Sen. Barbara Boxer D- Calif. feels that if you do not have children serving in what some people consider the 21st Century’s “New Vietnam War” then you have no right to support the war in Iraq. Radio talk-show host Larry Elder points out Senator Boxer’s rude response to the honorable Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice’s testimony before the Senate Foreign Relations Committee. Boxer showed her discontent with Rice’s support for the war. Rice responded to Senator Boxer by informing her that just because she did not have children serving in the war or have a family does not disqualify her from making intelligent decisions about America’s involvement in Iraq. Condoleezza Rice may be able to make informed decisions about U.S. involvement in the war in Iraq; however, Rice would probably expedite the armed services removal from our prolonged stay in Iraq if she had children serving in the war.
I suppose if you do not have children or family members serving in the war you are not “allowed to support the war”. Who gives Senator Boxer the right to say that if one does not have loved ones serving in the war then they have no right supporting the war.
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
1 comment:
I disagree. This is the actual quote made by Boxer:
"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, within immediate family. So who pays the price? The American military and their families, and I just want to bring us back to that fact."
If you think that Boxer was disrespecting Rice, then you must recognize that she was equally disrespecting herself. Boxer admits herself that she is not paying a price because her children are too old, and her grandchildren are too young to serve. She extends this to Rice, since Rice has no children. THEREFORE, ACCORDING TO BOXER, NEITHER ARE PAYING A PRICE...
Boxer is highlighting the fact that troops are treated as a number--and the ones who have to lose immediate family are paying the price.
Additionally, Boxer never refers to Rice's [lack of] children. "Immediate family" can refer to a sibling for god sake.
This entire situation has been at least misunderstood...but I would take a step further and say completely blown out of proportion.
Boxer authored the Freedom of Choice Act of 2004...she clearly believes that women have choices when it comes to motherhood.
www.thecolonic.blogspot.com
Post a Comment