Barbara Boxer Owes Condy Rice An Apology [Archive]

View Full Version : Barbara Boxer Owes Condy Rice An Apology

alias

01-13-2007, 07:08 PM

Barbara Boxer Owes Condi Rice an Apology
Friday, January 12, 2007

By John Gibson

Where is the apology from Sen. Barbara Boxer to Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice?

Tony Snow called the senator's question to Rice a "great leap backward for feminism." And Tony nailed it.

Feminists like Barbara Boxer want it both ways. They want abortion rights, they want women to have access to the workplace, but if the woman takes that freedom, does not marry, does not have children, evidently Boxer thinks that woman is unqualified to use her education, experience and judgment in her career. Now, according to Boxer, that woman has to have children to have her career.

Sound confusing? Sure is. It is Boxer logic that only applies to one woman: a single, conservative black woman who happens to be secretary of state.

Boxer wouldn't say to anybody else, you have to have kids to hold your job. She wouldn't dream of saying that to a CEO or to a sales manager. But she thinks it's OK to say it to a secretary of state because this particular woman secretary of state has supported a decision to go to war. Only when it comes to a conservative black woman would Boxer think to ask that question.

A black woman should be a liberal. A black woman should have voted for Boxer and voted against Bush, and a black woman should be opposed to the war. If this black woman is none of those things then there is something wrong with her. What could it be? Oh, she hasn't been married, nor does she have children.

If I had said what Boxer said about a black woman secretary of state in a Democratic administration I'd have a pack of libs calling for my head.

All I want is an apology. Cough it up, Senator.

That's My Word.

John Gibson, Fox news.

Link (http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,243481,00.html)

CheesyMuslim

01-13-2007, 07:20 PM

Sorry bout that,

1. But Condi should come out and say, " I will not accept an apology from Barbra Boxer, at what ever level she gives one, if ever!"
2. Sure she should get one, but she should just come out and refuse it, even before she gets one.
3. Snub the bitch!

Regards,
SirJamesofTexas

alias

01-13-2007, 07:45 PM

I like you.

AlonzoMourning23

01-13-2007, 07:46 PM

Someone might want to post the comment in question.

alias

01-13-2007, 07:55 PM

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."

http://www.nypost.com/seven/01122007/postopinion/editorials/boxers_low_blow_editorials_.htm

Sounds to me that Boxer is saying because Rice does not have children, she will not pay a personal price for the war.Â*Â*Sounds to me that Boxer is saying that because Rice has no children in the war, she can make decisions to go to war without making a personal sacrifice that the parents of soldiers are making.

In my opinion, that is an insult.Â*Â*How does having children in the military qualify someone to make sound decisions?Â*Â*Nothing.Â*Â*It is just another example of liberal personal insults.Â*Â*Every soldier volunteered.

Maybe Condi should just claim to be a Frisco lesbian and then Boxer would be happy.

BoogyMan

01-13-2007, 08:18 PM

This is just more of the same kind of garbage that Charlie Rangel has been spewing in his latest attempt to play classist warrior.

Boxer has fancied herself a classist warrior for quite some time and her commentary is a vile evidence of the state of her thinking.

wonder cow

01-13-2007, 08:26 PM

BoogyMan

01-13-2007, 08:32 PM

Then, to Rice: "You're not going to pay a particular price, as I understand it, with an immediate family."

Ohhhhhh no she didn't!

Two things can make this comment an "issue".

(1) Very thin skin
(2) Allowing the twisted distorted reality presented by FAUX News to influence you.

The only place this is an issue: In the minds of the pundit whores at FAUX who twist and bend everything to create more fodder for their herd of viewers.

This comment belongs in political humor Wonder. Boxer was out of line, pure and simple.

CheesyMuslim

01-13-2007, 09:31 PM

Sorry bout that,

1. But Condi should come out and say, " I will not accept an apology from Barbra Boxer, at what ever level she gives one, if ever!"

Sorry bout that,

1. But yeah she should tell Boxer if she ever runs into her as they pass down the halls in DC.
2. Hello Condi, Boxer says,......
3. Condi says, as she strides past her, as she raises her hand in her face, she says, " Talk to the hand bitch".

Regards,
SirJamesofTexas

Guitarmitch

01-13-2007, 09:37 PM

Then, to Rice: "You're not going to pay a particular price, as I understand it, with an immediate family."

Ohhhhhh no she didn't!

Two things can make this comment an "issue".

(1) Very thin skin
(2) Allowing the twisted distorted reality presented by FAUX News to influence you.

The only place this is an issue: In the minds of the pundit whores at FAUX who twist and bend everything to create more fodder for their herd of viewers.

Give me a break.

Lets be honest. Had an (R) said this to a (D) all the other news channels would be going bonkers. Had a man said this to a woman same thing. You are applying a double standard that quite frankly shows you to be a partisan. Hardly 'independant' as you describe yourself.

alias

01-13-2007, 10:02 PM

I thought the liberals were all for the independent career woman rising as far as her talents would take her?Â*Â*Gee whiz ma, I guess not.Â*Â*Boxer is a typical hypocritical liberalÂ*Â*A$$wipe political hack. Another case of liberal moral authority. Now all you single career women without children, I want you to know that Barbara Boxer thinks you do not have the moral authority to have any opinions about this war because you cannot sacrifice a child.

BoogyMan

01-13-2007, 10:21 PM

As can be seen in the reaction to Pelosi's recent exploits the hypocrisy is palpable in the air, so this latest fiasco doesn't surprise me.

lily

01-13-2007, 10:29 PM

How did this:

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."

Turn into this:

Feminists like Barbara Boxer want it both ways. They want abortion rights,
they want women to have access to the workplace, but if the woman takes that
freedom, does not marry, does not have children, evidently Boxer thinks that
woman is unqualified to use her education, experience and judgment in her
career. Now, according to Boxer, that woman has to have children to have her
career.

Seems all Boxer was saying is unless you know what it feels like to loose a child, you would think twice before sending them into war. I see nothing in her statement putting down Condi's career. Talk about spinning it out of nothing.

Abortion rights.......come on John Gibson!

slappy

01-13-2007, 10:33 PM

I likewise need help seeing the anti-feminist angle (or, indeed the racist angle) that some seem to be locating on these comments. I agree with Boogy that Boxer seems to be affecting a class-warrior stance, a la Rangel. I think there's an open question as to whether that sort of remark is out of line, and I don't really have a strong view either way there. However, I'm at a loss as to how Boxer's remarks, as reported, indicate any sort of criticism of the fact that Rice is single and without kids.

BoogyMan

01-13-2007, 10:33 PM

Boxer was trying to make Rice look bloodthirsty and out of touch. It was uncalled for and yet another classist warfare technique.

There is no end to the Democrat party trying to build enmity between groups.

slappy

01-13-2007, 10:34 PM

Boxer was trying to make Rice look bloodthirsty and out of touch.

That I can at least see.

alias

01-13-2007, 11:16 PM

The anti-feminist jab is obvious to me. Since when does being a career woman who decided not to marry or have children make her unqualied to make decisions of state during war? If a single childless man was the secretary of state, would Boxer have made it a point? I think not. The point is liberals wear the proud badge of single career women, unless of course that single career woman has different politics. That is the point. Liberals are not the moral authority to pick and choose who they can support depending on their politics. You are either a feminist or not.

Labrocca

01-13-2007, 11:18 PM

Where is Dick Cheney when you need him. Boxer needed the big "Fuck Off" from Dick. Or maybe she needs to fuck some dick...who knows. Sorry for the language but jeez.

It is ironic that if Condi was a lesbian she would be even more of a liberal target. The Democratic party is suffering because they are trying to typecast their own party members into a certain category. Condi is a black woman...she should be a liberal democrat but because she isn't...well then she doesn't count.

It's this exact bullcrap I like to see and will get the GOP back in TOTAL power in 2008. The Dems don't attract members they only push them away.

slappy

01-13-2007, 11:30 PM

lily

01-13-2007, 11:53 PM

The anti-feminist jab is obvious to me.Â*Â*Since when does being a career woman who decided not to marry or have children make her unqualied to make decisions of state during war?Â*Â*If a single childless man was the secretary of state, would Boxer have made it a point?Â*Â*I think not.Â*Â*The point is liberals wear the proud badge of single career women, unless of course that single career woman has different politics.Â*Â*That is the point.Â*Â*Liberals are not the moral authority to pick and choose who they can support depending on their politics.Â*Â*You are either a feminist or not.

Please help me out..........how do you get this, from this statement? Neither one of them have children that would be fighting in this war.

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."

BoogyMan

01-14-2007, 12:01 AM

The anti-feminist jab is obvious to me. Since when does being a career woman who decided not to marry or have children make her unqualied to make decisions of state during war?
When did Boxer say, or even imply, that Rice was unqualified to make decisions of state during war?

The whole point of her commentary was that since she didn't have a child or possibly a husband fighting in the war and therefore her decision making process was not as valid as someone who has family in the battle. It is an asinine line of argumentation.

slappy

01-14-2007, 12:06 AM

Again, I think the stupidity of the question is up for debate, and I'm not taking a position on that just now. My point, in reply to alias, is that she could have made the exact same statements, for the exact same reasons to a man with no wife or kids. I'm just not seeing it as anti-feminist in any way, whether it was otherwise asinine or not.

BoogyMan

01-14-2007, 12:08 AM

slappy

01-14-2007, 12:22 AM

Thanks. :D

Just in case anyone else finds this helpful, here's a slightly larger chunk of the transcript from a NYT story. I know the Times isn't exactly neutral, but this is a transcript so I think we're ok. If anyone else has a more complete account, by all means let's look at it.

SENATOR BARBARA BOXER: Thank you. Mr. Chairman, for me today marks the bipartisan end of a rubber- stamp Senate.

And I am proud to be here on behalf of the people of California.

Madame Secretary, on November 7th, the American people voted for a change in Congress, citing Iraq as the number one issue affecting their vote. And a week later, General Abizaid told the Senate Armed Services Committee that he checked with every single divisional commander on the ground in Iraq and to a person know one believed that more American troops would improve the situation because the Iraqis already rely on us too much.

And then on December 7th, the Iraq Study Group -- noting that 61 percent of the Iraqis who you say support us so much approve of attacks on U.S. troops; they approve of shooting and killing U.S. troops -- the Iraqi Study Group, in light of that, recommended that U.S. combat troops should be redeployed out of Iraq by early '08. They also called for an immediate meeting -- international meeting in the region to find a political solution to Iraq. And one line that stands out in that Iraq Study report is, quote, "Absent a political solution, all the troops in the world will not provide security."

And on January 8th, the Military Times -- and I'd ask unanimous consent to place this into the record, Mr. Chairman. Mr. Chairman, may I place this in the record, the Military Times?

SENATOR JOSEPH BIDEN: Without objection, it'll be placed in --

SENATOR BARBARA BOXER: The Military Times published a poll which found that only 35 percent of military members approved of the way President Bush is handling this war, and only 38 percent thought there should be more troops.

So from where I sit, Madame Secretary, you are not listening to the American people. You are not listening to the military. You are not listening to the bipartisan voices from the Senate. You are not listening to the Iraq Study Group. Only you know who you are listening to, and you wonder why there is a dark cloud of skepticism and pessimism over this nation. I think people are right to be skeptical after listening to some of the things that have been said by your administration.

For example, October 19th '05, you came before this committee to discuss, in your words, how we assure victory in Iraq, and you said the following. In answer to Senator Feingold, "I have no doubt that as the Iraqi security forces get better -- and they are getting better and are holding territory, and they are doing the things with minimal help -- we are going to be able to bring down the level of our forces. I have no doubt" -- I want to reiterate -- "I have no doubt that that's going to happen in a reasonable time frame." You had no doubt, not a doubt. And last night, the president's announcement of an escalation is a total rebuke of your confident pronouncement.

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.

NPR has done a series of interviews with families who have lost kids. And the announcer said to one family in the Midwest, "What's changed in your life since your son's death?" The answer comes back, "Everything. You can't begin to imagine how even the little things change, how you go through the day, how you celebrate Christmas" --

Mr. Chairman, could I please --

SENATOR JOSEPH BIDEN: (Off mike) --

SENATOR BARBARA BOXER: "You can't begin to imagine how you celebrate any holiday or birthday. There's an absence. It's not like the person has never been there. They always were there, and now they're not. And you're looking at an empty hole. He has a Purple Heart, the flag that was on his coffin, and one of the two urns that we got back." He came back in three parts: two urns and one coffin. He's buried in three places, if you count their house. He's buried in New Jersey. He's buried in Cleveland.

That's who is going to pay the price.

And then you have the most moving thing I've ever heard on a radio station, which is a visit to a burn unit and a talk with the nurse. Devon suffered burns over 93 percent of his body, three amputations: both legs, one arm. His back was broken, internal organs exposed. As the hospital staff entered the room, they would see photographs on the wall, pictures of a healthy private standing proud in his dark-green Army dress uniform.

"It's very important," says the major, "that nurses see the patient as a person, because the majority of our patients have facial burns, and they're unrecognizable, and they're extremely disfigured."

So who pays the price? Not me. Not you. These are the people who pay the price.

So I want to ask you, since this administration has been so clear about how this has been coalition and a coalition. You've already said that we don't have anybody else escalating their presence at this time. Is that correct? (No audible reply.) That is correct.

Have you seen the recent news that the British are going to bringing home thousands of troops in the near future?

SECRETARY OF STATE CONDOLEEZZA RICE: I have seen the stories about what the British are going to do. I'll wait for a confirmation from the British government about what they're going to do.

SENATOR BARBARA BOXER: Okay. I would ask unanimous consent to place into the record the article from today that announces that that's what they're going to do, is bring home thousands of troops. And I want to point out to the American people: we are all alone. We are all alone. There's no other country standing with us in this escalation. And if you look at this coalition, the closest to us -- we've got about 130(,000), 140,000 troops. I don't have the exact number. The Brits had 7,200. They're going to be announcing they're bringing home, as I understand it, more than 3,000 of those. The next biggest coalition member is Poland, with 900, and after that Australia, with 300. No one is joining us in this surge.

Do you have an estimate of the number of casualties we expect from this surge?

SECRETARY OF STATE CONDOLEEZZA RICE: No, Senator, I don't think there's any way to give you such an estimate.

SENATOR BARBARA BOXER: Has the president -- because he said expect more sacrifice, he must know.

SECRETARY OF STATE CONDOLEEZZA RICE: Senator, I don't think that any of us have a number that -- of expected casualties. I think that people understand that there is going to be violence for some time in Iraq and that there will be more casualties.

And let me just say, you know, I fully understand the sacrifice that the American people are making, and especially the sacrifice that our soldiers are making, men and women in uniform. I visit them. I know what they're going through. I talk to their families. I see it.

I could never -- and I can never -- do anything to replace any of those lost men and women in uniform, or the diplomats, some of whom --

SENATOR BARBARA BOXER: Madame Secretary, please, I know you feel terrible about it. That's not the point. I was making the case as to who pays the price for your decisions. And the fact that this administration would move forward with this escalation with no clue as to the further price that we're going to pay militarily -- we certainly know the numbers, billions of dollars, that we can't spend here in this country. I find really appalling that there's not even enough time taken to figure out what the casualties would be. Thank you very much, Mr. Chairman.

Audio Audio: Senator Boxer and Secretary Rice (mp3)

SECRETARY OF STATE CONDOLEEZZA RICE: Well, Senator, I think it would be highly unlikely for the military to tell the president we expect X number of casualties because of this augmentation of the forces. And again, let me just say the president sees this as an effort to help the Iraqis with an urgent task, so that the sectarian violence in Baghdad does not outrun the political process and make it impossible to have the kind of national reconciliation that we all want to see there.

But I just want to say one thing, Senator, about the placard that you held up. I have to admit my eyesight's not what it used to be, so I couldn't actually see the date underneath, but I think it may have been '05.

SECRETARY OF STATE CONDOLEEZZA RICE: And I think the president spoke --

SENATOR BARBARA BOXER: -- about how great it was going?

SECRETARY OF STATE CONDOLEEZZA RICE: -- and I think the -- no, I don't think I ever said it was going great, Senator. Let's --

SENATOR BARBARA BOXER: (Off mike) -- that our troops would be coming home?

SECRETARY OF STATE CONDOLEEZZA RICE: -- Senator, let's not overstate the case. I don't think I said it was going great. The point that I wanted to make --

SENATOR BARBARA BOXER: Let's just put it up again.

SECRETARY OF STATE CONDOLEEZZA RICE: -- the point that I wanted to make, Senator, is that that is October '05. The president has talked repeatedly now about the changed circumstances that we faced after the Samarra bombing of February '06, because that bombing did in fact change the character of the conflict in Iraq. Before that, we were fighting al Qaeda; before that, we were fighting some insurgents, some Saddamists. But it was the purpose of Zarqawi to try and stoke sectarian violence. He wrote this letter to Zawahiri, told him he was going to do that. Zawahiri himself was even concerned that this might be a bad policy, but it turns out to have been a very smart one because in fact through the bombing of the Golden Mosque, he accelerated this sectarian violence to the point that it now has presented us with a new set of circumstances. LINK (http://www.nytimes.com/2007/01/11/washington/11TRANSCRIPT-BOXER.html?pagewanted=all)

(Here is a link to the mp3 file. (http://www.nytimes.com/packages/audio/politics/20070111_RICE1.mp3))

Now, at least on first glance, I see her remarks bookended by reference to the support of American military members for the war. In that context, it seems to me, Boxer is accusing Rice, pretty specifically, of implementing American foreign policy without much regard for, or personal connection with, the American military and American military families. I think she further suggests an unfairness in the fact that Rice and other administration members get to set foreign policy while the American military members and their families pay the price.

It first blush, again, I think this is a rather weak argument (not ready to get onboard with "asinine " just yet). I just don't see any implication whatsoever, though, that Rice's sex or colour have any bearing whatsoever on Boxer's comments.

[EDIT: Whoops, I didn't realize the transcript went south of the mp3 link...rest of the transcript added.

Drocket

01-14-2007, 01:16 AM

BoogyMan

01-14-2007, 01:28 AM

If the next 2 years are going to be nothing but continuous nonsensical attacks against Democrats for saying things that they didn't say, I'm beginning to think that maybe we should just give the country back to the Republicans. Sure, they'll finish the job of destroying the country, but at least we won't have to listen to this shit.

Why is this nonsensical Drocket? Boxer tried to paint Rice as a bloodthirsty and out of touch bureaucrat who could care less about sending men into battle.

The only reason an attack like this is made is that there is a lack of reason to support Boxer's position, so she takes the cheap shot to energize her emotional base.

Drocket

01-14-2007, 01:29 AM

Why is this nonsensical Drocket? Boxer tried to paint Rice as a bloodthirsty and out of touch bureaucrat who could care less about sending men into battle.

Yes, she did. And quite frankly, I think she's correct. Claiming some connection with this to feminism, though, is pure unadulterated bullshit.

lily

01-14-2007, 01:31 AM

Actually, Boogy........this is what the article is claiming.

Quote:
Feminists like Barbara Boxer want it both ways. They want abortion rights,
they want women to have access to the workplace, but if the woman takes that
freedom, does not marry, does not have children, evidently Boxer thinks that
woman is unqualified to use her education, experience and judgment in her
career. Now, according to Boxer, that woman has to have children to have her
career.

BoogyMan

01-14-2007, 01:33 AM

Lily, have your read my commentary throughout this thread? You might try it. My commentary has been much more reasonable than that of the article. I am quite frankly disappointed that you find Rice to be bloodthirsty and out of touch, but that is another debate.

lily

01-14-2007, 01:39 AM

CheesyMuslim

01-14-2007, 01:47 AM

Sorry bout that,

1. But what Boxer was saying exactly, is.
2. "Hey Black Bitch, you ain't got no kids to send off into this war you started, and now you keep sending more Americans into this war, and why do you think we should listen to you Black Bitch?"
3. Then she said," Your nothing but a hollow Black Bitch who is still the white mans _igger!"
3.a) That's the real code talk for what Boxer was actually saying.
4. I think she was kinda outaline, if you asked me.

Regards,
SirJamesofTexas

BoogyMan

01-14-2007, 01:49 AM

Lily, have your read my commentary throughout this thread? You might try it. My commentary has been much more reasonable than that of the article.

......but it is the article we are discussing.

I am quite frankly disappointed that you find Rice to be bloodthirsty and out of touch, but that is another debate.

Honestly, Boogy I am disappointed. When did you stoop to Flea's style of debating. I've never said those words.......don't try and put them in my mouth........those are YOUR words.

I wanted to know how one statement got turned into something totally different.........you know the original topic?

Dog gone it Lily, you have me confused now.

I posted thusly:

Why is this nonsensical Drocket? Boxer tried to paint Rice as a bloodthirsty and out of touch bureaucrat who could care less about sending men into battle.

and you posted as follows in response:

Yes, she did. And quite frankly, I think she's correct.

Can you not see how I might get the idea that you are claiming that Rice was bloodthirsty and out of touch?

slappy

01-14-2007, 01:56 AM

Here's my beef with Boxer. Are we supposed to make foreign policy on the basis of polling of military members or their families? Are we supposed to downgrade the credibility of a Secretary of State (or a Senator, for that matter) on foreign policy matters simply because she has no immediate family members in the military?

There's a basic truth, upon which this type of dove vs. hawk attack is always based, i.e., that nobody has greater stakes in and concerns for the human cost to a nation of its military conflicts than that nation's soldiers and their families. Because of this basic truth, Boxer's remarks to Rice would have been substantially different had the Secretary been sister to a marine serving in Iraq. For this reason, I can't go so far as to call Boxer's comments asinine or unworthy of her office. She's in that building, in part, to represent those ordinary Americans and she should be expected to spend some of her microphone time reminding the executive of the human costs of the war.

Nevertheless, the fact remains that the vast majority of difficult decisions a president or his cabinet members make with regard to war are likely going to lead to human costs that will inevitably be borne far more by ordinary Americans than by those who make the policy and issue the orders. For Boxer to act as though Rice's lack of "personal stake" (for lack of a better phrase) in the war were some means of undermining the credibility of the Secretary on the subject of escalation or even continuation of the war, strikes me as extremely weak rhetoric. Yes, of course, Rice would be even more upset about the war if her brother or niece were deployed with the Army, being shot at every day. But what has that got to do with the foreign policy goals served by the escalation, the overall human costs of the escalation or the escalation's chances of success or failure? Weak.

slappy

01-14-2007, 01:58 AM

Boogy, I think that quote agreeing with Boxer is Drocket, not Lily.

lily

01-14-2007, 02:00 AM

Lily, have your read my commentary throughout this thread?Â*Â*You might try it.Â*Â*My commentary has been much more reasonable than that of the article.Â*Â*

......but it is the article we are discussing.

I am quite frankly disappointed that you find Rice to be bloodthirsty and out of touch, but that is another debate.

Honestly, Boogy I am disappointed. When did you stoop to Flea's style of debating. I've never said those words.......don't try and put them in my mouth........those are YOUR words.

I wanted to know how one statement got turned into something totally different.........you know the original topic?

Dog gone it Lily, you have me confused now.Â*Â*

I posted thusly:

Why is this nonsensical Drocket?Â*Â*Boxer tried to paint Rice as a bloodthirsty and out of touch bureaucrat who could care less about sending men into battle.

and you posted as follows in response:

Yes, she did.Â*Â*And quite frankly, I think she's correct.

Can you not see how I might get the idea that you are claiming that Rice was bloodthirsty and out of touch?

Actually that wasn't me. So I'll ask the question you like to ask. Boogy, have your read my commentary throughout this thread?

BoogyMan

01-14-2007, 02:04 AM

lily

01-14-2007, 02:09 AM

No problem Boogy, I know we all look alike.;)

Slappy I think you summed it up nicely when you said that Boxer is doing her job, the job that the American public voted her into office for......to look out for their interests.

slappy

01-14-2007, 02:24 AM

I do believe that she has every right to raise that sort of point. However, given the broader context, wherein she's mainly attacking Rice for not having casualty estimates for the escalation, it seems to me that Rice's family ties are not terribly relevant.

The real trouble with interpreting remarks like these is that the speaker--here, Boxer--jumps around so much that it's difficult to get a very clear read on the intended impact of each discrete statement. She lets each little attack run into the next so that it tasks a person to determine whether she has changed her main rhetorical point from sentence to sentence. She goes from the pain of holidays without a loved one, to the Brits are pulling out thousands of troops, to casualty estimates. Not the clearest line of questioning.

BoogyMan

01-14-2007, 02:28 AM

Not the clearest line of questioning.

I don't actually think we can call this a line of questioning Slappy. A diatribe yes, questioning no.

slappy

01-14-2007, 02:48 AM

Well, I'll agree that the "line" part is a bit overly-generous. :)

lily

01-14-2007, 03:10 AM

I do believe that she has every right to raise that sort of point.Â*Â*However, given the broader context, wherein she's mainly attacking Rice for not having casualty estimates for the escalation, it seems to me that Rice's family ties are not terribly relevant.

But read in context, it has nothing to do with the accusation Fox is claiming they want an apolpgy for. Also when read in context, Boxer is not accusing her, as she also stated, she had no child that would be going to war. She is mearly doing her job.

slappy

01-14-2007, 03:18 AM

But read in context, it has nothing to do with the accusation Fox is claiming they want an apolpgy for.
True dat. :)

Also when read in context, Boxer is not accusing her, as she also stated, she had no child that would be going to war. She is mearly doing her job.

I guess I'm saying that I agree with Boogy that there is a general attempt here to attack Rice as someone who is not taking sufficient care to consider the human costs. I think raising the fact of the human costs is part of representing the people. I think insinuating that the Secretary's lack of blood ties to the Army makes her somehow less aware of the human cost is a bit disingenuous. I'm definitely with you regarding the FOX commentary, though.

lily

01-14-2007, 03:34 AM

Slappy, what I fear is going to happen, is any time the Democrats ask a question, it's going to be turned around. Rice isÂ*Â*big girl, she has to speak in front of the committee and they get to ask questions. Sorry, it's part of the job, hard questiona and all. Lives depend on it.

BoogyMan

01-14-2007, 03:41 AM

There is a huge difference between hard rational questioning and ranting at someone whom you are trying to tar as bloodthirsty and out of touch.

lily

01-14-2007, 04:05 AM

Well Boogy.....since those are your words, I'll just have to take your word on it.

slappy

01-14-2007, 04:12 AM

Slappy, what I fear is going to happen, is any time the Democrats ask a question, it's going to be turned around.
This is what bothers me about partisan politics in general. Unfortunately, even if I can imagine a legitimate basis for a question, the broader context is generally so politically charged that I'm usually safe in assuming that comments like Boxer's, whether asked by a D of an R or vice versa, are primarily aimed at scoring political points. The concern over numbers of casualties should be raised, no doubt. However, I think Boxer could tighten up her rhetoric significantly if all she's trying to do is raise that concern. What that FOX piece tries to turn her comments into is pure fantasy, but I don't think that implies that she was squeaky clean in her questioning either. The saddest thing, in the long run, is that it will likely ever be thus, on both sides.

I was drawn into this thread by what I feel are the totally unfounded associations of racism and sexism with Boxer's comments, but I don't think she was asking those questions, in the order she asked them, with the desire to get any particularly illuminating point across. She was painting the usual clichÃ©d picture of an elitist, remote Republican administration pursuing its neo-con ambitions at the expense of a lower-class with whom it is hopelessly out of touch. There's a kernel of truth to that clichÃ©, as I said before, but that doesn't change the fact that Boxer was primarily playing cynical politics in that transcript. No big deal--pretty much all of them, on both sides, and their media champions, do that at every opportunity. I just feel bad for the rest of us who either feel obligated to rush to the defense of our side, if we have a side, or else miss out on discussions of a weightier nature because our partisan friends are too busy with spin or counter-spin to talk about anything else. :)

lily

01-14-2007, 04:28 AM

Well said!

wonder cow

01-14-2007, 12:42 PM

You are applying a double standard that quite frankly shows you to be a partisan. Hardly 'independant' as you describe yourself.

Oh. I'm partisan. I'm very partisan. Make no mistake about that.

That has nothing at all to do with my independent designation.

Independent does not equate to bipartisan or multi-partisan or any other type of objectivity and working-togetherness we would like to dream up.

And this Condi v. Boxer crap is just the squawk of the week.

And while I'm at it, if Condi Rice shares the value of the base of American Conservatism, why didn't she get married? Why not have kids? Why not stay at home and do needle point and play the dutiful little wife?

Maybe she's gay.

CheesyMuslim

01-14-2007, 02:16 PM

Sorry bout that,

1. But when Boxer attacked our Condi, we had no choice but to attack her back.
2. She used Condi's life to attack her.
3. Condi's a good girl, and likes men, she isn't gay or some pervert.
4. Condi doesn't deserve to be called on her choices in life in a public official setting.
5. This kind of action from Boxer is below contempt.
6. Boxer should know that being a women with power.
7. She stepped over the line of what is proper.
8. And this insult to Condi will not go unpunished to Boxers reputation.
9. What goes around comes around.
10. Its a dog eat dog world of politics.

Regards,
SirJamesofTexas

wonder cow

01-14-2007, 03:05 PM

Oh no. Boo Hoo. Poor Condi Rice was "attacked" by BB. Poor pitiful Condi has no children. Poor pitiful Condi can never be president because all Presidents in history have been married.

Poor pitiful Condi should be defended and no questions about her sexuality should ever come up. That would violate decorum. Yet Ralph Nader? Ralph Nader has never married. He's probably gay.

Boo Hoo Boo Hoo. Sob Sob Sob.

What is really funny is how so called "conservatives" now-a-days are all about the hard ass attack. Nothing is out of bounds. Everyone can be ridiculed and lied about and trashed into oblivion, no matter how absurd the attack, or ridiculous the charges.

Yet, the slightest slap the other way, and they are aghast. Modified. Monocles break. Women in expensive furs faint. And everyone is so taken aback. "Why I never!"

It's not like BB called Condi a cheap whore.

Anyway, bless all of your bleeding hearts. I hope you get to feeling better.

CheesyMuslim

01-14-2007, 05:02 PM

Sorry bout that,

1. But that's funny!
2. Hehehehehehehehehehehehehehehehehehe,..
3. We are bashing Boxer because we can.
4. She was out of line.
5. And its my job to make everyone know it.

Regards,
SirJamesofTexas

Viper2

01-14-2007, 05:06 PM

BoogyMan

01-14-2007, 07:52 PM

wonder cow

01-14-2007, 08:08 PM

I see that you have nothing of substance to add to this discussion.

And such a deep discussion it is.

lily

01-15-2007, 01:13 AM

alias

01-15-2007, 01:34 AM

slappy

01-15-2007, 01:51 AM

This is typically how the liberals work. If you're a black, well why in hell are you a conservative? You must be an uncle tom. Don't you know us demoracts are your party? How dare a black man vote for republicans. We have to insult you because you left the plantation.
Dude, have you read the transcript or just the FOX editorial piece? Where do you see Boxer making anything remotely close to the comment you attribute to her above?

Where were all the democrat women's groups like NOW when Clinton was being accused of rape and sexual favors? No where, that's where. They kept silent.
Now that's a good question. I wasn't paying much attention to American politics in the 90s, so I'd have to take your word that he got a pass from NOW and other such women's groups. Anyway, this is a bit off topic, no? Maybe you should start a Clinton thread in the History forum. I'd at least lurk in it, to learn a thing or two.

CheesyMuslim

01-15-2007, 02:15 AM

Sorry bout that,

1. But Boxer put a black women on the spot in public.
2. Oh man, that's bad as you can get.
3. She has just fired off a salvo over Condi's head.
4. That is saying, "LOOK YOU DON"T BELONG WHERE YOU ARE".
5. And I think I was being nice that time.
6. She was really saying something else, but I think I already covered that.
7. I wonder how long Condi will hold this in before she blows her top?

Regards,
SirJamesofTexas

Stoner

01-15-2007, 02:38 AM

Boxer should be ashamed of her actions. An apology is definitly in order.

lily

01-15-2007, 03:37 AM

Viper2

01-15-2007, 03:57 AM

Boxer is a twit plain and simple.

She seems more interested in attempting to show concern for the lives of our military - while at the same time giving our security away to illegal aliens which can and probably will hurt their families.

hmmmmmm yet those illegal aliens that you so hate can get a fast track to becoming legal (along with their family) if they serve. Odd how that fit right in.

Another one of your twisted red herrings. Take those out of the equation, and what do you have left ????? They in this instance are actually sacrificing and earning their citizenship - a far cry from the millions who are ruining America.

CheesyMuslim

01-15-2007, 04:02 AM

Sorry bout that,

1. But dark clouds are brewing for Boxer.
2. Condi's about to get on the war wagon.
3. Here's a teaser forth coming.

"

Rice: Single Women Can Understand War

By ANNE GEARAN
AP Diplomatic Writer

AP Photo/PABLO MARTINEZ MONSIVAIS

AP VIDEO
Iraq at Center of Testy Rice,

Audio
Audio Excerpts from Rice Interview

JERUSALEM (AP) -- Condoleezza Rice let out a heavy sigh when asked Saturday whether as a single woman with no children she had difficulty appreciating the ramifications of war. It's a topic that has inflamed the Internet and talk radio in the U.S. since a Democratic senator challenged the secretary of state's personal stake in the Iraq war.

"No," Rice answered when asked if her status hinders her understanding of the sacrifices involved. "I also think that being a single woman does not in any way make me incapable of understanding not just those sacrifices but also that nothing of value is ever won without sacrifice."

Sen. Barbara Boxer, D-Calif., told Rice during a testy Senate hearing on Thursday that without an immediate family Rice will pay no personal price for the Bush administration policy in Iraq.

Rice has said she was at first perplexed by the exchange, and later told Fox News, "Gee, I thought single women had come further than that."

Conservative radio host Rush Limbaugh accused Boxer of hitting "below the ovaries."

Standing with Israeli Foreign Minister Tzipi Livni, Rice jokingly noted that as a woman with children, Livni is qualified to "make the decisions."

Livni leapt to Rice's defense, saying Rice's strong emotions about the Iraq war toll are clear during their private conversations.

Rice, 52, has never married. She is an only child and her parents are dead.

Boxer's comment came during a Senate Foreign Relations Committee hearing in which Rice was questioned about President Bush's new war plans.

"Who pays the price?" Boxer asked Rice. "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, with immediate family.

"So who pays the price? The American military and their families."

Boxer, D-Calif., defended herself in a statement Friday.

"I spoke the truth at the committee hearing, which is that neither Secretary Rice nor I have family members that will pay the price for this escalation," she said. "My point was to focus attention on our military families who continue to sacrifice because this administration has not developed a political solution to the situation in Iraq."
"

Regards,
SirJamesofTexas

Viper2

01-15-2007, 06:02 PM

chesswarsnow:

Nice article.

Boxer should be taken out back behind the shed and thrashed.

lily

01-15-2007, 11:15 PM

What for, Viper? For doing the job that she was elected to do?

BoogyMan

01-15-2007, 11:17 PM

What for, Viper? For doing the job that she was elected to do?

Ahhhhh, I see. Boxer was elected to berate Condi Rice for having the nerve to be unmarried, childless, and in a position of power within the government.

Go get her Barb!

Egads.

lily

01-16-2007, 12:46 AM

Viper2

01-16-2007, 02:50 AM

What for, Viper? For doing the job that she was elected to do?

Oh boy - for her disrespect toward a Cabinet member who btw is 100 times the woman that Boxer isn't.

And you speak of doing the job she was elected to do ?????

Consider the following if you will:

http://profiles.numbersusa.com/improfile.php3?DistSend=CA&VIPID=49

This document is a record and analysis of all of Sen. Boxer's immigration related congressional votes, cosponsorships, and other immigration actions during her career in Congress. Immigration Profiles is the only exhaustive source for this information available in one place.

View Report Card of Sen. Boxer's Immigration Actions

Chain Migration & Visa Lottery

Voted in 1996 to continue chain migration
Sen. Boxer in 1996 voted against the Simpson Amendment to S.1664. It was a vote in favor of a chain migration system that has been the primary reason for annual immigration levels snowballing from less than 300,000 in 1965 to around a million. Sen. Boxer supported provisions that allow immigrants to send for their adult relatives. Then each of those relatives can send for their and their spouse's adult relatives, creating a never-ending and ever-growing chain. The bi-partisan Barbara Jordan Commission recommended doing away with the adult relative categories (begun only in the 1950s) in order to lessen wage depression among lower-paid American workers. The Simpson Amendment attempted to carry out that recommendation. But Sen. Boxer helped kill the reform by voting with the 80-20 majority against the amendment. Sen. Boxer's vote helped continue a level of immigration that the Census Bureau projects will result in a doubled U.S. population in the next century.See detailed description

Major Numbers in All Categories

Voted in favor of bill to increase immigration and grant amnesty to illegal aliens in 2006
Sen. Boxer voted in favor of final passage of S. 2611, the Comprehensive Immigration Reform Act of 2006. S. 2611 would dramatically change most occupations and communities in America with the largest movement of foreign workers in world history. Specifically, S. 2611 would: reward approximately 10.2 million illegal aliens with an amnesty allowing them to permanently take American jobs and become U.S. citizens; entice millions more foreign workers to illegally enter our communities, crowd the housing and schools, take the jobs and depress the wages because they reasonably can believe they eventually will be given an amnesty, too; double legal immigration from 1 million to 2 million a year; give out permanent green cards to up to 66 million foreign workers and dependents over the next 20 years. The main difference in terms of numbers between the final version of S. 2611 and the version of the bill when the cloture motion was invoked was that the Bingaman Amendment to cap the number of employment-based visas for workers, spouses and children at 650,000 was adopted after cloture but before final passage. Robert Rector of the Heritage Foundation estimates that the Bingaman Amendment would reduce employment-based visas available under S. 2611 by about 150,000 a year. S. 2611 passed by a vote of 62 to 36.

Voted in favor of motion to invoke cloture on S. 2611 to increase overall immigration numbers and reward illegal aliens with amnesty in 2006
Sen. Boxer voted in favor of a motion to invoke cloture on S. 2611, the Comprehensive Immigration Reform Act of 2006. The motion to invoke cloture was a procedural move to ends debate on S. 2611. If the motion had been rejected by at least 40 Senators, Majority Leader Bill Frist, MD (R-TN) would have had to choose between continued debate on S. 2611 and moving on to other legislative business. If the motion had failed, Sen. Frist was expected to move on to other legislative business, thus effectively killing the bill. S. 2611 provides an indirect path to citizenship for illegal aliens. S. 2611 also provides for major increases in temporary worker visas and permanent immigrant visas. It provides for at least an additional 100,000 H-1B visas annually; an additional 325,000 new guestworker visas (H-5A/H-2C visas); a one-time-only permanent increase of 310,660. In addition, the S. 2611 includes amnesty for an estimated 10.2 million illegal aliens (about 6.7 million illegal alien workers and 3.5 million illegal aliens spouse and/or children). The cloture motion passed by a vote of 73 to 25.

Voted in favor of motion to invoke cloture on bill to increase overall immigration numbers and reward illegal aliens with amnesty in 2006
Sen. Boxer voted in favor of a motion to invoke cloture on SA 3424, a "compromise amnesty" proposal by Sens. Hagel (R-NE) and Martinez (R-FL). This was a procedural vote that was highly tied up in partisan politics. Although it is impossible to know just why one voted against cloture, most of those voting for cloture did so because they wanted the bill to be passed in a succeeding vote. Therefore, most of the votes against cloture were votes against the amnesty. The Hagel-Martinez proposal was put forth as an alternative to the Senate Judiciary Committee-passed amnesty proposal. The Hagel-Martinez proposal differs from the Judiciary Committee proposal in that it provides an indirect path to citizenship for illegal aliens as opposed to the direct path outlined in the Judiciary Committee proposal. It only allows illegal aliens who have been in the country for more than 5 years to stay in the United States and adjust to legal status. Those who have been here less than 5 years but more than two years would be required to exit the country and return through the a land port of entry with a visa. Over time, qualified individuals would have the chance to become citizens. The Hagel-Martinez compromise also provides for major increases in temporary worker visas and permanent immigrant visas. It provides for at least an additional 100,000 H-1B visas annually; an additional 325,000 new guestworker visas (H-5A/H-2C visas); a one-time-only permanent increase of 310,660; and a total annual increase in permanent immigrant visas of at least 1,154,700. In addition, the Hagel-Martinez compromise includes amnesty for an estimated 10.2 million illegal aliens (about 6.7 million illegal alien workers and 3.5 million illegal aliens spouses and/or children). The cloture motion failed by a vote of 38 to 60.

Rejected immigration ceiling in 1990
Rep Boxer voted AGAINST the Smith amendment to H.R.4300 that would have maintained hard caps on most categories of immigration. Unlike, Rep. Boxer, 143 Representatives (of 435) feared that the 1990 legislation would unleash a chain reaction that would drive immigration numbers ever upwards. They backed an amendment that would have placed an absolute annual ceiling of 630,000 on family, worker and lottery immigration. But Rep. Boxer helped defeat that ceiling 266 to 143. See detailed description.

Voted for huge increase in 1990
Rep. Boxer helped pass H.R.4300 that increased the numbers in all categories of immigration. America?s immigration tradition had been around 250,000 immigrants a year until the 1980s when numbers rose dramatically to more than 500,000 a year. After Rep. Boxer voted three times in 1990 in favor of raising limits, immigration has now snowballed to around 1,000,000 (one million) a year, contributing the majority of U.S. population and labor growth, congestion and sprawl.See detailed description.

Importing Specific Foreign Workers

Voted on Senate floor against amendment to postpone guestworker-amnesty program until borders secured in 2006
Sen. Boxer voted against the Cornyn Amendment (SA 3691, proposed for Sen. Isakson) to S. 2611, the Comprehensive Immigration Reform Act of 2006 . The Cornyn Amendment would prohibit DHS from implementing any guestworker program or granting amnesty as proposed by the bill unless the agency has certified that this billâ€™s border security measures and increases in Federal detention space have been completed and are fully operational. The Cornyn Amendment failed by a vote of 40-55.

Voted on Senate floor against amendment to increase worker protections in 2006
Sen. Boxer voted against the Cornyn amendment (SA 3965) to S. 2611, the Comprehensive Immigration Reform Act of 2006 . The Cornyn amendment (submitted for himself and Sen. Grassley) would offer modest protections for American workers from being displaced by a foreign worker by prohibiting H-2C visas for employers unless they attest that they will employ an alien in the offered job position and DHS certifies that there are not sufficient U.S. workers who are able, willing, qualified, and available to fill the position. The Cornyn amendment passed by a vote of 50 to 48.

Voted on Senate floor for amendment to weaken worker protections in 2006
Sen. Boxer voted in favor of the Kennedy amendment (SA 4066) to S. 2611, the Comprehensive Immigration Reform Act of 2006 . The Kennedy amendment weakens Sen. Cornyn's amendment (SA 3965) by not requiring Federal certification of the employer's need to import foreign workers. The Kennedy amendment passed by a vote of 56 to 43.

Voted against amendment to strip foreign-worker increase in 2005
Sen. Boxer voted against the Byrd Amendment to S. 1932, the Budget Reconciliation bill. The amendment, introduced by Sen. Robert Byrd (D-WV), would have stripped ALL immigration increases from the Budget Reconciliation bill and replaced the increase with a provision to impose a $1,500 fee on employers who hire certain non-immigrants. The immigration increase was added to the Budget Reconciliation bill by the Senate Judiciary Committee as a result of an 14-2 vote in favor of an amendment introduced by Senator Arlen Specter. The Specter plan would increase permanent, employment-based immigration by nearly tripling the number of foreign workers who can enter the U.S. each year. As well, it exempts workersâ€™ families from the 140,000-visa cap on employment-based immigration. It also raises the cap on employment-based permanent immigration by adding each year the lesser of 90,000 visas or any â€œunusedâ€ employment-based visas from any prior year. Altogether, these provisions could generate a net increase in permanent immigration of 366,000 aliens, or about one-third of current, annual legal immigration. Senator Byrdâ€™s amendment was cosponsored by Sens. Sessions (R-AL) and Durbin (D-IL). It was also supported by the AFL-CIO. The Byrd Amendment failed by a vote of 14 to 85.

Voted in favor of amendment to increase foreign-worker importation in 2005
Sen. Boxer voted in favor of S. Amdt. 387, an amendment offered by Senator Barbara Mikulski (D-MD), to H.R. 1268, the Emergency Supplemental Appropriations Act for Defense, the Global War on Terror, and Tsunami Relief, 2005. The Mikulski amendment to the Immigration and Nationality Act increased the number of H-2Bs who can enter and take jobs in the United States in the next two years and apportioned the H-2B visa cap so that visas will be available throughout the year. Specifically, the Mikulski Amendment would split the H-2B visa cap so no more than 33,000 visas are made available for the first six months the fiscal year, and another 33,000 visas would be available in the second half of the year. HOWEVER, the Mikulski Amendment exempts from the annual cap aliens granted an H-2B visa within three years prior to approval of an H-2B petition, thus potentially TRIPLING the number of H-2B workers in the United States at any one time. Although apportioning H-2B visas is a common-sense approach that will help prevent the situation that occurred in FY 2004 and FY2005 when the 66,000 annual cap on H-2B (low-skill) nonimmigrant visas was hit within the first quarter of the year, the Mikulski Amendment would ultimately harm American workers by creating exemptions which potentially could triple the number of H-2B workers in the U.S. at any given time. Fortunately, however, the increase is limited to two years, and the additional visas can go only to foreign workers who worked in this country legally during the last three years. The Amendment passed by a vote of 94 to 6.

Voted for a foreign worker bill with no anti-fraud measures in 2000.
Sen.Boxer voted for S.2045, the Abraham foreign worker bill to nearly triple the number of foreign high-tech workers. On the heels of the release of a GAO report finding no proof of a high-tech worker shortage and evidence of abuse in the H-1B program, Sen. Boxer voted for this foreign worker bill that contained no worker protections or anti-fraud measures. The bill passed the Senate 96-1.
Nearly doubled H-1B foreign high-tech workers in 1998
Sen. Boxer helped the Senate pass S.1723 in a 78-20 vote. Enacted into law, it increased by nearly 150,000 the number of foreign workers high-tech American companies could hire over the next three years. Although the foreign workers receive temporary visas for up to six years, most historically have found ways to stay permanently in this country. Sen. Boxer voted for more foreign workers even though U.S. high tech workers over the age of 50 were suffering 17% unemployment and U.S. firms were laying off thousands of workers at the time.

Citizenship for Illegal Alien Babies

Sen. Boxer has taken no action to reduce the rewarding of illegal immigration by giving citizenship to anchor babies.

Inviting/Repelling Illegal Aliens

Voted against amendment to fund additional immigration investigators in 2006
Sen. Boxer voted against the Sessions Amendment to H.R. 5441, the Department of Homeland Security Appropriations bill for 2007. This was an amendment to add about $86 million for 800 more staff to investigate immigration law violations, offset by reductions in other programs. The Sessions Amendment failed by a vote of 34 to 66.
Voted against amendment to extend border fence in 2006
Sen. Boxer voted against the Sessions Amendment to H.R. 5441, the Department of Homeland Security Appropriations bill for 2007. This was an amendment to add 370 miles of fence on the Southwest border paid for by $1.8 billion in offsets from other programs. A fence is one of the most effective tools for preventing illegal migration. This amendment would have funded the fence provided for in the Senate-passed bill (S. 2611). The Sessions Amendment failed by a vote of 29 to 71.

Voted in favor of amendment to make two million illegal aliens eligible for amnesty in 2006
Sen. Boxer voted in favor of the Feinstein Amendment (SA 4087) to S. 2611, the Comprehensive Immigration Reform Act of 2006. The Feinstein Amendment would have made an additional two million illegal aliens eligible for amnesty by replacing the bill's "earned legalization" amnesty and Deferred Mandatory Departure provisions with a one-tiered scheme in which all aliens illegally present in the United States on or before January 1, 2006, are granted amnesty and an "orange card" (instead of the normal "green card" that lawful permanent residents are issued) if they are otherwise admissible. The, after a 6-8 year period, orange card holders are allowed to adjust to Lawful Permanent Resident status if they pay a $2,000 fine. The Feinstein Amendment failed by a vote of 37 to 61.

Voted on Senate floor against amendment to remove amnesty provisions from immigration bill in 2006
Sen. Boxer voted against the Vitter amendment (SA 3963) to S. 2611, the Comprehensive Immigration Reform Act of 2006 . Sen. Vitter submitted the amendment for himself, Sens. Chambliss, Grassley, and Santorum. The Vitter amendment would remove provisions authorizing the â€œearned legalizationâ€ and â€œagricultural workerâ€ amnesty schemes that would grant amnesty to an estimated 16 million illegal aliens and their families (according to a May, 2006 study by the Heritage Foundationâ€™s Robert Rector). The Vitter amendment failed by a vote of 33 to 66.

Voted on Senate floor to kill amendment to prevent Social Security for illegal aliens in 2006
Sen. Boxer voted in favor of a motion to table the Ensign amendment (SA 3985) to S. 2611, the Comprehensive Immigration Reform Act of 2006 . The Ensign amendment (submitted for himself, Sen. Santorum, and Sen. Inhofe), would have prohibited the payment of Social Security benefits based on quarters of coverage earned by an individual who has not at some point had a valid Social Security number. This would have addressed part of the problem of aliens getting Social Security credit for work performed while they were illegally present in the United States (aliens who came in on temporary work visas, but overstayed their visas, would continue to get credit for all work performed, including after they became illegal). The motion to table the Ensign amendment passed by a vote of 50 to 49, effectively killing the amendment.

Cosponsoring bill to reward illegal aliens with in-state tuition and amnesty in 2005-2006
Sen. Boxer is a cosponsor of S. 2075, the DREAM Act of 2005. S. 2075 would grant in-state tuition and amnesty to illegal aliens under the age of 21 who had been physically present in the country for five years and are in 7th grade or above. Such a reward for illegal immigration serves as an incentive for more illegal immigration.

Voted against amendment to provide funding for additional Border Patrol agents in 2005
Sen. Boxer voted against the Ensign Amendment (SA 1219) to H.R. 2360, the Department of Homeland Security Appropriations bill. The Ensign Amendment transfers appropriated funds from the Office of State and Local Government Coordination and Preparedness to the U.S. Customs and Border Protection for the purpose of hiring 1,000 additional Border Patrol agents. The amendment failed by a vote of 38 to 60.

Voted in favor of amnesty for agricultural workers in 2005
Sen. Boxer voted in favor of a procedural move requiring 60 votes to limit debate and ensure a vote on the AgJOBS amnesty amendment introduced by Sen. Larry Craig (R-ID). The Senate voted 53 to 45 not to invoke cloture, effectively keeping the amnesty off the Emergency Supplemental Appropriations for Defense, the Global War on Terror, and Tsunami Relief. AgJOBS is an amnesty for agricultural workers. Of the 1.2 million illegal aliens currently working in agriculture, an estimated 860,000 plus their spouses and children could qualify for this amnesty, so the total could reach three million or more. The potential recipients of the amnesty would be required to prove 100 days of agricultural employment in the 18-month period that ended Aug. 31, 2004. Then, prior to receiving amnesty, workers would have to show 360 days of additional farm work over the next six years.

Cosponsoring bill to create an amnesty for illegal agricultural workers in 2005-2006
Sen. Boxer is a cosponsor of S. 359, an amnesty for agricultural workers. Of the 1.2 million illegal aliens currently working in agriculture, an estimated 860,000 plus their spouses and children could qualify for this amnesty, so the total could reach three million or more. The potential recipients of the amnesty would be required to prove 100 days of agricultural employment in the 18-month period that ended Aug. 31, 2004. Then, prior to receiving amnesty, workers would have to show 360 days of additional farm work over the next six years.

Cosponsored bill to repeal the federal ban against granting illegal aliens in-state tuition and reward illegal aliens amnesty in 2003-2004
Sen. Boxer is a cosponsor of S. 8, the Educational Excellence for All Learners Act of 2003. Although S. 8 dealt primarily with education resources, hidden within it is a provision that would repeal the federal bar against in-state tuition for illegal aliens, as well as one that gives amnesty to certain illegal aliens who have gone to school in the United States.

Cosponsored bill to reward illegal aliens with in-state tuition and amnesty in 2003-2004
Sen. Boxer cosponsored S. 1545, the DREAM Act of 2003. S. 1545 would have granted in-state tuition and amnesty to illegal aliens under the age of 21 who had been physically present in the country for five years and are in 7th grade or above. Such a reward for illegal immigration serves as an incentive for more illegal immigration.

Cosponsored bill to create an amnesty for illegal agricultural workers in 2003-2004
Sen. Boxer cosponsored S. 1645, the Agricultural Job Opportunity, Benefits, and Security Act of 2003, an amnesty for agricultural workers. Of the 1.2 million illegal aliens currently working in agriculture, an estimated 860,000 plus their spouses and children could have qualified for this amnesty, so the total could have reached three million or more. The potential recipients of the amnesty would have been required to prove 100 days of agricultural employment in the 18-month period that ended Aug. 31, 2003. Then, prior to receiving amnesty, workers would have had to show 360 days of additional farm work over the next six years.

Co-sponsored legislation in 2001 to extend Section 245(i) for one-year.
Sen. Boxer co-sponsored S. 778 a one-year extension of Section 245(i), an immigration provision that allows certain illegal aliens to pay a fine and adjust their status to legal status. In addition, Section 245(i) removes the all-important security step that is performed by our embassies on potential immigrants in their home countries. Section 245(i) rewards illegal immigration, contributes significantly to the INS processing backlog, and poses a national security threat.

Voted for an amnesty for illegal aliens in 2000
Sen. Boxer voted to include an amnesty for illegal aliens from El Salvador, Guatemala, Honduras, and Haiti in the Senate H-1B bill (S.2045). The move to include the amnesty with the H-1B legislation failed43-55 in a procedural vote on the Senate floor.

Voted to grant amnesty to close to one million illegal aliens from Nicaragua and Cuba in 1997
Sen. Boxer voted to grant legal status to Nicaraguans and Cubans who had lived in the United States illegally since 1995, along with their spouses and minor unmarried children. The overall ten year impact of this legislation will be the addition of some 967,000 people to U.S. population. There was no separate vote on the amnesty, as it was inlcuded in the DC Appropriations bill. The only opportunity Senators had to vote in favor of or against the amnesty was the Mack Amendment to S.1156. The Mack Amendment passed 99-1.

I thought it was her job to act on behalf of America and Americans - not on behalf of ILLEGAL ALIENS.

Viper2

01-16-2007, 02:52 AM

What for, Viper? For doing the job that she was elected to do?

Ahhhhh, I see.Â*Â*Boxer was elected to berate Condi Rice for having the nerve to be unmarried, childless, and in a position of power within the government.

Go get her Barb!

Egads.

That's the Democraptic Party for you - go figure.

Viper2

01-16-2007, 02:56 AM

Berate.......that's priceless! I take it you didn't read the transcript, Boogy?

Like it or not, Boxer was elected to ask questions and get answers. If Condi can't take the heat, maybe she should resign.....but then I guess it's better just to spin one question, a question I might add, had them both on equal ground, then to actually look at what the question was about and do the Rovepublican thing and take the statement out of context, spin it and distract the American public about the real issue.

I would have to respectfully disagree - consider the following:

Senate Oath of Office
I do solemnly swear (or affirm) that I will support and defend the Constitution of the United States against all enemies, foreign and domestic; that I will bear true faith and allegiance to the same; that I take this obligation freely, without any mental reservation or purpose of evasion; and that I will well and faithfully discharge the duties of the office on which I am about to enter: So help me God.

Now consider the Immigration voting record of Senator Boxer - Who should resign ??????????

lily

01-16-2007, 03:59 AM

Viper2

Oh boy - for her disrespect toward a Cabinet member who btw is 100 times the woman that Boxer isn't.

I don't think this country has been stripped of so many rights, that a congresswoman can't ask a question of a cabinet member, especially when that cabinet member is in front of congress testifing......I could be wrong though.

And you speak of doing the job she was elected to do ?????

Consider the following if you will:

Viper.......While I do thank you for posting the entire article for me, but if I wanted to read it, I would have read it on the thread you started, where it was originally posted at.

Now consider the Immigration voting record of Senator Boxer - Who should resign ??????????

.........and this has what to do with the topic at hand?

Viper2

01-16-2007, 05:38 PM

lily:
I don't think this country has been stripped of so many rights, that a congresswoman can't ask a question of a cabinet member, especially when that cabinet member is in front of congress testifing......I could be wrong though.

You totally, utterly and completely miss the point. It wans't a question - it was an outright flagerant attack, in an attempt to show superiority, which has failed in-so-much as there are so many who feel she was out of line and should appologize.

Consider the following - if you can:

Presidents during wartime
â€¢ Thomas Jefferson: Tripolitan War, 1800-1805, against the Barbary pirates â€“ No military experience
â€¢ Martin Van Buren - Aroostook War, 1839; Second Seminole War - ended 1842 â€“ No military experience
â€¢ Woodrow Wilson - WWI, 1914-1918 â€“ No military experience
â€¢ Warren Harding - formally concluded WWI â€“ No military experience
â€¢ Franklin Roosevelt - WWII, 1941-1945 â€“ No military experience

Do you see the ending to each listing "No Military Experience" - did their children go to war NO - did they send troops off to was YES.

LSS - Boxer was wrong to start with, and her refusal to issue an appology is just more proof of the Democraptic party's bullheadedness and stupidity.

Viper.......While I do thank you for posting the entire article for me, but if I wanted to read it, I would have read it on the thread you started, where it was originally posted at.

That is just my point. You didn't want to read and yet attempt to pose a position that falters in the face of the "facts". Additionally, you avoid actualling adressing the argument - why because it doesn't support your position / opinion, and yet will expect me and others to accept your sources at face value.

You stated that it is Boxer's job to....... I showed where Boxer has failed in her job to live up to her oath of office, and you simply sluff it off. Oh well.

lily

01-17-2007, 05:41 AM

You totally, utterly and completely miss the point. It wans't a question - it was an outright flagerant attack, in an attempt to show superiority, which has failed in-so-much as there are so many who feel she was out of line and should appologize.

If you say so. I'm tired of arguing the point and the fact that NEITHER of them had children that would be fighting in this war. If you want to make Condi look like a martyr for stitting in front of congress and doing her job, then there is nothing I can do about it. Personally, I think she is a strong woman and would be embarrassed by how weak you make her seem, but then that's just me.

Consider the following - if you can:

Presidents during wartime
â€¢ Thomas Jefferson: Tripolitan War, 1800-1805, against the Barbary pirates â€“ No military experience
â€¢ Martin Van Buren - Aroostook War, 1839; Second Seminole War - ended 1842 â€“ No military experience
â€¢ Woodrow Wilson - WWI, 1914-1918 â€“ No military experience
â€¢ Warren Harding - formally concluded WWI â€“ No military experience
â€¢ Franklin Roosevelt - WWII, 1941-1945 â€“ No military experience

Again I have no clue what you are saying or what this has to do with the price of tea in China.

LSS - Boxer was wrong to start with, and her refusal to issue an appology is just more proof of the Democraptic party's bullheadedness and stupidity.

Couldn't have anything to do with the Republicans taking one statement and running with it, to deflect about what the hearing was all about, could it?

That is just my point. You didn't want to read and yet attempt to pose a position that falters in the face of the "facts". Additionally, you avoid actualling adressing the argument - why because it doesn't support your position / opinion, and yet will expect me and others to accept your sources at face value.

Let me repeat myself.

Viper.......While I do thank you for posting the entire article for me, but if I wanted to read it, I would have read it on the thread you started, where it was originally posted at.

You stated that it is Boxer's job to....... I showed where Boxer has failed in her job to live up to her oath of office, and you simply sluff it off. Oh well.

At this moment in time, it was Boxer's job to question those that came before her in congress.

Viper2

01-17-2007, 03:47 PM

lily:

Damn, you still persist.

Tell me something - based on Boxer's assanine tiraid at Secretary Rice - why in the hell isn't she asking the same questions to her fellow Democraptic Members of Congress ???????

http://english.ohmynews.com/articleview/article_view.asp?no=340006&rel_no=1

Condoleezza Rice Deserves Apology

http://www.michnews.com/artman/publish/article_15403.shtml

Senator Boxer's Insult of Condoleezza Rice Condemned by Black Conservatives
By Newswires
MichNews.com
Jan 15, 2007

http://www.renewamerica.us/columns/mostert/050127

Sen. Boxer's vicious attack on Condoleeza Rice was based on lies
Mary Mostert
January 27, 2005

http://www.nypost.com/seven/01122007/postopinion/editorials/boxers_low_blow_editorials_.htm?page=0

BOXER'S LOW BLOW

http://www.nypost.com/seven/01122007/news/nationalnews/dems_burn_a_kidless_rice_nationalnews_geoff_earle. htm

DEMS BURN A 'KIDLESS' RICE
By GEOFF EARLE
January 12, 2007

There is more, however, you probably won't even read the articles.

Again I have no clue what you are saying or what this has to do with the price of tea in China.

That's quite obvious - let me explain:

Boxer attacked Rice saying she wouldn't understand the sacrifice because she wouldn't be personally effected - so I provided the names of a few Presidents whose kids didn't go to war but sent troops to war - in essence, whether or not you personally have children is not a requirement nor a prequalification for sending troops to war or not.

Boxer was totally out of line. Additionally, Rice has a far superior background than Boxer, perhaps the Boxer Bitch couldn't deal with that, and like a lot of women got catty - IMHO.

Elrathin

01-17-2007, 04:09 PM

Viper2

01-17-2007, 04:57 PM

- in essence, whether or not you personally have children is not a requirement nor a prequalification for sending troops to war or not.

Maybe not, but you do the same thing sometimes when people talk about troops and you pull out the "I was a combat soldier and you don't know what you are talking about" reply.

So in essence, using your logic in this situation, even though someone hasn't been in combat, doesn't preclude them from talking about combat.

Can't have it both ways here.Â*Â*Either lack of experience of a situation precludes people from talking about something or it doesn't.Â*Â*Please tell us which way you want to discuss this situation from.

Good points - thank you.

Yes, I do pull out the "experience" card when some attempt to portray their opinions as facts and I personally know they're out in left field and off the wall.

Anyone is entitled to their opinion, and can discuss any subject they want - that's one of the rights and freedoms us military types fought for. However, when doing so, if you have never served in the military, let alone been in combat - have the deciency and respect to state it is just your opinion - and do not attempt to tell me I'm incorrect, when I've been there and have the scars to show for it.

Does that make any sense to you ?????

Elrathin

01-17-2007, 05:27 PM

Anyone is entitled to their opinion, and can discuss any subject they want - that's one of the rights and freedoms us military types fought for. However, when doing so, if you have never served in the military, let alone been in combat - have the deciency and respect to state it is just your opinion - and do not attempt to tell me I'm incorrect, when I've been there and have the scars to show for it.

Does that make any sense to you ?????

I agree with you in the sense that people who have not served nor been in combat may not understand fully what is going on, however, what about those that are getting their information FROM people who have been in the military and in combat?

Not everyone's experience in combat is the same, nor is it the same each war especially when the cultures, location, and even the type of war being fought is different.

For instance in the Iraq war, I have heard the war as going bad from combat soldiers AND I have heard the war is going good from combat soldiers. Two very completely different views, but they are coming from combat soldiers. So, where do you draw the line?

Viper2

01-17-2007, 10:00 PM

Elrathin:
I agree with you in the sense that people who have not served nor been in combat may not understand fully what is going on, however, what about those that are getting their information FROM people who have been in the military and in combat?

Second and third hand information must be taken with a grain of salt.

What must be considered is that we all have our personal opinions and views. For instance, lily feels that a report that came out a couple of days after President Bush's speech on a "New" strategy in Iraq, that depicts a few soldiers making negative statements, infers that all are. Then when I prove to her over and over again that she is incorrect, and that the soldiers are remarking on "PAST" events and not on the "NEW" strategy (which hasn't been implemented yet), she still refuses to listen to reason.

When I was a kid, there was a competetive game we played. Two or more teams of 10 people each, the first one in line was told "Johnny and Suzie went to the movies, then to the pizza parlor and had heros and a coke" The aim of the competition was to see if the last person in line got the exact same story that was told the first. 99% of the time the story became something else while being told to the next person in line.

You want the real details - ask a combat Vet directly.

Not everyone's experience in combat is the same, nor is it the same each war especially when the cultures, location, and even the type of war being fought is different.

You sure as hell ain't whisteling Dixie. Each person is an individual and although 25 men can be in the same battle under the same conditions - there will be 25 variations - almost all will agree on 98% of what happened, however, their individuality will come out because they see and evaluate things differently. Example: One can say that was one hell of a firefight, bullets and mortor rounds going off everywhere - and another will say, just another day in combat a walk in the park.

Now, I was in Nam and Thirdparty in Gulf War I and II. We can relate certain experiences with a couple of words and we will know exactly what the other is saying, although there were differences in the engagement, there are always constants.

For instance in the Iraq war, I have heard the war as going bad from combat soldiers AND I have heard the war is going good from combat soldiers.Â*Â*Two very completely different views, but they are coming from combat soldiers.Â*Â*So, where do you draw the line?

As I have stated previously, there will always be and have been since the beginning of armed conflicts those who will complain or question the validity about this, that or the other. However, this is a miniscule number as compared to the entire force. So, to take what a few say and blow it out of proportion to infer that all feel this was is wrong, deceitful and misleading.