Barbara Boxer Says Condi Rice Can't Know Price Of Sacrifice

o.p. by Arkane
How do you suppose we are to lock down the borders without an organized police force and with a bunch of madmen running around trying to kill every American "infidel" they see by laying down roadside bombs everywhere and ambushing convoys?

If you read my post carefully, you will see that I am talking about our borders here in the US. You are right, our borders aren't secure, and neither is our transportation infra- and extra-structure. It isn't that we can't secure our own borders, but that we have failed to do so prior to traipsing off halfway around the world to invade Iraq and Afghanistan.

We were attacked on home soil, in New York and DC, on 9/11. Not in Iraq or Afghanistan. How is it the proper response then to attack those two countries without first securing our borders and transportation corridors (the means by which we were attacked in the first place) to shield ourselves from another attack? I know, hit them before they hit us again, but don't we at least need to put an effective guard up first?

At this point, our resources are becoming so depleted that we can neither defend ourselves effectively here at home nor continue to take the fight to the enemy abroad. I know there hasn't been another attack on home soil since 9/11, but that isn't due to transportation or border security, I can assure you.

[edit on 13-1-2007 by Icarus Rising]

no i did not get that from your post by reading carefully. maybe you should make it clearer.

let's think about this for half a second. we have illegal immigration to contend with yes. but let's be realistic. if someone wants to get into a country badly enough and then go destroy something, if they are smart it would not be impossible. it would not matter the amount of security short of placing gps implants on every human being on the planet which is another issue entirely. from a standpoint of track records, there are only 2 major terrorist type attacks i can think of off the top of my head that have happened in America in the last 75 years, one of which is Pearl Harbor and the other which is 9/11. granted they were both terrible events but i think we have the domestic terrorism issue under control about as good as we are going to get it. There are some things we can tighten up on like immigration and access to certain things like power plants etc. but i don't hear about roadside bombs in America everyday.

granted the bush administration has made mistakes in the ME campaigns, but what would Americans have said had we not done a damn thing after getting hit by a plane by some guy named Osama bin Laden? I'm pretty sure everyone I saw watching the TV the day that happened wanted some type of revenge and the govt. to do something. Well they did and it didn't go just the way everyone wanted and now they want to bitch and complain about something not as easy as going in and sniping some people and then getting the heck outta dodge. you complain about the situation but offer no solutions. pretty typical of just about every arm-chair general.

get the media out of there #1 and let the soldiers do their job rather than having Geraldo Riviera display in the sand a complete battle plan for attacking a city.

Mod Note: Big Quote – Please Review This Link.

[edit on 13/1/2007 by Mirthful Me]

You must not be reading very carefully then, Arkane. Or you simply wish to remain blind to the true facts of the matter because they don't fit your agenda.

Last time I checked, prior to the invasion, OBL wasn't from Iraq, had no support from Iraq, had nothing to do with Iraq. Three fourths of the 9/11 hijackers were supposedly from Saudi Arabia, but we didn't go and invade them.

Yes, our record on domestic terrorism has been good, too good. Pearl Harbor and the 9/11 attacks were allowed, even encouraged to happen by domestic right-wing elements, imo.

My armchair general recommendation was to take care of business here at home first before we over-commit our forces globally. But that would hit too close to home, might even close the door, on you right-wing elitist armchair generals, wouldn't it?

Originally posted by brimstone735


The implied lesbianism

Oh, it there's, just sneaking in under the surface, hiding in the crevices of the statement. It's practically screaming to be noticed. Condi Rice isn't married. Doesn't date. Has no children.

You just nail the issue my friend, you are right, I know exactly what you mean and the hidden meaning of Condi Rice life . . . that was the first thought in my mind when I read Boxer's words.

You know what is the problem?

Just like you say my friend, Lesbianism and conservatism do not walk hand in hand specially if you are a political figure and looking for a political future.

Yes people has the right to be and do whatever they want in our nation but no if you are to become a public figure that is still . . . sadly tabu.

Thanks for bringing on what many would no dare face.

Condi Rice has been known to date and was even engaged at one time, although she never married. I doubt seriously she's a lesbian, but even if she is, who cares?

Originally posted by djohnsto77
Condi Rice has been known to date and was even engaged at one time, although she never married. I doubt seriously she's a lesbian, but even if she is, who cares?

You are right nobody should care either way . . . that is the point.

Originally posted by Icarus Rising
That's why the first answer for the US to the problems in the ME needs to be border and transportation security, not global over-extension of our armed forces.

What border and transportaion security are you talking about? To me it looks like you are talking about border and transportation security in the Middle East as that is probably a part of the current battle plan. You could however be talking about border and transportation securty in the South Korea for all I know. How about explaining what border security you are talking about next time.

Originally posted by Icarus Rising
From a secure base of operations, the impact of our global first strike capabilities would be maximized in the form of special forces teams tailored for each engagement, going in high speed, low drag, and packing a wallop.

Again, what base are you talking about? Bases in Qatar? Bases in Afghanistan or Iraq? Bases in California? Sorry, but I haven't heard of any bases being overrun anywhere yet so I would have to say if there is a base somewhere, especially in the United States, it's pretty secure. Also, correct me if I'm wrong, but special forces teams are active pretty much everyday in the Middle East.

Face the facts. In any region on Earth that is nuclear or trying to become nuclear, insurgency, civil war, and radical regimes are dangerous for everyone on the planet.

Originally posted by Icarus Rising

Yes, our record on domestic terrorism has been good, too good. Pearl Harbor and the 9/11 attacks were allowed, even encouraged to happen by domestic right-wing elements, imo.

Just out of curiosity, do you happen to recall who was in office when Pearl Harbor was hit? If I recall correctly it wasn't a "domestic right wing element." You should add IMHO to your statement too, rather than stating your opinion as undisputable fact.

Originally posted by djohnsto77
Condi Rice has been known to date and was even engaged at one time, although she never married. I doubt seriously she's a lesbian, but even if she is, who cares?

Actually she is involved with our Foriegn Affairs minister. Oh the irony.

BTW, he's a guy.

o.p. by Arkane
What border and transportaion security are you talking about?
Again, what base are you talking about?

Cleared that up in this post
It follows rather easily that if I am talking about US borders and transportation, then I am talking about US bases to be used for the global first strike capability. Before we go traipsing off half way around the world to invade Iraq and Afghanistan.

GT100FV,

I know FDR was President then. The GOP hasn't always been the hawk party, you know. LBJ was a Dem, and he was the one who escalated Vietnam. The Republican Party was infiltrated successfully by the benefactors of Operation Paperclip, imo, and now contains a substantial fascist element largely hiding behind the right-wing fundamental Christian banner.

I hate to have to quote myself, but here goes.

o.p. by me
Yes, our record on domestic terrorism has been good, too good. Pearl Harbor and the 9/11 attacks were allowed, even encouraged to happen by domestic right-wing elements, imo.

Missed the imo, eh?

You have no idea how humble I am. All power and glory and honor and praise go to our Heavenly Father, the Creator, His Son, Jesus Christ, and the Holy Spirit.

FDR certainly wasn't a right wing conservative though. I don't believe that FDR or Bush "let" us get attacked, much less staged attacks(in Bush's case), just so we could get into a war. Do you honestly believe that Bush was sitting in the governors mansion in Texas, and had an epiphany- I need to run for president, so that I can stage an attack on my country/let someone else attack my country, so that I can get into an unpopular war, have half the country despise me, and have a tremendously stressful presidency? It just doesn't fly with me.

As for LBJ being the hawk- I thought everyone at that time was afraid of Barry Goldwater being too hawkish. I suspect the outcome in Vietnam would've been a lot different had a true hawk been in office.

Do you believe the President is the end all and be all of power in the executive branch of this country? I believe the President, especially Bush, is a figurehead, and his strings are pulled to a great extent by the conscienceless money men who put him in office.

President Bush sure had that, "Uh oh, my Daddy told me this would happen if I didn't watch out!" look on his face on 9/11, imo.

Originally posted by Icarus Rising
Do you believe the President is the end all and be all of power in the executive branch of this country? I believe the President, especially Bush, is a figurehead, and his strings are pulled to a great extent by the conscienceless money men who put him in office.

President Bush sure had that, "Uh oh, my Daddy told me this would happen if I didn't watch out!" look on his face on 9/11, imo.

Do you believe that every member of government, the President, the House and Senate, and the Judiciary are all pawns, and there are Illuminati pulling their strings? How does one figure out who is merely a puppet(are all politicians merely puppets? or just the ones we don't like or disagree with?)- what about ones who remain active, though no longer in office(do they have autonomy at this point, or is it like the Hotel California?) Is there corruption in government- you bet!
Is everyone in government corrupt?- I don't think that is the case.
I believe there are folks with their own opinions, goals, etc..

I believe the way things are set up, with the corporations owning the executive and legislative branches through contract kickbacks and lobbying, and the Senate appointing the members of the Board of the Federal Reserve, without the constraint of term limits, there is a system ripe for abuse that is becoming Lady Liberty raped blind by a bunch of unscrupulous sycophants lapping at the trough of overindulgence, wallowing in perks and kickbacks and handouts that would make Donald Trump jealous.

Yes, I think the system is corrupt, and the signs are all around us for any that have eyes to see and ears to hear.

Peace. Out.

[edit on 13-1-2007 by Icarus Rising]

This wasn't about Rice. This was meant to stir up more Dumb Bi-- ... Sheehans. Just pandering to the moronic. Nothing to see here.

Hi There,

Sen. Boxer very well could have included most of the Senators and Representatives in Congress, but she did not. She singled our Sect. Rice in a way as to belittle her. She could have made the same point in a general way by stating most people in government will not feel the loss, but Sen. Boxer had to take it to a personal level So much for the civilized start to this.

She singled out Rice because it was Rice to whom she was talking to, it was to Rice to whom the point was being made. I do not think that Rice was unaware of the 'lack' of sacrifice that senators or representatives make even before the thought was put to her. However, the point was made into general terms once it entered into the conscious of the media, and thence the American people. It was a point about observation, upon which everyone can think and become cognizant of...ie, no sacrifice is being made by anyone involved in the (mis)management of the War on Terror...if they were, the conflict would possibly have been managed differently, though not necessarily for the better. You see personal slights upon Rice, I see professional criticism made public.

As for the conflict being "wholly at odds with the conscience of the American people" you are translating your beliefs and polls, which by the way, are divided on this issue, and concluding all of America opposes the war and what we are trying to accomplish in Iraq.

This is why I used the term 'conscience', my opinion (not 'belief' as you erroneously refer to it) is not a translation, but a empathetic response to a conflict that has brought about so much death and destruction, not to me personally, but to my fellow human-kind. It is a sham, a bogus conflict built out of lies, disinformation, and obscurantism. If there were no oil in Iraq, not one American soldier would be there, either dying, or running the gauntlet of death.
The only accomplishment the current American administration is seeking is a control of Iraq's oil resource through a 'puppet' regime. In order that this might be accomplished, tens of thousands of innocent Iraqi civillians, men, women and children have been slaughtered, and simply called 'collatteral damage', casualties of war, or posthumous liberated people. Liberated from what...a tyrannt? Liberated into what...a lawless vacuum of attrition, kidnap, and murder. Anyone holding a genuine conscience in their heart, regardless of their race, must find this wholly unacceptable, which more than 50% of Americans do, if one is to accept the statistics of the polls.

Do you think it is vital that we succeed in Iraq or just that it is vital that we get our troops out of Iraq, regardless of the situation? The War on Terror, will depend on two major things; encouraging democratization of the Arab World and just solution to the Israeli / Palestinian conflict.

You won't succeed in Iraq unless you have a never ending supply of troops stationed there forever (and a good supply of body bags). The vital-ness to Iraq was lost when the first American and allied forces set foot on Iraqi sand. You think democratizing the Arabs will solve the issue, it won't, it will make it worse. Democracy is a alien concept to the Arabs. Never in their history have they had it or sought it! They already have their own history and culture, who does America think it is determining the policy of any race? While it continues to do so, it will always be at war. But that's just business!

Originally posted by brimstone735

Originally posted by jsobecky

This current group of Democrats apparently do not care about bipartisan efforts to solve problems. They continue with their pre-November mudslinging tactics, unaware that the American public is sick and tired of it.

Now you guys want bipartisanship?

Bipartisanship is a really nice way of describing mercy. Mercy which the GOP hadn't bothered to show Barbara Boxer, or anyone else for the last 6 years. As for mudslinging, I think the American people can accept their fair share of mudslinging, if it means finally pulling the plug on this war. As evidenced in November, the American People are furious. They're furious with Condi. With Bush. With the damn White House dog. They're three steps away from storming the gates, and beheading everyone in D.C.

Yes, now "we" want bipartisanship. Same as we've always wanted it. You know, the same stuff that has been missing for the past 7 years because of a pouting bunch of losers whose only answers to any proposal was to block it any way they could, regardless of what was good for the American people.

So it's not at all surprising that they are acting the way they are.

But, to stay on topic, I think the most revealing thing to me, is the alluded to subtext of Boxer's original comment. The reason why Conservatives are furiously up in arms over it.

The implied lesbianism

Oh, it there's, just sneaking in under the surface, hiding in the crevices of the statement. It's practically screaming to be noticed. Condi Rice isn't married. Doesn't date. Has no children.

Come to think of it, there is some of that outrage. I don't think Rice is lesbian, but if she is, so what? The sad part is that the implication is coming from a party who cries racism, homophobia, or religious fundamentalism at the drop of a hat.

How hypocritical.:shk:

Boxer made a comment -within the context of children during war- about Rice being childless, and suddenly there's an intense right wing noise machine, instantly pushing the controversy from a five to a ten.

I find the over reaction to be suspicious, as though they were pre-emptively striking out, fearful that the casual american voter would discover something they weren't supposed to know.

Boxer made a mean-spirited, malicious dig at a woman who has dedicated years of her life to serving this country, with foreknowledge of the implications. Why do you defend her?

As someone else stated, what if a white father made the same allegations against a single, black, childless woman? Then the "outrage meter" would have bent the needle from the sanctimony.

Originally posted by spacedoubt
I think , I have changed my mind.
Maybe it is true that Rice cannot know the type of loss, known by someone who has a child or many children.

Perhaps it is for the best that a person who is tasked with making decisions like this, not be ruled by emotions. Logic is clouded by emotions.

Boxer has actually provided Rice with a backhanded compliment.
A stinging, yet truthful definition of Rice. Someone who has to make decisions that require non-emotional, and logical judgement.

Thanks Barbie!

Excellent points. If emotion is allowed to overrule logic, then we are at the mercy of hormones.

You have voted spacedoubt for the Way Above Top Secret award. You have two more votes this month.

elysiumfire,

That was the best synopsis I've seen of this issue so far. I think your interpretation of the circumstances is dead on. I voted you a WATS for it, I was so impressed.

Congratulations.

Originally posted by GradyPhilpott
Boxer's statement was a cheap shot of the lowest kind and was not only absurd, but irrelevant. Her assertion is that Rice is not qualified to be Secretary of State because she does not have children.

With all due respect Grady, that's not what Boxer implied. She implied that Rice doesn't understand what it means to sacrifice a child because she doesn't have any, and never will because no male, human or otherwise, would ever come close to that (my addition in bold).

Yeah I took a cheap shot and there's plenty more where that came from. I'm tired of all those damn clueless parrots.

Peace