- comment
Doogman - body
- Active Army - 42
Army Reserves - 42
Active Air Force - 27
Air Force Reserve - 34
Active Navy - 34
Naval Reserves - 39
Active Marines - 28
Marine Corps Reserve - 29
Active and Reserve Coast Guard - 27
I can understand why *you* don't sign up, but assuming a draft is instituted, you very well MAY be paying a VERY personal price.
I salute you.
- comment RightsideVA
- body
- Who "Paid the price" when Clinton did not provide our troops the support they should have had back during the "Blackhawk down" incident???
- comment D.J. McGuire
- body
- RightsideVA,
I can tell you who paid the price for that one: the victims of 9/11.
- comment Shaun Kenney
- body
- So you condone the way Senator Boxer treated Secretary Rice???
Same old playbook indeed.
- comment Ben Kyber
- body
- So apparently now stating a fact, that Secretary Rice has no immediate family to pay the price for the War in Iraq, is a "low blow."
Sen. Boxer wasn't attacking Condi for being a "childless woman." She wasn't really attacking Condi at all, just pointing out that its easy to be gung ho for a war that your loved ones don't have to fight and die for.
The real low blow was Condi's testimony. She had no answers. Then again, NO ONE has any answers about this latest disgrace of a plan that the President has cooked up (and 70% of Americans recognize is yet another failure to 100% own up for a foreign policy DISASTER).
There's a reason why papers like the NYP and Washington Times aren't particularly respected in the world of journalism...
- comment Charles
- body
- Missing the bigger point --
Boxer's entire POINT was stupid. In fact, the opposite is true -- the LAST thing you want your representative in congress to do is to vote based on what they have to lose personally, rather than on what is best for the country.
The idea that elected politicians, or dedicated career professionals in public life, are indifferent to the death of our soldiers is so ludicrous that it almost deserves to be called a projection of Boxer's own feelings on the rest of us -- but not quite, because I don't believe even BOXER doesn't have feelings for the soldiers who die, since they aren't still in their mother's womb.
But to suggest that we'd be better off thinking about the possibility of our own sons and daughters dying before we make a decision about whether the country should fight in the war is simply wrong. In most contexts voting based on personal gain is considered criminal, and possibly treasonous -- but here Boxer is suggesting that doing so would be a more enlightened leadership.
Bunk.
- comment Charles
- body
- bk, it's not "easy" to be gung-ho for a war. THe idea that people who don't have kids have no other reason to care about the death of others is pathetic.
We all know people in Iraq and Afghanistan, most of us know people who have died, or people who have had family members who died or were injured.
I can guarantee you that Condi Rice has met with families of fallen soldiers, and probably has more of a concept of the loss than I do, even though I have children.
- comment Karen Duncan
- body
- All Barbara Boxer was doing was pointing out the rather obvious fact that very few of those who are making the decisions in fact have family members over in Iraq.
She started by saying that her family wasn't at risk. Neither was Condi Rice's family (which could, by the way, include nieces and nephew), or any of the Bushes, or most of those in the Senate or House, regardless of party affiliation.
Her point is one that has been made before - whether you like it or not, or think it's relevant or not - few of the children of the priveleged upper middle class are over there fighting. Of course, there are notable exceptions. But they are exceptions, not the rule.
In World War II, and even Vietnam, more people shared the sacrifice. I'm not sure how much that matters to whether we should be there or not. But it is a fact and it is not hypocrisy to point it out.
8 Comments:
Army Reserves - 42
Active Air Force - 27
Air Force Reserve - 34
Active Navy - 34
Naval Reserves - 39
Active Marines - 28
Marine Corps Reserve - 29
Active and Reserve Coast Guard - 27
I can understand why *you* don't sign up, but assuming a draft is instituted, you very well MAY be paying a VERY personal price.
I salute you.
I can tell you who paid the price for that one: the victims of 9/11.
Same old playbook indeed.
Sen. Boxer wasn't attacking Condi for being a "childless woman." She wasn't really attacking Condi at all, just pointing out that its easy to be gung ho for a war that your loved ones don't have to fight and die for.
The real low blow was Condi's testimony. She had no answers. Then again, NO ONE has any answers about this latest disgrace of a plan that the President has cooked up (and 70% of Americans recognize is yet another failure to 100% own up for a foreign policy DISASTER).
There's a reason why papers like the NYP and Washington Times aren't particularly respected in the world of journalism...
Boxer's entire POINT was stupid. In fact, the opposite is true -- the LAST thing you want your representative in congress to do is to vote based on what they have to lose personally, rather than on what is best for the country.
The idea that elected politicians, or dedicated career professionals in public life, are indifferent to the death of our soldiers is so ludicrous that it almost deserves to be called a projection of Boxer's own feelings on the rest of us -- but not quite, because I don't believe even BOXER doesn't have feelings for the soldiers who die, since they aren't still in their mother's womb.
But to suggest that we'd be better off thinking about the possibility of our own sons and daughters dying before we make a decision about whether the country should fight in the war is simply wrong. In most contexts voting based on personal gain is considered criminal, and possibly treasonous -- but here Boxer is suggesting that doing so would be a more enlightened leadership.
Bunk.
We all know people in Iraq and Afghanistan, most of us know people who have died, or people who have had family members who died or were injured.
I can guarantee you that Condi Rice has met with families of fallen soldiers, and probably has more of a concept of the loss than I do, even though I have children.
She started by saying that her family wasn't at risk. Neither was Condi Rice's family (which could, by the way, include nieces and nephew), or any of the Bushes, or most of those in the Senate or House, regardless of party affiliation.
Her point is one that has been made before - whether you like it or not, or think it's relevant or not - few of the children of the priveleged upper middle class are over there fighting. Of course, there are notable exceptions. But they are exceptions, not the rule.
In World War II, and even Vietnam, more people shared the sacrifice. I'm not sure how much that matters to whether we should be there or not. But it is a fact and it is not hypocrisy to point it out.
Post a Comment
Home