”

What gives Sen Boxer and you and I free reign to say whatever we want is the First Amendment.

“Is Barbara actually defending the safety of our young people in the Military or is this all a Political ploy?”

Well since Rice was appearing before the Senate Foreign Relations committee to talk about the wisdom of sending 20,000 more of our troops who won’t have decently armored vehicles off into the hellhole of Iraq’s civil war, I’ve got a strong hunch it had more to do with the safety of our people in uniform.

“A chance to tug at the heart strings of the American public and gain more support for the anti-war crowd?”

If peoples heartstrings haven’t been tugged by this disaster of a war by now, then I suspect they don’t even have a heart. And btw, the Anti-Iraq War crowd is no mere fringe group to be sneered at these days. It’s a good portion of our citizens who think the war has been a mistake and would like to see our troops come home.

“We have an ALL voluntary Military.
Granted, alot of us don’t see 21 year olds as ‘adults’, but that is the average age of NEW recruits, and they are NOT ‘children’.”

Not in the most technical sense perhaps, but everybody happens to be somebody’s child.
Besides, many of those troops will be coming from the National Guard and the Reserves. People who have already fought and are now being forced back into yet another 24 months of service according to the brand new back-door draft rules that King George requested and which were granted by the Pentagon. Nothing voluntary about it.

Posted by: Adrienne at January 13, 2007 3:00 AM
Comment #203000

“I’m getting pretty sick and tired of seeing this kind of low-down attack in this blog. And I find it very sad to see that it’s now creeping from the red column into the center column, because there is nothing independent, moderate or centrist about such a sentiment. Indeed, it is more worthy of Little Green Footballs, or Coulter or Malkin’s blogs, rather than Watchblog’s Third Party & Independents.”

Adrienne,

This is really funny comming from you. You post as many hate filled,consertive bashing, attack
comments as anyone on this blog. And several are in this section. Should I give you some examples?

Posted by: tomd at January 13, 2007 4:59 AM
Comment #203005

What Babs did was take a cheap shot using the stupid, cowardly “chickenhawk” argument.

“The Chickenhawk argument goes something like this: anyone who favors military action should not be taken seriously unless they themselves are willing to go and do the actual fighting. This particular piece of work is an anti-war crowd attempt to silence the debate by ruling that the other side is out of bounds for the duration. Like all ad hominem attacks, (argumentum ad hominem means “argument against the person”) it is an act of intellectual surrender. The person who employs an ad hominem attack is admitting they cannot win the debate on merit, and hope to chuck the entire thing out the window by attacking the messenger. This is a logical fallacy of the first order, because the messenger is not the message.
The messenger is not the message. That’s all you need to throw away the entire Chickenhawk response. But why stop there when this one is so much fun?
If you ever see this charge again, you may want to reflect that person’s own logical reasoning in the following fashion: You may not talk about education unless you are willing to become a teacher. You may not discuss poverty unless you yourself are willing to go and form a homeless shelter. How dare you criticize Congress unless you are willing to go out and get elected yourself? Your opinion on a National Health Care System is negated out of hand since you are unwilling to get a medical degree and open a clinic. And as far as your opinions regarding the Democratic Underground or The Huffington Post are concerned, well, you can just keep them to yourself, mister, unless you can produce an advanced degree in Abnormal Psychology and Narcissistic Personality Disorder.
Using the internal reasoning behind the Chickenhawk argument means you cannot comment on, speak about or even hold an opinion on any subject that is not part of your paying day job. It is simple-minded and profoundly anti-democratic, which is why it so deeply appeals to those who sling it around the most.
But wait! There’s more!
If you accept the Chickenhawk argument – that only those actually willing to go and fight have a legitimate opinion on the subject of war – then that means that any decision to go to war must rest exclusively in the hands of the military. Is that what this person really wants? To abandon civilian control of the military? That’s the box they have trapped themselves in with this argument. Now to be perfectly honest, I think Robert Heinlein made a very compelling case for just this line of reasoning in Starship Troopers (the book, not the clueless projected travesty). Heinlein said that the only people who should be allowed to vote are those that have served in the military, since only they are willing to make the ultimate sacrifice on behalf of the state. I don’t agree with that. I think civilian control of the military has been one of the pillars of our nation’s success, and it has withstood the test of both World Wars and Civil ones. But that is the world you are stuck in when you toss that little Chickenhawk grenade.
Finally, if the only legitimate opinion on Iraq, say, is that held by the troops themselves, then they are overwhelmingly in favor of being there and finishing what they started. I recently received an e-mail from an Army major who is heading back for his fourth tour. The Chickenhawk argument, coming from an anti-war commentator, legitimizes only those voices that overwhelmingly contradict the anti-war argument.” (Bill Whittle, Eject! Eject! Eject!)

After Nancy Pelosi’s unprincipled and shameless exploitation of children (here we go again-“it’s for the children!”)it comes as no surprise that her pal Babs would take such a cheap shot.


Posted by: traveller at January 13, 2007 9:44 AM
Comment #203006

Dawn,

What you are looking is that Boxer put herself in the same category as Rice. She said neither of them had a close relative in the military. So I doubt she meant it as a personal attack.

Posted by: Woody Mena at January 13, 2007 10:03 AM
Comment #203008

“This is really funny comming from you. You post as many hate filled,consertive bashing, attack
comments as anyone on this blog. And several are in this section. Should I give you some examples?”

And I could do the same for you tomd. Big deal. We’re members of the peanut gallery in this blog. We don’t write articles for it. A few days ago in the center column, Richard Rhodes wrote an article with “information” lifted straight from Drudge accusing the new majority of taking a day off for football. It was the Republicans who made the request, but the facts didn’t seem to matter. Now Dawn writes an outraged article clearly lifted from either Fox News or the Rightwing Blogosphere about how Boxer personally attacked Rice, without even giving the quote. The reason is obvious: because this accusation doesn’t have a leg to stand on. It’s manufactured spin.
Is it so wrong of me to expect the people who write articles here to feel the responsibility to try to get their facts straight and to provide quotes when making such claims? I don’t think so.
I have to also note, that Dawn says:

“Anyone who thinks that pulling out, or pulling back, from Iraq will make our Military (and the rest of us) safer is just a loon.”

Well I must tell you, I was once issued a warning by the manager for saying something almost identical. At the time, I said I felt that anyone who thought that torture was an acceptable thing for Americans to start doing would have to to be crazy. The manager then informed me that since some people felt this way, I was directly insulting them. Well guess what? Dawn is insulting me here, because I do think we should try to pull back and then get the hell out of Iraq. I may be a loon, but I don’t think that our pouring billions more of borrowed money into Iraq is going to make our troops or this country safer. Nor do I think our American soldiers have the duty or obligation to become sitting ducks in a civil war simply to save King George’s ruined reputation.

Posted by: Adrienne at January 13, 2007 10:14 AM
Comment #203009

The far more important question and issue is the one Boxer brought up, when neither Boxer nor Rice have offspring or siblings at risk in Iraq, is it not incumbent upon them to act as if they did. That, after all, was the point of the inquiry.

There was no insult here. There was only a breach of etiquette amongst politicians agreement not to bring up each other’s families or family status. But, don’t lose sight of the all important question Boxer was asking?

Just for the record, I don’t like Boxer, never have, as a Congressperson. But, even people I don’t like are often right about things they know something about.

Posted by: David R. Remer at January 13, 2007 10:15 AM
Comment #203016

Boxer brought up an interesting point, but not one she wanted to make. Her implication was that Rice could not make war and peace decisions because she had not children in general or children in the war.

The consequence would be that ONLY parents would have the right to vote on life and death matters or perhaps only active military could decide on matters of peace and war. The precedent is easy to find. The soldiers often got to show their approval by banging on their shields or acclaimation.

Is Boxer advocating that? If not she is just being … catty.

Posted by: Jack at January 13, 2007 10:44 AM
Comment #203020

Jack, well, that is at least what you took her comments to mean. And logically, by your interpretation, by her own words including herself in the same category as Rice, Boxer too cannot make decisions about war, because as she said, she had no children or grandchildren over there.

That of course, is not what she was saying at all. Therefore, your interpretation of what she said, is also wrong.

Posted by: David R. Remer at January 13, 2007 11:02 AM
Comment #203022

Dawn I dont think the Al Queda favorite can run again for president as his 2 terms will be up.

Posted by: j2t2 at January 13, 2007 11:24 AM
Comment #203030

David

She was saying that Rice could not understand the problems of war because she had no family involved. She was just trying to be mean. I am just taking her seriously. IF she believes what she says, the implication that only those with a stake in the next generation should make the decisions follows.

Otherwise what is the point of bringing it up.

Boxer is one of those people of limited intelligence who gets by asking questions that seem wise, but do not stand up to scrutiny.

Posted by: Jack at January 13, 2007 12:19 PM
Comment #203031

No, Jack. She was asking who pays the price. Not that because they had no family involved that they couldn’t decide.

I know you’re smarter than that.

Posted by: womanmarine at January 13, 2007 12:23 PM
Comment #203033

Adrienne

I’m getting pretty sick and tired of seeing this kind of low-down attack in this blog. And I find it very sad to see that it’s now creeping from the red column into the center column, because there is nothing independent, moderate or centrist about such a sentiment.

No Adrienne, it’s creeping from the blue column. That’s the reason I don’t go over there much. All I see is attack after attack.
I reckon it ok though for y’all to attack those you disagree with, but it aint ok for it to go the other way.

Posted by: Ron Brown at January 13, 2007 12:28 PM
Comment #203037

A great President once said”we have nothing to fear but fear itself”, now days it is nothing to fear but bush and rice. Send more cannon fodder to Iraq

Posted by: KT at January 13, 2007 12:41 PM
Comment #203038

Ron:
“No Adrienne, it’s creeping from the blue column.”

No Ron, I don’t see liberals in the Blue column referring to the GOP as the Al Qaeda party of choice on a daily basis.

“I reckon it ok though for y’all to attack those you disagree with, but it aint ok for it to go the other way.”

In the peanut gallery we all attack each others positions which is to only be expected, I simply expect the ARTICLE WRITERS here in the center to at least fact check, and provide quotes when making slanderous accusations about Democratic leaders. Nor do I think it fair for the writers here in the center to start calling Liberals and Democrats traitors and terrorist sympathizers since we’re forced to take more than enough of that vicious crap from the Red Column.

Posted by: Adrienne at January 13, 2007 12:42 PM
Comment #203044

Poor, poor Condi. Mean old Barbara Boxer assailed her with a barrage of…….uh, words.

My, my, my……..what was it Grandma used to say?
Oh yeah, “if you can’t handle the heat get out of the kitchen”.

Getting shot at, or blown up is just about as personal as it gets. So Boxer tried to “personalize” the loss in human life, maybe she hoped to see some of the “compassion” ooze from a “compassionate conservative”.

Well, it’s oozing from Rush Limbaugh: “Here you have a rich white chick with a huge, big mouth, trying to lynch this — an African American woman — right before Martin Luther King Day, hitting below the ovaries here.”

OK, OK, I acquiesce. Let me be the first to nominate Condi for the Purple Heart. Poor girl took one for the team.

Posted by: KansasDem at January 13, 2007 12:56 PM
Comment #203049

You are right on Dawn!

However, it is not the childless insult that is the most disturbing. It is Barabara Boxer admitting that she has paid no price in this war on terror.

It means she doesn’t give a rat’s rear end about the 3,000 that were killed in 9/11!

It means that she doesn’t give a rat’s rear end about the 3,000 that were killed in Afghanistan and Iraq.

However, Condi and G. W. Bush pay the price everyday that another soldier is killed. Do they actually think G. W. Bush and Condi love this war? Boxer is the lowest of the low. I could smell the stench of her during the Clinton campaign when she stood on the platform of the Democratic National Convention and told America that fast food restaurants were trying to poison our children, and if the Republican Congress had their way more children would die. She showed the pictures of a boy who had died of Ecoli, and blamed it upon the Republicans. This is the rhetoric we get from Boxer on a regular basis. If they still have video of that speech she gave, even she was shown taking a heavy sigh at the end as if she was glad that one was over. She is such a loony leftist extremist, it is disgusting that she has served in Washington for so long. Keep watching Boxer, Dawn. You may learn a lot about the Democratic Party.

JD

Posted by: JD at January 13, 2007 1:24 PM
Comment #203050

LOL, Kansas Dem, you made the point that calls out the whiny right wingers for what they are. They don’t understand women’s rights, so they attempt to twist Boxer’s words into an attack on feminism rather than defend a stupid, politically motivated policy. A policy that is going to result in the slaughter of Americans in a failed attempt to save Bush and the Republicans from Bush’s stupidity.

Posted by: gergle at January 13, 2007 1:32 PM
Comment #203060

“Do they actually think G. W. Bush and Condi love this war?”

JD,

No. But have you ever heard of Irving Janis theory of “groupthink”?

He outlines the symptoms as:

1. A feeling of invulnerability creates excessive optimism and encourages risk taking.
2. Discounting warnings that might challenge assumptions.
3. An unquestioned belief in the group’s morality, causing members to ignore the consequences of their actions.
4. Stereotyped views of enemy leaders.
5. Pressure to conform against members of the group who disagree.
6. Shutting down of ideas that deviate from the apparent group consensus.
7. An illusion of unanimity with regards to going along with the group.
8. Mindguards- self-appointed members who shield the group from dissenting opinions.

(copied from wikipedia)

Proverbs 16:18: “Pride goeth before destruction, and an haughty spirit before a fall.”

Posted by: KansasDem at January 13, 2007 2:39 PM
Comment #203063

KansasDem,

Hey, I’ve never read those things before. Thanks for the education.

I’ll pass those along to Newt Gingrich and see if he thinks those applied when he complained, as Speaker of the House, of being forced to ride in the back of Air Force One by Bill Clinton.

JD

Posted by: JD at January 13, 2007 2:51 PM
Comment #203067

“Well, it’s oozing from Rush Limbaugh: “Here you have a rich white chick with a huge, big mouth, trying to lynch this — an African American woman — right before Martin Luther King Day, hitting below the ovaries here.”

OK, OK, I acquiesce. Let me be the first to nominate Condi for the Purple Heart. Poor girl took one for the team.

Posted by: KansasDem at January 13, 2007 12:56 PM”

There is a BIG difference in being an official part of the government and publicly making a statement like that and being a talk show host. I tend to agree with Rush on this one.

Posted by: tomd at January 13, 2007 3:45 PM
Comment #203071


There is a group in this country whom I consider the axis of fear and hate. The major objectives of this group is to promote an agenda that is best exemplified by the Neocons through the use of fear and hate, and to demonize any who oppose that agenda. They truely believe that they must control the government to save America from it’s enemy’s both foreign and domestic.

Many in America, who oppose the Neocon Pax Americana foreign policies and their Big Brother domestic policies, truely believe that the Neocons pose the greatest threat to America. Yes, many of them fear and some hate these people and their agenda.

One of the latest examples of the administrations use of right wing pundits in an attempt to silence and punish anyone who opposes them can be read at TPM.

The Pentagon has released, to right wing pundits, a list of lawyers and the firms that they work for, who are epresenting detainees at Guantanamo Bay. Shortly after this document was released, here is what Charles D. Stimson, the deputy assistant secretary of defense for detainee affairs, a Bush appointee, had to say.

“I think, quite honestly, when corporate C.E.O.’s see that those firms are representing the very terrorists that hit their bottom line in 2001, those C.E.O.’s are going to make those firms choose between representing terrorists or representing reputable firms, and I think that is going to have major play in the nest few weeks. And we want to watch that play out.”

Posted by: jlw at January 13, 2007 4:32 PM
Comment #203072

Jack said: “She was saying that Rice could not understand the problems of war because she had no family involved. She was just trying to be mean.”

Then she was being mean toward herself as well, as she included Rice and herself in the same class. If you missed that, your partisan ear muffs are on.

Posted by: David R. Remer at January 13, 2007 4:34 PM
Comment #203073
Bush believed intelligence reports about WMD’s. These reports were wrong. I myself said that he better be right or this will blow up in his face. SADDAM HAD HIS CHANCE TO PREVENT THE WAR AND DIDN’T DO IT. Was he also fooled by international intelligence reports? Bush gave more reasons for taking out Saddam but they have been lost in the bashing over not finding the WMD’s.

No WMD is not a minor oversight (not to mention these other blunders).

Anyone who thinks that pulling out, or pulling back, from Iraq will make our Military (and the rest of us) safer is just a loon.

No … it may not make us safer, but it may not make us less safe either.

If anything, starting a pre-emptive, unnecessary war with Iraq is making everyone less safe; destabilizing the region; creating a vacuum, and accomplishing for Iran what Iraq couldn’t do itself during the Iran/Iraq war between Sep-1980 and Aug-1988.

Iraq was really of little threat to the U.S.
Iraq’s infrastructure was actually in very sad shape.
Bush didn’t just get wrong information … he chose to ignore things that didn’t fit his agenda.
Likewise, North Korea or Iran are not a vast threat either.
Sure, they are of some threat, but so what?
So was Russia at one time.
So was China at one time.

  • Most Iraqis polled want us to leave (who can blame them?). 82% of Iraqis “strongly oppose” the continuing occupation, and 45% of Iraqis feel attacks against coalition troops are justified! The battle for hearts and minds has already been lost!
  • A poll of U.S. troops in Iraq (released by the Zogby International polling firm) finds that 72% of American troops serving in Iraq think the U.S. should leave Iraq.
  • In March of 2006, 25% of U.S. troops said the U.S. troops should leave Iraq immediately.

Our troops deserve better.

It’s not right to subject our troops to danger for nation-building and baby-sitting civil wars. Iraq will have their civil war with or without us.

Also, another 21,500 troops won’t be enough to change anything. It would take 10 times that accomplish the objective.

Securing Iraq is possible, but not without a lot more troops, time (years), money (and more unavoidable death and destruction).

Is that the proper use of our military?

There’s a lot of talk about training, but it begs the question: “Who is training the insurgents?”
So, training is not the real issue.
The real issue is that the Iraqis are determined to have their civil war (with or without us), and it should not be the job of our military to stop it.

It’s time to leave Iraq.
We’ve been there too long already.
We’ve done enough.
Leaving does not equate to defeat.
It’s not up to us alone; the Iraqis have to choose.

Our troops deserve better.

That is the main isse.

NOT what MIGHT happen in Iraq.

We can NOT be the world police.

We can NOT keep going around starting unnecessary wars. Especially when politicians always, inevitably sabotage the mission.

NOTE: while our troops risk life and limb, look at what your elected officials are doing.

Posted by: d.a.n at January 13, 2007 4:37 PM
Comment #203078

“Anyone who thinks that pulling out, or pulling back, from Iraq will make our Military (and the rest of us) safer is just a loon.”

Well, I’m of the opinion that anyone who thinks placing an inadequate amount of troops into a hell-hole to perpetuate democracy at the end of a gun has a screw loose. It is a policy that has created a firestorm of al-Qaeda activity that was not there before, ratched up a civil war between warring factions that have a thousand-year jump on the rest of us in spewing hate and internecine conflict that makes our civil war look like criquet on an Eton pitch. Anyone who believes this imperial escapade has made us safer from terrorists has a screw loose.

Terrorism is not a military problem. If it were, I would expect the people that buy into that argument to be pushing for a draft. If Iraq is the cornerstone of this professed War on Terror, let’s get serious about it. But they don’t. And they won’t. Which makes this Iraqi policy bogus beyond belief, and a political gambit so cynical as to defy any sense of human compassion or reason. It has devolved into a back-door draft that puts two, three and even four tours on the backs of our troops. Support the troops, my ass!! It’s very simple, really. There will be no draft to support the troops in Iraq, because the neocons know that if a draft is implemented, the American people will put them so far away politically they won’t even hear the dogs bark. So, instead, we have this half-assed war, run by people who don’t do their homework, don’t have any planning skills, and don’t have the knowledge and the understanding of this part of the world that God gave a camel. Even camels know there are long periods without water, and God planned it for them, even if the camels didn’t.

The American people assumed the neocons knew what they were doing in launching this war in Iraq. And now they realize they didn’t. So the neocons rail against the body politic for not having the stamina, the cajones, the vision, to see this mess through to the bitter end. Sorry, it doesn’t work that way Bill Kristol, Paul Wolfowitz, Dick Cheney. Their fifteen minutes of fame has dragged on for three days, metaphorically. And the American people have moved on. If the neocons don’t cut their losses on this, the voters will pull the plug on them.

Seventy percent of Americans think this is a losing proposition, and they resent the human sacrifice and the incredible waste of treasure to save a corrupt policy and presidency. People that don’t see this are in the minority. And making your stance into some Profiles in Courage moment is not only ludicrous, it’s delusional.

As for this little spat between Rice and Boxer, I really couldn’t care less. Thousands of people are dying and paying for this imperial overreach, and a female pissing contest is about as relevant as a male pissing contest. 2008 is approaching, and Republican supporters of the president, especially the ones who are running in ‘08 are starting to peel away. They saw what happened in November, even if Dubya didn’t. And they’re planning accordingly.

Posted by: Tim Crow at January 13, 2007 5:10 PM
Comment #203080

By the way, KansasDem, thanks for sharing Janis’ list of groupthink characteristics—illuminating.

Adrienne:

Your assessment of the erratic nature of Watchblog editors’ slap-downs of name-calling is, I believe, accurate. And the Red-tainted creep into the ‘neutral’ green column is duly noted as well.

Isn’t democracy grand?

Posted by: Tim Crow at January 13, 2007 5:28 PM
Comment #203081
jlw wrote: There is a group in this country whom I consider the axis of fear and hate. The major objectives of this group is to promote an agenda that is best exemplified by the Neocons through the use of fear and hate, and to demonize any who oppose that agenda. They truely believe that they must control the government to save America from it’s enemy’s both foreign and domestic. … Many in America, who oppose the Neocon Pax Americana foreign policies and their Big Brother domestic policies, truely believe that the Neocons pose the greatest threat to America. Yes, many of them fear and some hate these people and their agenda.

jlw … Interesting theory. I think you are onto something there. Something that is important for all to recognize.

Hmmmm … not sure about the existence of any sort of well-structured organization, but there may be loosely organized groups with those values and objectives.

Also, I’m not sure it is a problem of only conservatives, or liberals, or other party.

No … I think it’s something more basic, and they exist everywhere, in every culture, in every society (to varying degrees).

I call these people Cheaters.

They exist everywhere, and they are attracted to money, power, and places where there are more opportunites for abuse.

It is important to learn how to identify them.
This is something voters desparately need to learn how to do, since education is paramount in a voting nation.

Some are medium and part-time cheaters.
There’s probably a little cheater in all of us.

Some are cheaters, but don’t know it, or will never admit it (not even to themselves). They are so self-deluded, the right hand doesn’t know what the left hand is doing. This may describe Bush’s behavior in some ways. He can never admit a mistake, and is determined to salvage his legacy no matter how many people have to die to prove him right. These types of people have an advanced arsenal of rationalizations and excuses to justify their decisions, no matter how wrong they are. These types can be dangerous.

Some are master cheaters.
They know that are cheaters and don’t care.
They also can be are dangerous.

We’ve all met people like this (to varying degrees), but there’s no course or guide-book about it.

While no profession is bad, there are some professions that cheater types often gravitate toward most (for obvious reasons; i.e. they offer more opportunities for cheating), such as politicians, lawyers, clergy, tenured professors, etc. Cheaters often gravitate to politics or professions that are often in-league with government.

Where there exists is sufficient responsibility, and common-sense reforms, adjustments, and simplifications have been implemented to reduce cleverly overly-complicated processes, Cheaters can not thrive, and eventually move on to search for more vulnerable targets. This is why Congress so consistently resists many common-sense, no-brainer reforms. They don’t want anything to limit their opportunities for self-gain.

At any rate, it is simply a fact of human nature.

Most people, naturally, seek security and prosperity with the least amount of effort and pain.
There is nothing wrong with that, and most people are ethical and law abiding.
However, some people (Cheaters) have surrendered to this basic human trait (laziness), which breeds Corruption.
Cheaters will resort to unethical and/or illegal methods (to varying degrees).
Especially when and where opportunity and Power exists.
Cheaters will try to tap-into others’ laziness, and use it for their own nefarious purposes (e.g. controlling others; seducing voters into the circular, divisive, distracting, petty partisan warfare; pitting voters against each other; pitting citizens and illegal aliens against each other; brain-washing voters into believing they must pull the party-lever (i.e. blindly vote straight ticket), dividing the voters so that a majority can never exist to vote-out the irresponsible incumbent politicians, etc.).

The ability to recognize and neutralize it is vital to the health of any organization, society, or individual.

It comes down to a collective choice. That’s where conscience comes into the equation.

Assuming there’s enough of the first required component, the Conscience to choose the right thing, the next most important step is Education to understand the primary components for a healthy society (e.g. Power, Transparency, and Accountability), which is very important so that our lessons are not soon forgotten (as they all too often are; dooming us to repeat history over and over).

  • Responsibility = Power + Conscience + Education + Transparency + Accountability
  • Corruption = Power - Conscience - Education - Transparency - Accountability

. . . where …

  • Conscience = the source of moral and ethical judgment; a sense of right and wrong; a sense of caring. A good Conscience is not merely knowing what is right or wrong, but caring enough to do what is right, and provides the motivation to seek the balance of Education, Transparency, Accountability, and Power required for any successful society, government, or organization;
  • Education = an understanding of the importance of: Education, Transparency, Accountability, Power, Responsibility, Corruption, and the fundamental human desire to seek security and prosperity with the least effort and pain, and that some will resort to dishonest, unethical, or illegal methods to obtain it;
  • Transparency = visibility and simplification of cleverly over-complicated processes to reveal and identify abusers, create outrage, reduce opportunities for abuse, and discourage abuse and dishonesty;
  • Accountability = consequences needed to encourage law enforcement, encourage ethical behavior, and discourage abuse and dishonesty;
  • Power = force required to enforce the laws, discontinue abuse, ensure consequences, punish abusers, and discourage abuse and dishonesty; but unchecked Power without sufficient Education, Transparency, and Accountability breeds Corruption.

Progress is slow.
2.000 steps forward and 1.999 steps backward.
But we will get our education one way or another.
The longer we wait, the more painful it will be later.

One thing is for certain.
Our problems are of our own making.
Government is corrupt and dysfunctional because we, the voters, make it that way.

All reforms and progress ARE futile as long as voters keep rewarding irresponsible incumbent politicians by repeatedly re-electing them.

Posted by: d.a.n at January 13, 2007 5:31 PM
Comment #203082
jlw wrote: There is a group in this country whom I consider the axis of fear and hate. The major objectives of this group is to promote an agenda that is best exemplified by the Neocons through the use of fear and hate, and to demonize any who oppose that agenda. They truely believe that they must control the government to save America from it’s enemy’s both foreign and domestic. … Many in America, who oppose the Neocon Pax Americana foreign policies and their Big Brother domestic policies, truely believe that the Neocons pose the greatest threat to America. Yes, many of them fear and some hate these people and their agenda.

jlw … Interesting theory. I think you are onto something there. Something that is important for all to recognize.

Hmmmm … not sure about the existence of any sort of well-structured organization, but there may be loosely organized groups with those values and objectives.

Also, I’m not sure it is a problem of only conservatives, or liberals, or other party.

No … I think it’s something more basic, and they exist everywhere, in every culture, in every society (to varying degrees).

I call these people Cheaters.

They exist everywhere, and they are attracted to money, power, and places where there are more opportunites for abuse.

It is important to learn how to identify them.
This is something voters desparately need to learn how to do, since education is paramount in a voting nation.

Some are medium and part-time cheaters.
There’s probably a little cheater in all of us.

Some are cheaters, but don’t know it, or will never admit it (not even to themselves). They are so self-deluded, the right hand doesn’t know what the left hand is doing. This may describe Bush’s behavior in some ways. He can never admit a mistake, and is determined to salvage his legacy no matter how many people have to die to prove him right. These types of people have an advanced arsenal of rationalizations and excuses to justify their decisions, no matter how wrong they are. These types can be dangerous.

Some are master cheaters.
They know that are cheaters and don’t care.
They also can be are dangerous.

We’ve all met people like this (to varying degrees), but there’s no course or guide-book about it.

While no profession is bad, there are some professions that cheater types often gravitate toward most (for obvious reasons; i.e. they offer more opportunities for cheating), such as politicians, lawyers, clergy, tenured professors, etc. Cheaters often gravitate to politics or professions that are often in-league with government.

Where there exists is sufficient responsibility, and common-sense reforms, adjustments, and simplifications have been implemented to reduce cleverly overly-complicated processes, Cheaters can not thrive, and eventually move on to search for more vulnerable targets. This is why Congress so consistently resists many common-sense, no-brainer reforms. They don’t want anything to limit their opportunities for self-gain.

At any rate, it is simply a fact of human nature.

Most people, naturally, seek security and prosperity with the least amount of effort and pain.
There is nothing wrong with that, and most people are ethical and law abiding.
However, some people (Cheaters) have surrendered to this basic human trait (laziness), which breeds Corruption.
Cheaters will resort to unethical and/or illegal methods (to varying degrees).
Especially when and where opportunity and Power exists.
Cheaters will try to tap-into others’ laziness, and use it for their own nefarious purposes (e.g. controlling others; seducing voters into the circular, divisive, distracting, petty partisan warfare; pitting voters against each other; pitting citizens and illegal aliens against each other; brain-washing voters into believing they must pull the party-lever (i.e. blindly vote straight ticket), dividing the voters so that a majority can never exist to vote-out the irresponsible incumbent politicians, etc.).

The ability to recognize and neutralize it is vital to the health of any organization, society, or individual.

It comes down to a collective choice. That’s where conscience comes into the equation.

Assuming there’s enough of the first required component, the Conscience to choose the right thing, the next most important step is Education to understand the primary components for a healthy society (e.g. Power, Transparency, and Accountability), which is very important so that our lessons are not soon forgotten (as they all too often are; dooming us to repeat history over and over).

  • Responsibility = Power + Conscience + Education + Transparency + Accountability
  • Corruption = Power - Conscience - Education - Transparency - Accountability

. . . where …

  • Conscience = the source of moral and ethical judgment; a sense of right and wrong; a sense of caring. A good Conscience is not merely knowing what is right or wrong, but caring enough to do what is right, and provides the motivation to seek the balance of Education, Transparency, Accountability, and Power required for any successful society, government, or organization;
  • Education = an understanding of the importance of: Education, Transparency, Accountability, Power, Responsibility, Corruption, and the fundamental human desire to seek security and prosperity with the least effort and pain, and that some will resort to dishonest, unethical, or illegal methods to obtain it;
  • Transparency = visibility and simplification of cleverly over-complicated processes to reveal and identify abusers, create outrage, reduce opportunities for abuse, and discourage abuse and dishonesty;
  • Accountability = consequences needed to encourage law enforcement, encourage ethical behavior, and discourage abuse and dishonesty;
  • Power = force required to enforce the laws, discontinue abuse, ensure consequences, punish abusers, and discourage abuse and dishonesty; but unchecked Power without sufficient Education, Transparency, and Accountability breeds Corruption.

Progress is slow.
2.000 steps forward and 1.999 steps backward.
But we will get our education one way or another.
The longer we wait, the more painful it will be later.

One thing is for certain.
Our problems are of our own making.
Government is corrupt and dysfunctional because we, the voters, make it that way.

All reforms and progress ARE futile as long as voters keep rewarding irresponsible incumbent politicians by repeatedly re-electing them.

Posted by: d.a.n at January 13, 2007 5:33 PM
Comment #203093

d.a.n, you are right. The quagmire is set. If we pull out, meaning redeploy and protect Iraq’s borders and the government from overthrow through surgical strike capacity (which is what our military was reshaped to be), chaos will ensue and many lives will be lost.

And as you intimate, if we stay, many lives will be lost (including our own soldiers), and the chaos that has been growing will likely continue via the “whack a mole” strategy.

This is why it is a quagmire. The only question for me now is, which is the less expensive option for America for both our soldiers and tax payers?

The answer seems readily apparent to me. But, apparently not so for many others.

Posted by: David R. Remer at January 13, 2007 7:09 PM
Comment #203095

David,
Do you mean withdraw?
Or try to salvage it?
Because it will take much more than 21,500 more troops, a lot longer, and more troop deaths.
I know it’s a hard decision, but I think we’ve been there long enough.
The problem is not our troops; they are superb.
The problem is politicians that always sabotaging the mission (e.g. Korea, Vietnam, Iraq).
Knowing how Congress and politicians are, what would be your choice.
Dawn says it won’t make us safer to leave, but I’m not at all convinced that leaving will make us any less safe either.

Posted by: d.a.n at January 13, 2007 7:21 PM
Comment #203113

Dawn,

Isn’t this exactly the kind of low-down baseless personal attack that Democrats say they NEVER do but always accuse Republicans of?

Get this… Boxer now says she was trying to find “common ground” with Condi. Trying to, “draw us toegether”.

She said she would not apologize for the exchange because “I delivered a very strong message and tried to find common ground with her … and I tried to draw us together, and not apart.” ~sfgate

Incredible.

What we really need here is the video from that exchange. I saw a very short part of it and Boxer’s face and tone tells the whole story. Hate. Pure unadulterated hatred. Very liberal.

Posted by: esimonson at January 13, 2007 10:02 PM
Comment #203118
And the Red-tainted creep into the ‘neutral’ green column is duly noted as well.

It depends on how you want to spin it… it could be that there are a few ex-right wingers who are too ashamed of the GOP to stay over there.

Posted by: loki at January 13, 2007 11:01 PM
Comment #203122

Eric Simonson:
“Hate. Pure unadulterated hatred. Very liberal.”

Oh, that’s rich coming from you, Eric. I guess the GOP is now the arbiter of civility and good manners, right?
Hate is what GOP has dealt in for many years. Rightwingers call Liberals and Democrats every nasty hateful thing they can think up, but when any of us gives you the slightest taste of the same treatment, why, it’s an outrage of collossal proportions! Whenever we try to get your people to cut the illogical crap and start taking some responsibility for all of their failure, they automatically try to change the bloody subject to their hurt wittle feelings! Oooh, that “Democrat Party” is full of such hateful meanies! How dare anyone even come close to alluding to the fact that Rice hasn’t been a good breeder for the GOP? Don’t those mean ole Liberals understand how that is a much more painful fate than having your arms and legs and penis blown off by an IED halfway around the world? Boo hoo hoo.

This has been a BS tactic every time it is employed. Whenever things get uncomfortable for them and whenever Bushco suddenly realizes the general public might just be asking themselves how in the world they ever voted for such a group of mental incompetents, out it comes their hyper-sensitivity to spun slights and manufactured insults.
Pathetic.

From the same link that Simonson posted:

Boxer said Friday that she will continue to be tough on the issue of the war because “the focus (on casualties) is crucial.”

She said that’s because she’s in contact with families of American troops constantly, and “I keep writing letters that are breaking my heart. … Their lives are never going to be the same.”

Asked if her exchange with Rice was, as some suggest, a personal attack, Boxer insisted it was not.

“I spoke the truth to power,” she said. “Condi Rice is in the room when George Bush decides to send 20,000 more of our beautiful men and women into the middle of a civil war.

“And I’m not going to apologize for making an extremely clear point,” she said.

Rice, during the hearing, told Boxer that she understood the pain of families who have lost loved ones in the war.

“I visit them. I know what they’re going through. I talk to their families. I see it,” the secretary of state said. “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 …”

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.”

Posted by: Adrienne at January 13, 2007 11:56 PM
Comment #203125

Adrienne
There is none so blind as those that have the political blinders on.
Fact is just about every thread I read on the Blue Column is filled with hate and attacks against the Republicans and Conservatives.
You say want those that write on the red and green side to have facts. I’d like to see them on the blue side.
I’ll admit that there are times when post on all the sides don’t have much in the way of facts. if any. And it would be nice if the writers would back up their statements with them.

I was out in Sacramento visiting my brother-in-law when Barbara Boxer was running for the Senate the first time. One of the TV stations had a guy on the news team named Stan Akerson or something like that. Ant way they were doing a stories about Boxer and she was ranting about something she didn’t know jack about. Right after the clip with her in it they went to the news room. Just as the camera came on Stan said ‘bitch’ then they went on with the next story. Little did he know how right he was.
He later claimed he didn’t know the camera and mics were on.

Posted by: Ron Brown at January 14, 2007 12:20 AM
Comment #203126

Adrienne,

So, who was Boxer trying to bring together when she accused the Republicans and Fast food restaurants of trying to kill kids at the Democratic National Convention for Clinton’s re-elction?

These hateful smears by Boxer are typical. The Dems are sending out their women to spit at Condi and Bush. Then when they are called on it they simply state “would a Grandma actually mean something like that”. You may picture Boxer as the little old church lady sitting with her kids. I prefer to look at what she does and what she says, and I see her as a backwoods Granny Clampett with combat boots and a shot gun. How different our perspectives!

JD

Posted by: JD at January 14, 2007 12:32 AM
Comment #203128

JD
Don’t insult Granny that way. She’s a sweet old lady. Better than I can say for Boxer.
I’m sending Judd and Jethro after ya.

Posted by: Ron Brown at January 14, 2007 12:42 AM
Comment #203131
Terrorism is not a military problem.

Tim,

Terrorism is a problem that must be addressed militarily at times, economically at times and politically at times.

The ‘War is never an answer’ crowd have no sense of reality and human nature. But closely behind them are those that say that the military should never be used in fighting terrorism.

Posted by: Rhinehold at January 14, 2007 12:47 AM
Comment #203136

Rhinehold, the military should be used for surgical strikes against terrorist cells in congregate. That is what it was designed for under both Clinton and GW Bush/Rumsfeld. And I am a believer that the enemy is war itself and those that would instigate it.

You are quite right, that the rest of the war must be waged with intelligence at the level of policing and interdiction/infiltration, and politically/diplomatically through allies and non-allies alike at the international level, against their economic underpinnings.

Posted by: David R. Remer at January 14, 2007 1:32 AM
Comment #203138

esimonson, I am surprised at your comment. You haven’t listened to the exchange, the words. Yet, you’ve judged. That is prejudice - as in prejudging before knowing the facts.

Listen to the words. Some of the right wingers have twisted this exchange to what they think is their political advantage. Fact is, the words do cast Boxer and Rice in the same mold, which is to say, common ground, in that neither of them has family in harm’s way there. Boxer went to lengths to explain that was the case for her family, as it was for Rice. That is common ground - something in common. And that was the point Boxer was making.

Listen to the words. As an actor of many years, I can tell you, facial expressions are easily misinterpreted, especially if you don’t know the person very well.

Posted by: David R. Remer at January 14, 2007 1:40 AM
Comment #203140

A reminder of who is paying in blood and treasure is not a personal attack. It is part of her job.

Posted by: womanmarine at January 14, 2007 1:49 AM
Comment #203146

“The ‘War is never an answer’ crowd have no sense of reality and human nature. But closely behind them are those that say that the military should never be used in fighting terrorism.”

There is only one example of military operations that I agreed with in fighting terrorism, and that was Afghanistan. Isn’t it interesting that the Bush administration started out with the right idea, that was fully supported by the vast majority of the American people, then took a hard, PNAC, neocon right and decided the central front on terrorism was in Iraq, a country that just happens to have the third-largest oil reserves in the world. They repeatedly lied about an al-Qaeda/Saddam connection until 40% of the American public believed that Saddam had instigated 9/11.

Isn’t it also interesting that, by all accounts by most neutral observers, things are backsliding in Afghanistan, and that there has been a real resurgence of the Taliban.

I still believe that fighting terrorism is largely one of police work. Picking fights with Iran and Syria isn’t fighting terrorism. Insisting that Iran is helping the Sunni insurgency is not only disingenuous, it’s a lie—evidently to smooth the coming US/Israeli attack of Iran, in keeping with the grand imperial Pax Americana that the neocons have envisioned

The catastrophe in Iraq has created more terrorists, not hindered them. And sending 20,000 more troops on a fool’s errand is not only stupid—it’s criminal. The American military and the US treasury is being used by neocon/Likud/Zionist extremists to assure oil access and imperial pretensions. And it will come to a very bad end; even if our troops were gone tomorrow, the damage done to American prestige and integrity will take a generation to repair. Assuming it can be repaired.

Here’s the straight skinny—the Bush administration has been consistenly wrong in it’s projections, it’s assessments, and it’s motives behind the invasion of Iraq. They no longer have a shred of credibility. Critics of this adventure have consistently been a lot closer to accurate assessments of the situation. For their troubles, they have been buried in a hail of vitriol, name-calling and disparaging of their patriotism.

This government lacks any kind of credibility in fighting terrorism. Their incompetence, their ruthless attacks of dissent, their insistence on failed policies, and their dissembling, lying and fabrication have sickened men and women of good will and tried the patience of the American people until they have no more.

Here’s my prediction for the next 18 months. The war in the Middle East will be widened by this administration. They will do everything in their power to create the impression that they had no choice. Barring some incredible stroke of good fortune, Bush will attack Iran. And then, Cheney and his minions will have their 100-year war.

This government needs to be fired. If it isn’t, the country we will have in January, 2009 will have no relation to what we had in January, 2001. (The damage done to the Constitution now is beyond imagining. Governments take and take and take—they give back only at the end of a gun.) It will take a generation to repair the damage.

And who will initiate this ‘firing’? The Republicans. They are the only ones who can now, and make it stick. If they don’t, this past November will look like a pleasant walk in the park for the GOP. I don’t pretend to believe that they will fire Bush to save the country from a truly incompetent and dangerous man—they’ll do it to save their own skins and their precious party.

Posted by: Tim Crow at January 14, 2007 2:23 AM
Comment #203147

A couple things in your diatribe, Tim, that I have to vehemently disagree with.

1) For many people who supported the war in Iraq (I’m not talking about the administration) it was for the same reasons we did so before 9/11. When Clinton was beating the war drums and bombing Iraq we supported military action then as well. There were more legitimate reasons to remove Saddam from power than you suggest. Staying there to ‘fight terrorism’ and prevent a civil war that probably should have occurred is some altogether different but many democrats seem to have no ability to differentiate the two.

2) “the damage done to American prestige and integrity will take a generation to repair”, I hear this mantra many times from the democrats but the assumption that there WAS any American prestige or integrity in the eyes of the world is a rewriting of history. That was gone decades ago, otherwise the Iran Hostages, Beruit, WTC I, etc, all would never have happened. You can make your arguments without trying to convince people of something that was never true. I agree with trying to rebuild American Integrity, or rather BUILD it, but trying to assert that we were praised as the world’s heroes for the past 50 years is nonsense.

3) “The damage done to the Constitution now is beyond imagining.” The ‘damage’ done to the Constitution is just a small extension to the even worse damage that has been going on since the early part of the 20th century when the Progressives rode into town and started the tearing down of the 9th and 10th amendments. The ‘War on Drugs’ further decimated any notion of governmental limits, the Patriot act just an extension of those original erosions. Before pointing to the current administration for the damage we see be prepared to point to past administrations as well, they are the ones who set the stage for anything the current administration ever possibly could have done.

Posted by: Rhinehold at January 14, 2007 2:34 AM
Comment #203149

I don’t read any mentionings of Clinton—they are irrelevant.

Perhaps American prestige was gone before Bush—whether it was or not, it’s gone now, and Bush and his fascists have done more to sully it in the last six years than anyone else I can think of.

We can split hairs until the cows come home about which administration has damaged the Constitution the worst. Frankly, this ninth and tenth ammendment stuff is beside the point—and a canard to avoid my accusations of this administration. We are in the fight for our lives, and we have morons in the driver’s seat.

I don’t give a damn about history; history will not absolve this administration of it’s crimes. The real question is, how will we survive this government without get a very large majority of us and everybody else killed.

We are stuck in someone else’s civil war. The American people were sold a bill of goods by neocons flim-flam artists. The Dems went along with it. Now what?

Posted by: Tim Crow at January 14, 2007 3:11 AM
Comment #203151
I don’t read any mentionings of Clinton—they are irrelevant.

When you have no desire to understand the multiple and varied reasons for supporting the removal of Saddam from power, I suppose you’re right. I thought there was interest in dialog not ranting, my apologies.

Frankly, this ninth and tenth ammendment stuff is beside the point

It’s not, because it’s the destruction of meaning behind those amendments that allowed any of this to even be possible. Narrowing your view to just this administration and the last 6 years will do nothing but ensure that these events will eventually be repeated by some other administration in the future. Further evidenced by your quote “I don’t give a damn about history”

avoid my accusations of this administration.

You have some delusions that I was defending this administration, I simply want to make sure that people are right in their rants, making overreaching statements and ignoring the history that allows the government to further encroach upon our rights does a disservice to legitimate arguments and dialog and serves only to infuriate and ‘poke the bear’.

Posted by: Rhinehold at January 14, 2007 3:50 AM
Comment #203153

For anyone who wants to watch, the video of Boxer’s questioning of Rice at the Senate Foreign Relations Committee is available on C-span — Boxer’s questions start at about the 1:47:00 mark.

After watching it, I think what’s more interesting than the fact that Condi is childless is this bit of information we learn from their exchange:

Boxer: “Do you have an estimate of the number of casualties we expect from this surge?”

Rice: “No, uh, Senator…I don’t think there’s any way to give you such an estimate.”

HUH? Excuse me Condi, but there is. It’s called a casualty estimate. Are we to believe that The White House didn’t even bother to make a casualty estimate for their “surge / augmentation”??? That’s supposed to be standard proceedure for a military escalation like this. Maybe Condi lied? Maybe the numbers were so horrific (we already know they won’t have decent armored vehicles) they didn’t want to admit to them? Or is Bushco just going to be winging everything once again because they really don’t give a rats ass about how many troops are likely to die for their mistake.

Truly Unbelievable.

Posted by: Adrienne at January 14, 2007 4:16 AM
Comment #203154

“When you have no desire to understand the multiple and varied reasons for supporting the removal of Saddam from power, I suppose you’re right. I thought there was interest in dialog not ranting, my apologies.”

What unmitigated nonsense. The Republicans and this administration have been controlling this little imperial game for six years (longer if you count Republican dominance of Congress). These nuanced and ‘subtle’ reasons of yours have absolutely nothing to do with where the country is now in regards to this Iraqi fiasco, thanks to the Bush administration. Clinton has nothing to do with where we are now in regards to Iraq.

I’ve noticed that this insistence on your part to get the ‘history’ and ‘nuances’ straight is never to call out the nonsense spewed by the Right on this blog. Hence, your search for truth is suspect. Your one-man campaign to clean up the rants around here are one-sided, specious, and much like our president, lack credibility.

People can take or leave my ‘rants’—believe me, they do. But pulling in the kitchen sink, the garden hose and myriad other distractions to make your point at my expense is getting old.

You insist you are not defending the administration. The constant deflecting of any criticism of it, the raising of strawmen that have nothing to do with my accusations of their very real mendacity, and your consistent criticisms of Left-leaning contributors to this blog, indicate to me that your professed search for accurate history is specious and suspect. Like most people here, you have an ax to grind.

I think you have described yourself as a Libertarian in the past (I’m sure you’ll correct me if I’m wrong). Everything you post though, indicates to me that you’re so far Right, that a libertarian cover is a sham. Be that as it may, whether a neocon, a garden-variety conservative or a libertarian, it’s a distinction without a difference.

It’s late, I’m going to bed. I will watch with great interest, your campaign for truth, justice and accurate rants that incorporate whatever history you deem important that day.


Posted by: Tim Crow at January 14, 2007 4:23 AM
Comment #203157

Adrienne,

My favorite “jaw dropper” was when Kerry asked Condi, “What if it doesn’t work?”

Condi’s reply, “You don’t go to plan B before plan A has been given a chance.”

Uh, is there a plan B? Has there ever been any thought by this administration that they should have a contingency plan?

Posted by: KansasDem at January 14, 2007 5:47 AM
Comment #203158

Never? That’s an absolute statement, not exactly accurate even by a small perusal of my previous few dozen posts like

http://www.watchblog.com/thirdparty/archives/003850.html
http://www.watchblog.com/thirdparty/archives/003085.html
http://www.watchblog.com/thirdparty/archives/002789.html
http://www.watchblog.com/thirdparty/archives/001717.html
http://www.watchblog.com/thirdparty/archives/001951.html
http://www.watchblog.com/thirdparty/archives/002196.html
http://www.watchblog.com/thirdparty/archives/002174.html

in which I detail my displeasure and disgust with either this administration or Republicans in general. In fact, in a very recent Blue column comment I had to go back and make sure I stated http://www.watchblog.com/democrats/archives/004669.html#203145
“Oh, and before the responses come, it’s never stopped a republican either. And it’s silly that I even have to say that…”

I have to do this because there are people who for some reason would rather attack me and my views instead of what I say, trying to invalidate my opinion because I’m somehow ‘a closet conservative’.

I do tend to complain more about the Democratic party and the progressives that have taken it over. I’ve explained it before, as a former Democrat I am disgusted with what the progressives have done to personal liberty, by creating rights that trump other rights at the expense of the constitution, they fail to understand that what they do to support their own agenda is the same thing they rail about other parties doing.

I’ve never been a republican nor do I agree with most of their agendas so I see little benefit in ‘jumping on the bandwagon’ and combating them as often as I see the hope that the Democrats can somehow shake the progressive movement in their own party and return to the party of actual principle and liberty instead of what they are now.

Maybe time will tell, it’s hard to say. But your assertions as to my views are not based on facts, I’m afraid…

You insist you are not defending the administration.

I do. In fact I’ve stated several times that this administration has ‘cocked up’ (a technical term) the handling of this war, a war we should have been out of in the fall of 2003 or spring of 2004 AT THE LATEST. But one we should have gotten into. There is a distinction, one that many on the left today refuse to admit to. One can be fore the war and against the way the war is being run or that it is still going on. I think that this view is even MORE upset with this administration, IMO, since those who were against the invasion of Iraq from the beginning would never have had to go through that process of seeing a noble act turned into a steaming pile of poo…

The constant deflecting of any criticism of it, the raising of strawmen that have nothing to do with my accusations of their very real mendacity, and your consistent criticisms of Left-leaning contributors to this blog, indicate to me that your professed search for accurate history is specious and suspect.

Deflection of any criticism of it? Hardly. I only desire that the Democratic party and those currently ruining it would realize that by making arguments that are not accurate that do more to harm their cause than help it when they ARE right. Perhaps a revisit of http://www.watchblog.com/thirdparty/archives/003083.html “The Sad Cost of Crying Wolf” is in order?

*shrug* Personally I think some people see what they want to see. Others find it easier to deflect suggestions that anything they say could possibly be wrong by attacking my political views. Others just make assumptions based on limited information and once lodged in place refuse to process new information that might show they are wrong.

My argument is, however, in this case that the constitution has been destroyed by, let’s say, 70% over the past 75 years. 7 or 8% of that was done during the Bush administration, as a rough estimate. Trying to make the claim that it was all good and wonderful before 2001 is or even 1994 only causes people to not see the truth of the matter and continue to make the same mistakes, just as the current Dems running the house and senate are doing now.

For example, requiring the UN to approve our treaties with other countries in combatting the spread of WMD? Smart move there… Violating private property rights in order to force a national minimum wage tax when there are very diverse and varied economies throughout the US that make the idea of a national number of what is or isn’t poverty irrelevant? Pure horse dung.

There are others, neither party is perfect… again, *shrug* you can take my criticism of a small portion of your rant as a defense against all of what you said or you could accept that I have a point and while your rant is actually more on than off there are parts where you make far reaching misstatements. Or I suppose I could just be attacked personally as well, that’s always an option…

Posted by: Rhinehold at January 14, 2007 5:53 AM
Comment #203164

Tim Crow,

“Clinton has nothing to do with where we are now in regards to Iraq.”

Clinton has a great deal to do with where we are now in regards to Iraq.
History didn’t just spring up from a vacuum 6 years ago. Clinton’s actions are part of the history that is prologue to where we are now.
The Islamists, lead by Iran, declared war on the United States in 1979 and have been conducting that war ever since. Most of their acts of war have gone unanswered.
Some of those acts of war were perpetrated in the 8 years Clinton was in the White House and he didn’t take action to retaliate for any of them.
One of his “greatest accomplishments” was to use the United States Air Force to put an Islamist narco-terrorist organization in power in Kosovo.
Whenever you see pictures of the WTC falling you are seeing Clinton’s legacy.
The Clinton administration failure to take action was a major factor in setting the stage that made the ascendancy of the Islamists possible.

Posted by: traveller at January 14, 2007 8:49 AM
Comment #203183

Traveller,

Or maybe it’s goes back to Reagan’s supplying the Ayatollah with Arms, embracing Sadam, withdrawing from Lebanon after using the military as a political show. Funny how history comes back to bite those with selective memory.

Posted by: gergle at January 14, 2007 12:33 PM
Comment #203188

Traveller: What about George Herbert Walker Bush? He had a coalition nearly twice as large as his son’s. Why didn’t he finish the job? While it is true that past presidents may influence present or future events, none but the current president bear responsibility for how the war has been conducted.

President Bush: So General Shinseki, how many troops do I need to Invade Iraq?

Gen. Shinseki: Mr.President, our estimates range between 350,000 and 500,000 troops.

I’ll leave out the spontaneous laughter.

President Bush: General, Rummy and Wolfie say I can do it with 100,000 American and 50,000 coalition troops.

Gen Shinseki: Yes Mr. President, You can defeat the Iraq army and remove Saddam with that many forces but, you will not be able to maintain security and keep order.

President Bush: General, Dickie says that there won’t be any disorder. The Iraqi’s will welcome us with open arms, they will praise Allah that we have saved them. They will be so happy, they won’t have time to loot or commit insurection.

From that failure of command, leading to all the other failures and setbacks in Iraq, this war has been the Bush Neocon war and they bear full responsibility for all the failures.

Posted by: jlw at January 14, 2007 1:28 PM
Comment #203191

Well, there’s a lot of bull feathers thrown about here—let’s start with

Traveler:

“Whenever you see pictures of the WTC falling you are seeing Clinton’s legacy.”

This comment is not unlike saying that polar ice caps melting and polar bears drowning is part and parcel of George Bush’s legacy. An imperial agenda of propping up tin-horn dictators and subverting real democracy has been a US trait since before WWII. Some very real frustrations that Muslims and others have, in some cases, have turned very dark and nasty. Hanging the WTC on Clinton, without mentioning the real hatred that Arabs have for the oppressive regimes we’ve backed, blows a very large hole in your assertion.

“The Clinton administration failure to take action was a major factor in setting the stage that made the ascendancy of the Islamists possible.”

I am no defender of the Clinton administration. But a consistent support of tyranny to make the corporations happy was happening long before Clinton met JFK and his political star was fixed. From the House of Saud, to Saddam, to the Shah, the US track record of enabling dictators and destroying the very real aspirations of the large majority of Muslims in the Middle East, was the bitter seeds of many administrations. The Bush administration has enabled every subversion of human rights and freedoms, including here in our country. Unlike you, I don’t cast about looking for reasons to deflect from the very real facts that this Iraqi incursion was based on lies, subtrafuge and disinformation. You can’t blame Clinton for that, (though, obviously, that doesn’t keep you from trying).

Rhinehold:

You spend an inordinate amount of time convincing people of your impartiality, and your ‘pox-on-both-your-houses’ stance. I’m sure most readers here have gleaned for themselves where the rubber meets the road with you. I did take a look at your pro-offered examples of your articles, and the first one I looked at, mid-way down, stated,” Where is Reagan when you need him?” You’ll have to forgive me, but I didn’t examine the rest of your library.

I find it interesting that you have not really discussed the real thrust of my original post—that the Bush administration has shit the bed in Iraq, and is compounding the fiasco with surges and talks of ‘victory’. None of it you dispute, I guess, since you really haven’t addressed my concerns.

That you assign 7-8% responsibility to the Bush administration for the state of the Constitution I believe to be a little short of an honest assessment. There have been a handful of times in our history that habeas corpus has been suspended—Lincoln in the CW, and Roosevelt in WWII, both serious and ongoing challenges to the survival of the country. That this War on Terror has been conflated by the neocons and this administration to that level is a damning indictment of the ideological agenda these people really have. We have a very real problem with terrorism—I am in no way minimizing it. It does not, however, rise to level which the neocons wish. We had a smoking hole in Manhatten; 3000 people died. If Chicago ceased to exist tomorrow, the country would continue. Undoubtedly under a fascist regime with no individual freedoms, but it would survive nonetheless.

Signing statements (over 800 at last count, more than all other presidents combined) that make swiss cheese out of laws passed by Congress and a shambles of checks-and-balances, is unprecedented; in tandem with a rubber-stamp Republican Congress, one veto over six years, if not unprecedented, certainly highly unusual. A total ignoring of the FISA law and wiretapping without warrants or court oversight is unprecedented. Opening mail without court order or warrants is unprecedented. A premeditated, preemptive war, that is, attacking a country that couldn’t possibly have harmed us, (and, indeed, a few short years before, was an ally) is unprecedented. Along with the total failure to relieve the pain and suffering of a US city in agony, a cavalier ‘deficits don’t matter’ attitude that has added an astonishing $3 trillion to the national debt in six years, enabling a steadfast erosion of any Palestinian-Israeli progress (the real thorn in any Middle East policy)towards a lasting peace that includes the Palestinians, thanks to a joined-at-the-hip policy with the Likud crazies that precludes any progress whatsoever… well, I could go on, but I wouldn’t want people to think I was ranting.

Your perception of history, and mine for that matter, is really immaterial. At the end of the day, this administration will be dealt with very harshly by historians, and for the poor slobs who will be trying to pick their way through the rubble of it’s failed policies, from the Middle East to the environment, to a government predicated on a dog-eat-dog capitalism that no longer works for grocery store clerks as well as stockbrokers and investors, I suspect the word “Bush” will be a curse. And a very bad joke.

Posted by: Tim Crow at January 14, 2007 1:42 PM
Comment #203194

Ron Brown,

Your right! I was just trying to describe my view of Boxer.

Sorry, Granny Clampett, God Bless, and rest in peace.

But, take out the Clampett part, and the description is pretty darn accurate!

JD

Posted by: JD at January 14, 2007 2:01 PM
Comment #203202

Ron Brown,
I found your anecdote hilariously ironic. Were you offering that to us as proof of rightwing civility and good manners?

KansasDem,
“My favorite “jaw dropper” was when Kerry asked Condi, “What if it doesn’t work?”

Condi’s reply, “You don’t go to plan B before plan A has been given a chance.”

Uh, is there a plan B? Has there ever been any thought by this administration that they should have a contingency plan?”

Kansas, I think it’s clear that they never even had a plan A, let alone a plan B.

Check out this article I read this morning:
Rice says U.S. will defend its interest in the Persian Gulf

Aboard her plane, Rice also told reporters that the United States would not abandon Iraq even if Bush’s latest plan fails.

“We’re not pulling the plug on Iraq,” she said. “I think we’ll worry about making Plan A work for now. And obviously, if it doesn’t, then you know, we’re not going to say, oh my goodness, that didn’t work, there’s nothing that can be done.”

Oh my goodness — what’s a few hundred more dead or maimed soldiers due to another one of our illogical decisions, eh?

Posted by: Adrienne at January 14, 2007 2:41 PM
Comment #203218

Adrienne:

Ms. Rice’s and the administration’s assertions that they will not pull the plug on Iraq must be a heart-warming reassurance to the Iraqi government and the Iraqi people—a true ally, through thick and thin.

It’s a marvelous myopia to believe that things will continue tomorrow just as it did yesterday. Before this is all over though, the Decider will find out that the real deciders in this very dark morality play are the Iraqi and the American people—not the AEI, the neocons, and the other rogue charlatans of this imperial game.

Posted by: Tim Crow at January 14, 2007 3:59 PM
Comment #203228

How’s this going to play out?

Iraqi official seeks release of Iranians
http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20070114/ap_on_re_mi_ea/iraq

“You have to remember, our destiny, as Iraqis, we have to live in this part of the world. And we have to live with Iran, we have to live with Syria and Turkey and other countries,” he said. “So in fact, on the other hand, the Iraqi government is committed to cultivate good neighborly relations with these two countries and to engage them constructively in security cooperation.”

This is an incredible example of the quagmire we’re in. On one hand the Bush administration loves to tout the overwhelming success of Iraqi’s developing a “democracy”, and OTOH we now find ourselves in a position of defiance with Iraq’s constitutional government.

Now, consider that the “surge” is supposed to place more American troops alongside Iraqi soldiers, and the IRAQI’S WILL BE IN THE LEAD! I smell something bad and I’ve already checked my pants! I think this is a monumental mistake.

And yet the biggest news of the day is how badly Boxer hurt Condi’s feelings. You’d think she’d been “waterboarded”.

Posted by: KansasDem at January 14, 2007 5:50 PM
Comment #203231

If this administration would make the same commitment and effort to aid Americans as they do for Iraqi’s, America would be a wonderful place for almost everybody living it. Think of what $800,000,000,000 in aid and effort to uplift Americans, Katrina states, and education, could have accomplished.

Ah, but, then there’s all that oil to protect, and oil corporations to subsidize. No trouble figuring out where this administration’s loyalties lie.

Posted by: David R. Remer at January 14, 2007 6:36 PM
Comment #203258

Eric Simonson said:

Hate. Pure unadulterated hatred. Very liberal.
You oughtta know, Eric. Seems you’re an expert in that subject.

Posted by: ElliottBay at January 14, 2007 9:47 PM
Comment #203260

Adrienne
No. I just found the incident funny. Thought I’d pass it on. Reckon liberals don’t have the same sense of humor conservatives do?


Apology accepted JD. I’ll call Jed and Jethro off.


Just wondering, If it was Rice talking to Boxer like that would the Liberals be so forgiving? And would the Conservatives be as outraged?

Posted by: Ron Brown at January 14, 2007 9:52 PM
Comment #203272

“If it was Rice talking to Boxer like that would the Liberals be so forgiving?”

Well Ron considering what Newty-baby said Wednesday and the lack of whining in the blue column I’d have to say we’re “thicker skinned”.

http://www.crosswalk.com/news/1463039.html

“He singled out the “elite media” and “left-of-center” politicians for embracing a “level of routine cowardice” that works to embolden America’s enemies.”

We “libby’s’ are fairly used to being bashed and abused so we tend to complain less about the little personal crap, even when a BJ ends up as grounds for impeachment, while lieing to an entire nation to start a war does not.

Posted by: KansasDem at January 14, 2007 10:49 PM
Comment #203297
You spend an inordinate amount of time convincing people of your impartiality, and your ‘pox-on-both-your-houses’ stance.

Yes, when accused of something that isn’t true or accurate by people who want to dismiss my statements without doing any heavy lifting, I tend to defend myself. Imagine that.

I did take a look at your pro-offered examples of your articles, and the first one I looked at, mid-way down, stated,” Where is Reagan when you need him?” You’ll have to forgive me, but I didn’t examine the rest of your library.

So, because you found a positive comment about Reagan in one of my articles you have determined that you don’t need to go any further? For those who might be reading this and aren’t aware of how that comment is taken out of context, I was referring to asking where a leader who would inspire or lead was, since neither party could seem to offer one anymore. If you want to say that Reagan didn’t inspire or lead people while he was president, ignoring his overwhelming landslide victory in 1984, which has yet to be replicated since, that’s your opinion. But trying to take what I said and use it as proof that I am a ‘far right wing nutjob’ is an abject failure on your part. You demand from those you disagree with, including President Bush, that they be openminded and listen to critics but when presented with such things yourself you appear to me to lash out and start making accusations on your opponent.

I find it interesting that you have not really discussed the real thrust of my original post—that the Bush administration has shit the bed in Iraq, and is compounding the fiasco with surges and talks of ‘victory’. None of it you dispute, I guess, since you really haven’t addressed my concerns.

Well, I *thought* that by saying that I only have a few things to disagree with you on and then further stating that I felt this administration ‘cocked up’ Iraq that you would have gleaned that I agreed with that part of your rant. Apparently somehow you are just refusing to accept that I could possibly agree with you for some reason. I’m a little confused myself on your reaction.

That you assign 7-8% responsibility to the Bush administration for the state of the Constitution I believe to be a little short of an honest assessment.

I don’t. If you want to debate that then let’s please do. I would be interested in you detailing the specifics that Bush has done to ‘destroy’ the long-term state of our constitution compared to the watering down and ignoring of two of the most important amendments to the Constitution as well as the insane expansion of both eminent domain and the commerce clause as well as the constant violation of private property rights by both parties throughout the 1900s… That would be a discussion worth having I think.

There have been a handful of times in our history that habeas corpus has been suspended—Lincoln in the CW, and Roosevelt in WWII, both serious and ongoing challenges to the survival of the country.

I agree, and I don’t think habeas corpus has been suspended yet here, unless I missed a news article somewhere?

That this War on Terror has been conflated by the neocons and this administration to that level is a damning indictment of the ideological agenda these people really have. We have a very real problem with terrorism—I am in no way minimizing it. It does not, however, rise to level which the neocons wish. We had a smoking hole in Manhatten; 3000 people died. If Chicago ceased to exist tomorrow, the country would continue. Undoubtedly under a fascist regime with no individual freedoms, but it would survive nonetheless.

I don’t disagree with anything you said and I would rather die than live under a fascist regime as you suggest, but it does not give the federal government the right or ability to expand their power past the limits of the constitution. But for the past 75 years we have been subjected to our federal government expanding their power past the constitution on many fronts and I also disagree with those, I’m assuming you do as well then?

As I said, the RICO statues that are used in the ‘War on Drugs’ are where many of the expanses the Patriot Act come from, if the RICO statues had never existed then they would have to be recreated from scratch now and not just expanded to include terrorists instead of just ‘suspected’ drug dealers and ‘suspected’ child molesters as it is now. Again, this is an important debate to have but we can’t start at 2001, it is not just a failing of this administration…

Signing statements (over 800 at last count, more than all other presidents combined) that make swiss cheese out of laws passed by Congress and a shambles of checks-and-balances, is unprecedented; in tandem with a rubber-stamp Republican Congress, one veto over six years, if not unprecedented, certainly highly unusual.

I agree at this point, but how much ‘long term’ damage is being done? Has any of this been challenged by the Supreme Court yet?

A total ignoring of the FISA law and wiretapping without warrants or court oversight is unprecedented. Opening mail without court order or warrants is unprecedented.

Both things I disagree with completely, continue one…

A premeditated, preemptive war, that is, attacking a country that couldn’t possibly have harmed us, (and, indeed, a few short years before, was an ally) is unprecedented.

Unless you go back to Kosovo, Bosnia, Vietnam, Korea… In fact it’s not very unprecedented at all… And actually, there was more legal support for this action than those others IMO. Bush didn’t wake up after being sworn in and say ‘hey, let’s go get Iraq’, there have been 12 years of dealing with the country that

a) attempted to assassinate a former president
b) routinely fired upon our military servicemen and women
c) supported and directed both domestic and international terrorist groups
d) was one of the largest human rights violators in the world at the time
e) continued to declare war on the US
f) was at the time of invasion planning terrorist attacks on the US http://www.cnn.com/2004/WORLD/meast/06/18/saddam.terror/

etc… In fact, much of this is detailed in http://www.watchblog.com/thirdparty/archives/001765.html.

Along with the total failure to relieve the pain and suffering of a US city in agony, a cavalier ‘deficits don’t matter’ attitude that has added an astonishing $3 trillion to the national debt in six years

Agreed, these people running our country are out of control power mongers. In other words, politicians. Why some people want to expand the power of the government into even more aspects of our lives in direct violation of the 9th amendment is ludicrous to me.

well, I could go on, but I wouldn’t want people to think I was ranting.

There’s nothing wrong with ranting, I do so often, I just wanted to make sure that while doing so you don’t misstate history or a sense of reality of the situation to appear as a partisan hack. Well, not necessarily to convince you as it appears any suggestion that you might be wrong about anything is met with wild swinging, but those who might be reading it and could possibly be put off by one phrase here or there (much as you did when reading one of my articles and finding one single reference you disliked caused you to shut down and make assumptions about my opinions…)

Again, *shrug*, you go on to say that our perception of history is immaterial and that capitalism is dead, more things I disagree with you about, but from the reaction I’ve had by simply pointing out some inaccuracies in your views I am becoming more confident that further examination of our differences really isn’t worth it in this forum.

Posted by: Rhinehold at January 15, 2007 4:10 AM
Comment #203307

Hi Republicans,

Prepare to show your intellectual honesty by trashing Laura Bush. Yes, Laura Bush. Here is what she told People magazine in December:

Mrs. Bush referenced Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice and noted that while she would be a “really good candidate”, Rice is not interested in the job.

Probably because she is single, her parents are no longer living, she’s an only child. You need a very supportive family and supportive friends to have this job,” the First Lady said.

Ouch. Not only did Laura say that Condi have no kids, she said she was an orphan with no kids and no friends.

So have at her. Tell me she is the lowest of the low. Tell me she “lynched” Condi, as Rush Limbaugh said about Boxer. I can’t wait to see how consistent you guys can be.

Posted by: Woody Mena at January 15, 2007 9:18 AM
Comment #203308

We have a government that lies to its people.
That has started a conflict where there are likely 500,000 plus dead and 1,400,000 people displaced. We jail without charges and refuse to provide the accused or their families with information regarding their situation. We have a citizenship that, for the most part, is ill-informed and worse, don’t want to know. The media, television, radio, and newspaper mislead the public (can you say propaganda?)

And we want to argue about Boxer insulting Rice?

We’re all going to hell.

Posted by: LibRick at January 15, 2007 9:50 AM
Comment #203309

David, Hopefully you meant fininacial aid to Americans, New Orleans, education and such and not the neo con privatization crap that has only served to give the multinational corporate base so much while giving the Iraq people so little in return.

Posted by: j2t2 at January 15, 2007 9:52 AM
Comment #203313
“Now, the issue is who pays the price. Who pays the price? I’m not going to pay a personal price. My kids are too old and my grandchild is too young. You’re not going to pay a particular price, as I understand it, with immediate family. So who pays the price? The American military and their families.”

There’s nothing insulting about this. If you’re pretending there is, you’re really reaching. The point is being made that when thinking about war you need to really pretend like your own children are on the line. That’s it. Personally, I would be all for a draft. It would keep us out of more wars.

Hey Dawn, when you say that we’re chicken to pull out and that anyone who thinks its a good idea is a loon, without stating why, you offer nothing to the conversation. It’s schoolyard bully, knee jerk reactionism like that that got us in this mess. A lot of senators say we need to stay because the alternative is unthinkable, but many of us believe we’ve lost already and that its time to contemplate what needs to be done. We’ve waited 6 years for Republican policy to synch with reality, but it never did. We gave you every chance to make good on your cockamamie schemes, but that’s all they were. Damn, even if the above quote were nasty, I would say it’s about time. There’s not an insult Bush and his crew don’t richly deserve.

Posted by: Max at January 15, 2007 10:49 AM
Comment #203319

Just a quick question…

Are we actually sending children to war? I was under the impression that we sent people who were over 18, adults, who volunteered…

It has been a while since I’ve been in the military though, perhaps things have changed?

Posted by: Rhinehold at January 15, 2007 11:39 AM
Comment #203321

My post about Clinton’s part in the current world situation addressed Tim Crow’s statement about Clinton. I agree that the rest of the blame belongs to basically every president since WWII. I was only responding to the statement that Clinton has nothing to do with it.
And yes, WTC is Clinton’s legacy. 8 years of appeasement and the gutting of our intelligence capability are what made that attack possible.

Posted by: traveller at January 15, 2007 11:45 AM
Comment #203328

KansasDem
I don’t see any whinning in the Red column either. This here is the Green column.


Woody

Ouch. Not only did Laura say that Condi have no kids, she said she was an orphan with no kids and no friends.

You know they won’t do that. Anymore than y’all are trashing Boxer for what she said.
But then Laura might be right.


Posted by: Ron Brown at January 15, 2007 12:17 PM
Comment #203342

Rhinehold,

Are you someone’s child? Wasn’t the comment about how it’s easy to make decisions that don’t impact your immediate family in the same way as someone whose child has been sent to Iraq?

Are you willfully ignoring what was being said and the context it was said in?

Posted by: Max at January 15, 2007 1:09 PM
Comment #203344

I’m not ignoring it, I’m just mocking it. It’s a questionable position to take, to suggest that we should think about war emotionally as if we were sending our own ‘children’ to war.

What if we had thought like in WWI or WWII, the Civil War, etc?

Our military are adults who have made their own decisions with their parents approval or not… Wars we fight and how we fight them should be fought or not fought based on those merits, not the emotional hysteria that some suggest.

Posted by: Rhinehold at January 15, 2007 1:25 PM
Comment #203358
What if we had thought like in WWI or WWII, the Civil War, etc?

We did have a draft during the Civil war and WWII, so I guess we were thinking like that. If we had a draft, Senators would really have to think about whether or not they would send their own children into a conflict - and I think they should always think that way.

Posted by: Max at January 15, 2007 2:37 PM
Comment #203360

Woody,

“Ouch. Not only did Laura say that Condi have no kids, she said she was an orphan with no kids and no friends.”

That was not a nice thing to say. Neither was what Senator Boxer said. Neither are the worst things that have ever been said about a public figure, so it is much ado about nothing.

Btw, that’s not technically what L. Bush said though is it? You’re playing logic games for affect right? She used an “and” statement, when you negated it, it results in not A or not B; however, you made it not A and and not B.

Posted by: Rob at January 15, 2007 2:44 PM
Comment #203362

Rob,

Yes, I guess you could say I was exagarrating for effect.

Posted by: Woody Mena at January 15, 2007 2:50 PM
Comment #203367
It’s a questionable position to take, to suggest that we should think about war emotionally as if we were sending our own ‘children’ to war.

What if we had thought like in WWI or WWII, the Civil War, etc?

Our military are adults who have made their own decisions with their parents approval or not… Wars we fight and how we fight them should be fought or not fought based on those merits, not the emotional hysteria that some suggest.

Everything should be taken into consideration when going to war. It is not hysteria to look at all possible results of a choice.

Posted by: womanmarine at January 15, 2007 3:02 PM
Comment #203374

I’m sure most of you have now heard of the “appeal for redress”.

“An “appeal for redress” petition, signed by more than 1,000 active duty soldiers and sailors nationwide — many of whom served in Iraq — is to be delivered to Congress on Tuesday.”

“We served in combat and we’ve seen the futility of this war,” said Sgt. Jabbar Magruder of Los Angeles, a member of the National Guard who served 11 months in Tikrit, a town northwest of Baghdad. “The soldiers want to resist. The soldiers want to come home now. We need the citizens to back us.”

http://www.dailypress.com/news/dp-protest.j16,0,3072926.story?track=rss

I believe Boxer was doing her job, asking the tough questions, not being afraid to ruffle a few feathers or step on a few toes.

The fireworks in the House might be interesting when Kucinich gets a chance to read “the appeal for redress” into the record, maybe as soon as tomorrow.

Posted by: KansasDem at January 15, 2007 3:43 PM
Comment #203391

Rhinehold,

“I’m not ignoring it, I’m just mocking it. It’s a questionable position to take, to suggest that we should think about war emotionally as if we were sending our own ‘children’ to war.”

What a pejorative statement that demonstrates why you would make a lousy general. If you are so callous as to not care about the fate of soldiers, then something is clearly wrong with your thinking.

War is a solution of last resort. Yet, apparently to you, it’s something to make fun about. I don’t find it humourous sending 18 year olds, who to someone your age should be regarded as child-like, if you’ve gained any wisdom at all over the years, to die.

This entire crap about Boxer is so phoney it’s pathetic, and why people accuse you of absurd partisanship.

Posted by: gergle at January 15, 2007 5:33 PM
Comment #203403

Gergle,

1) I never said anything about Boxer. I have really no opinion on what she said, she’s entitled to say anything she wants IMO.

2) You make an assumption about me that isn’t valid. You said that I do not care about the fate of soldiers. That’s nothing close to what I am saying. My point was that decisions shouldn’t be made based on that care. If the military action is the right thing to do then it should be done.

3) I never said war wasn’t a solution of last resort, again you attempt to assign a position to me. I’m a taoist and abhor violence. Unfortunately I also understand that there are times when diplomacy and reason fail and arms must be taken up.

Remember, I don’t think we should still be in Iraq in any way, we should have pulled out years ago. Again, you seem to want to determine what my opinion is and then argue against it…

BTW, Mocking a viewpoint and finding Humor in something are two different things.

Posted by: Rhinehold at January 15, 2007 6:27 PM
Comment #203412

Boxer seems to have apologized anyway…

Posted by: dawn at January 15, 2007 7:05 PM
Comment #203445

How about providing a QUOTE or a LINK for that “seeming” apology, dawn? Or all we all just supposed to take your word for it?

If Barbara Boxer apologized, it would have had to have taken place in the last two hours. Know how I know that? Because I just Googled the name Barbara Boxer and what popped up first was this opinion piece from Faux News scumbag John Gibson, which he posted about two hours ago:
Still Waiting for Barbara Boxer to Apologize to Condi Rice

I suspect that if anyone is going to be quick to crow first about how they managed to wring a BS apology out of Boxer due to pressure from the rightwing slimemachine, it’ll be the Faux News Team.
So dawn, where did you glean your news about this apology Boxer “seems” to have given?

Posted by: Adrienne at January 15, 2007 9:44 PM
Comment #203493

Rhinehold,

Thanks for comfirming your “I didn’t say what you quoted, therefore your criticism has no merit” position.

I guess I, and others, can’t read.

When your only citicism in this post is trying to redefine the thrust of Boxer’s remarks by redefining the meaning of Children, as it was used, I think that amounts to a significant comment on Boxer’s remarks and all those other “extremist” Democrats. Sure glad that your comment wasn’t off the mark, or extremist for the Republican spin.

So when do the generals not care about the fate of their troops? If that isn’t a consideration, Rhinehold, then that general would meet the definition of a sociopath. Absurd. Please note I never said it was the only consideration. Also please note I am only using your twisted and extremist logic to argue with you.

I never made any assumptions about your positions, as you assume, I only criticised the odd focus of your criticisms.

Posted by: gergle at January 16, 2007 4:39 AM
Comment #203571
Condoleeza Rice. Secretary of State. Her job description requires her to follow the President of the United States’ Foreign Policy.

Does this give an Elected Official the right to personally attack her?

No. That would be the first amendment that gives her that right. Freedom of speech. You might have heard of it? Everyone in this country has the right to say things which are offensive to others. Big deal.

Posted by: Jarandhel at January 16, 2007 5:10 PM
Comment #203753

Dawn is, as usual, mindlessly repeating Republican talking points, by willfully perverting Boxer’s meaning. Here’s Boxer’s point, Dawn: those of us who do not have close family members fighting in Iraq are making decisions on the cheap; we risk nothing, sacrifice nothing by escalating a pointless war.

The Bush administration, crammed with folks who skillfully avoided military service in their youth but relish playing “army” now, invite comments such as Boxer’s.

Again, Dawn, why do you post here? You belong in the Red column where you’ll find an audience that still buys your Rove-tinted reality hype.

Posted by: pianofan at January 17, 2007 6:32 PM
Comment #203873

I received this letter in e-mail form from Senator Boxer today:

As the new Congress moves quickly to address a set of domestic issues that cry out for change — including ethics, prescription drug costs, student loans, stem cell research, and many others — the war in Iraq rages on, and President Bush continues to defy every voice of reason.

The right-wing war room is up and running as strong as ever, and I can tell you first-hand how vicious it is.

You have probably already seen or read about the point I made to Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice last week — that neither she nor I had family who would pay with their lives for this war. I want the Bush Administration to focus on the military families who are suffering when proposing an escalation in Iraq.

The response of White House Press Secretary Tony Snow and the right-wing media was immediate. Did they make the case that the Bush Administration totally understood the agony our military families are going through but that escalation of the war was still the only course for them? No, of course not. Instead, they tried to distract the American people from the real issues by claiming that I was personally attacking Secretary Rice, calling me every name in the book.

This is the same thing they did a couple years ago when I told Secretary Rice that her loyalty to the Administration trumped her loyalty to the truth. In a page from the same old tired playbook, the right-wing media machine then said I was anti-woman.

There is nothing that the Bush Administration won’t do to try and silence their opponents. There is nothing that they won’t do with their right-wing allies to try and change the subject away from the Iraq war itself to some made-up side issue.

We can’t let this distract us. It is so crucial that we all keep up the pressure to start bringing out troops home so the Iraqis know that Iraq is their country, we are not occupiers, and they must defend themselves. It is also crucial that we keep up the pressure for a political and diplomatic solution to this travesty — to bring together all of the countries in the region with the coalition President Bush says he has, in order to meet and hammer out the details for bringing about a peaceful Iraq. Instead, the Bush Administration is only offering a military escalation which means more and more killing, leaving our sons and daughters in the middle of a full-blown civil war.

Please join me. Please forward an email to President Bush urging him to listen to the voices of reason and turn away from this unwise escalation.

It’s time for Congress to go on record. The American people spoke loud and clear at the polls last November, and now their elected representatives must stand up to the Bush Administration’s reckless escalation plan.

The Iraq war is hanging like a dark cloud over our nation and the world. I will not be silenced, and I know you won’t either. Let’s work as hard as we can to change course and start bringing our brave men and women home so the Iraqis can take responsibility for their own country. Please email President Bush today!

Thank you for always being there for me and for our country.

My best,
Barbara Boxer

Posted by: Adrienne at January 18, 2007 5:07 PM
Comment #204244

“I will not be silenced, and I know you won’t either.” Barbara Boxer

Funny that we have to read her response on the blog post rather than having her give it as a response to the President’s Saturday morning address. It seems that being silenced is exactly what has happened. She is now pleading for constituents to step in and start Emailing because poor Grandma Boxer got attacked by the vicious Republican War Machine, and just can’t stand alone in her response. Why can’t she stand toe to toe with Bush and Rice without resorting to her personal attacks? Now she is sending out letters complaining about how she has been treated? Geez!! Someone give Grandma a crying towel!

JD

Posted by: JD at January 21, 2007 12:11 AM
Comment #204284

JD,

Right, and I suspect your still waiting for throngs with flowers in Iraq.

Posted by: gergle at January 21, 2007 11:51 AM
Post a comment