There is no reason why a comment by Barbara Boxer needed to be a news story other than the fact that Condi was unable to answer Boxer's first question when she asked if there was an estimate as to how many casualties we can expect after this "surge."
Nevermind that Condi said that there was no way anyone could imagine what the cost in lives would be. No consideration was given to how many more American lives would be lost and the Rupert Murdoch media doesn't want anyone to contemplate that, so it was decided to make Condi look like the poor little victim.
Who is paying the price of the war?
Boxer asked Rice, who was defending Bush's new Iraq policy to the Senate, "Who pays the price?"Translation:
"I'm not going to pay a personal price," Boxer said. "My kids are too old, and my grandchild is too young."
Then, Boxer said to Rice, "You're not going to pay a particular price, as I understand it, with an immediate family."
"Who is sacrificing for this war in Iraq? My family is too old and you don't have one."
Talk about projection
The reactions were stunning. The NY Post and Fox News, called Boxer's comments a "low blow" and a "slur." Tony Snow called it "tacky." No mention was made of the fact that Condi couldn't estimate how many of the troops might die, something that perhaps would be of concern to the families of the troops.
The NY Post tabloid opined that "Boxer "apparently believes that an accomplished, seasoned diplomat, a renowned scholar and an adviser to two presidents like Condoleezza Rice is not fully qualified to make policy at the highest levels of the American government because she is a single, childless woman.""
Uh. No. Laura Bush started that rumor.
Tony Snow: "Here you got a professional woman, Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice, and Barbara Boxer is sort of throwing little jabs because Condi doesn't have children, as if that means that she doesn't understand the concerns of parents."
The Spin Is Enough To Make You Vomit
Of course it's okay to be a woman who is single and childless. These are smart women. Where does anyone come off claiming that a California liberal woman would think otherwise? The ironic thing that came out of the broohaha between Condi and Barbara Boxer yesterday was that the very people (Bushistas) who publicly espouse the patriarchal ideology (that women should get married, bear children, be quiet and stay home where they belong) are the ones who are whining that feminism was set back... as if these people know anything about feminism other than to label it and put it in a box on a shelf.
Condi Spins It Too
"In an interview this afternoon with The New York Times, Ms. Rice suggested that the California Democrat had set back feminism by suggesting during the hearing that the childless Ms. Rice had paid no price in the Iraq war," Helene Cooper and Thom Shankar write.Ms Rice, who should have been addressed as Dr. Rice in the article, DIDN'T pay a personal price in the war on Iraq (unless she valued her reputation, which is long gone.) Neither did I, if you don't count my sanity. Unless my son or nephews got drafted, I won't know the personal anguish that the families of troops feel. I can only empathize.
"I thought it was okay to be single," Ms. Rice told the paper. "I thought it was okay to not have children, and I thought you could still make good decisions on behalf of the country if you were single and didn’t have children."
Dear Dr. Rice,
I would like to comment on your ridiculous assertions following Senator Boxer's comments concerning those who are really sacrificing during the war.
Many single women have parents, siblings or nieces and nephews who are eligible to serve or are currently serving in the war on Iraq. No one was saying that single women are incapable of sacrificing their kin for your war on Iraq. Many single women do feel the pain of sacrificing a family member to your war. Perhaps you ought to re-read the transcript. If in fact if you do have kin who would be eligible to serve, why not mention it and this nonsense would be over with.
Laura Bush implied that you wouldn't make a good president because you have no husband or living family. Where was your outrage when she said that? Nowhere is it written that you need the aggravation of a spouse and family to make a good presidential candidate except in the Republican family values handbook. Other than the fact that you are not a good liar, you are certainly qualified to run for president.
You stated that Senator Boxer implied that you can't make a good decision on behalf of the country because you're childless. You must have been thinking of Laura Bush. Being a feminist myself, I would have picked up on Boxer's alleged slur. She said nothing of the sort. But since you bring it up out of the blue, Dr. Rice, in your case, the reason you are perceived as someone incapable of making a good decision on behalf of the country is because you constantly come across as a person who has no soul. You simply give the impression that you don't experience human emotions.
You made no effort to answer Senator Boxer's question honestly. She wanted you to know that there are people out there who do care what the dangers are of a "surge" in the war on Iraq. If you did indeed care about the sacrifice of families and troops, you would find out the answer. People are tired of your "I don't know" or "No one could imagine" replies to serious questions.
Does your outrage imply that you are sacrificing in some way for the troops sent into harms way? Did I miss something? I'd like to know what price you've paid for your war. It would be good for your image.