Reply With Quote
Crude and confrontational, but completely true.
Confrontation and obstruction of Condi and all the WH has been too absent, leading us into Iraq.
The more confrontation and obstruction of the disastrous WH and Repugs, the better.
http://www.nypost.com/seven/01122007...ls_.htm?page=0
Welcome to the next two years of life with a Democratic majority in Congress.Boxer was wholly in character for her party - New York's own two Democratic senators, Chuck Schumer and Hillary Rodham Clinton, were predictably opportunistic - but the Golden State lawmaker earned special attention for the tasteless jibes she aimed at Rice.
Rice appeared before the Senate in defense of President Bush's tactical change in Iraq, and quickly encountered Boxer.
"Who pays the price? I'm not going to pay a personal price," Boxer said. "My kids are too old, and my grandchild is too young."
Then, to Rice: "You're not going to pay a particular price, as I understand it, with an immediate family."
Breathtaking.
Simply breathtaking.
Crude and confrontational, but completely true.
Confrontation and obstruction of Condi and all the WH has been too absent, leading us into Iraq.
The more confrontation and obstruction of the disastrous WH and Repugs, the better.
As much as it is true that Congress has given the WH too much of a free pass (and the WH has given Congress the same - look at the deficit); it is true that had a white Republican man said that to ANY female - the reaction would have been swift and severe; dude probably would have had to retire.
Yes, throwing insults at those that do not have children for not having children is a wonderful way to get things done.
Confrontation and especially obstruction is sure to encourage the cooperation and compromise between the two parties that this government so desperately needs.
Of course Boutons will never see this though as he has me on ignore.
Most likely very true.
If a Republican Senator had said something to that to someone like Boxer you'd be calling for their resignation.
Condi is smarter than anyone on this board, and probably anyone in Congress as well. I didn't know you had to have children to be a 'smart' administration leader...
"you'd be calling for their resignation. "
less, "you can't handle the truth" so every ing post of yours is a lie, strawman, red herring, non sequitur.
Is this the same Barbara Boxer who, back in the 1970's, encouraged women to "throw off the shackles of marriage and children and achieve your full potential." Now she's criticizing a extremely smart woman who did just that - what a hypocrite.
The only women that feminists support are those that adhere to their liberal views and agenda. Dr. Rice rose above segregation to become the first and ONLY black woman to become Secretary of State. Shouldn't that be something feminists should applaud? But no, they vilify her at every opportunity!
Touche' or, in the words of Emeril Lagasse, "Bam!"
Bush speaks through her, therein lies her problem. Bush is the anchor that weighs her down.
Crookshanks FTW.
Nicely played.
Millions of women did exactly what Boxer said to do.
That's how the middle classes survived, moving to 2 salaries.
As always, Crooky's limited intelligence and agenda-think leads her into grievous, egregious errors, where she is happily camped out.
Boxer didn't tell Condi to go get married, have kids, and stay home.
Boxer is not after Condi for being an post-graduated, educated, professional.
Boxer's 70s exhortation doesn't preclude her from disagreeing, vehemently, viciously, with Condi.
Forget about Crooky's bias seeing this as a woman-on-woman cat fight.
Crooky should be "celebrating" that two women, her ilk, have reached so high into male-dominated international politics, and have contrary, independent positions.
Forget about Crooky's obession with gender.
Boxer's point is perfectly valid, and lots of people have made it.
Who in the WH has kids wasting themselves in Iraq for dubya's disaster? Dubya's 2 bimbos didn't sign up.
Way to deflect the discussion, .
Every ing post is a lie, strawman, red herring, etc.?
boutons, do you ever stop to read your copy and pastes, err, 'posts'?
What part of what I said is a lie? Even one of your own liberal brethren has said the same as me in this thread, I guess that makes SA a liar too?
Damn, it's a good thing you're still an uninformed high school twit. There's still some home for you to figure out this thing called reality.
got rice biatch, got rice?
"you'd be calling for their resignation."
.... total bull , less' typical chicken of:
"Damn, Boutons is whipping my ass, so I have to put my bull in his mouth and claim it's his own"
Learn how to quote you ing moron
Truth.
Of course he completely sidesteps what you say in his copy-paste reply.
At the risk of exposing myself as the only person here who has never heard this, or at the risk of appearing to defend this ... When did she say this? Google has not been helpful.
"Condi is smarter than anyone on this board, and probably anyone in Congress as well."
Condi's a WH suckup. Her legacy is/will be in the toilet like every other principal in dubya's Exec these past 6 years. She may be smart in the book sense, but she's not wise to have hooked up and pimped for dubya and his bull war.
btw, here's a hard-core conservative's take on Condi's department:
============
The Mess at State
By Robert D. Novak
Thursday, January 11, 2007; A25
Members of the Senate intelligence committee, Republicans and Democrats alike, were alarmed last week that John Negroponte was leaving as director of national intelligence after less than two years to become deputy secretary of state. By way of explanation, he informed one Republican senator that he did not want to make the switch but that the White House had prevailed on him to do so.
Just how career diplomat Negroponte came to be the new intelligence czar in the first place is puzzling. But to pull him out just as his on-the-job training was completed reflects a panicky desire to fill the deputy secretary post, which had been unfilled for an unprecedented six months. Five other key State Department positions are either vacant or are soon to be vacant.
Republicans in Congress who do not want to be quoted tell me that the State Department under Condoleezza Rice is a mess. This comes at a time when the U.S. global position is precarious. While attention is focused on Iraq, American diplomacy is being tested worldwide -- in Afghanistan, Iran, Israel, Korea and Sudan. The judgment by thoughtful Republicans is that Rice has failed to manage that endeavor.
Rice's previous government duties had been as an analyst and staffer rather than as a manager. That made it important for her to name a strong deputy secretary to run the building. John Bolton, an undersecretary in President Bush's first term and an experienced bureaucratic manager, volunteered. Rice instead picked him to be ambassador to the United Nations. The conservative Bolton ran afoul of a liberal Senate vendetta that blocked his confirmation for any post.
The deputy's post went to Robert Zoellick, one of the most talented national security administrators of the past generation who during Bush's first term was U.S. trade representative. He wanted to become president of the World Bank, but that job was filled by the embattled Paul Wolfowitz, who left the Defense Department as deputy secretary. Zoellick took a bullet for the team, dropping down a step to No. 2 at State.
Foreign Service officers saw in Zoellick a dominant deputy in the mold of Richard Armitage, who effectively managed the department during the first term. But Rice and Zoellick were not a marriage made in heaven. Nicholas Burns, No. 3 at State as undersecretary for political affairs, dominated the building. Burns surely would have been in the same post if John Kerry had been elected in 2004 and seemingly would be more at home in a Democratic administration.
Estranged from Zoellick, Rice relied on Burns and State Department Counselor Philip Zelikow for advice. A former Foreign Service officer and brilliant University of Virginia professor, Zelikow was near the top of the arrogance scale in a building where arrogance is the norm, uniting such disparate figures as Bolton and Burns. Zoellick busied himself by specializing in China and Sudan, unusual for a deputy secretary, but he finally had enough after 18 months and left in July.
That began a furtive, sporadic search for a deputy. Several prospects (including Marine Gen. James Jones, who just retired as NATO's supreme allied commander) said no, perhaps warned off by Zoellick's experience. Negroponte, named national intelligence director despite his lack of intelligence experience, was implored by fellow Foreign Service officers to bring order out of chaos. Retired Adm. Mike McConnell, though he had been out of the intelligence game for 10 years, was tapped to replace Negroponte.
Negroponte will find other empty offices at State. Zelikow, Counterterrorism Coordinator Hank Crumpton and John Hillen, assistant secretary for political-military affairs, have all resigned and have not been replaced. Robert Joseph, undersecretary for arms control, is reported to be going, and Josette Sheeran Shiner, undersecretary for economic affairs, is leaving to head the World Food Program.
With the State Department permanent bureaucracy traditionally hostile to Republican administrations, it is remarkable to see two Foreign Service officers, Negroponte and Burns, in the department's No. 2 and No. 3 slots. Insiders relish their confrontation. When Negroponte was flying high as Ronald Reagan's Communist-fighting ambassador to Honduras, Burns was a rookie staff assistant to the U.S. envoy in Cairo. That may turn out to be a good show, but it is not reassuring for a country facing myriad challenges worldwide.
(C) 2007 Creators Syndicate Inc.
==================
So it appears the REPUBLICAN and conservative mucky-mucks think Condi has failed a departmental manager and as international diplomat, as well as being tarred (oops!) with the same brush that will paint all dubya's principals as one of the worst Exec branches ever.
So, how come, if Condi's so ing smart?
And how is that cut and paste diatribe relavent to the topic of the thread again?
To me, this article posted by Boutons totally justifies Boxer's statement.
Boutons - it's not what Condi has or has not done during her tenure in this administration that is being debated. It's the condescending and rather rude remarks made by Barbara Boxer.
If not having a child affected by this decision leaves you unable to have an opinion or make policy - then almost ALL of congress would be exempt!
And by that logic - does that mean Ms. Boxer, who is such a champion of the poor and needy, doesn't really have standing to make policy on government handouts because she was raised as a privileged child?
Her comments, while not just being rude and insensitive, are completely irrelevant to the issue at hand!
Wait this seems familiar to me. Who else do I know that is like this?
Hmmmmm.....................
Oh yeah
That means Boutons has another thing in common with yet another politician.
I still can't find where Boxer said anything about throwing off the shackles of marriage and children in the 70's... It's especially interesting since she was married with children at that time.
I'd be a little concerned if my wife or mother said something like that.
Last edited by Spurminator; 01-12-2007 at 03:44 PM.
Boxer is a simple minded dimm-o-crap doing their normal thing. Thrashing anyone
who opposes their point of view. Never mind the dimm-o-craps are usually
wrong on most issues.
Now what is so unusual above here remarks.
Just look at boutons comment. Totally predictable.
There are currently 1 users browsing this thread. (0 members and 1 guests)
Posting Permissions
