Barbara Boxer - not her finest moment

[NickCole]

We are talking about valueing human lives here and relating that to decision making process. We aren't discussing similarities to the types of war.

If that's the point you think Senator Boxer was making then you missed it.

Her point was not "valuing human lives here and relating that to a decision making process." Her point that's being discussed here had nothing to do with the decision making process. Her point had to do with the result of bad decisions, which Bush & Co have made repeatedly and --her point is-- have just made again despite a loud and varied objection. This is how Senator Boxer opened her exchange with Secretary Rice:

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."

Then, after using Secretary Rice's own words versus the reality, Boxer pointed out Rice's own bad judgement.

THEN she said who is paying the price for Bush & Co's bad decision making?

She never said that decision making about war should be based upon the recognition that people will die, or valuing those lives. She pointed out who is paying the personal price of the bad judgement of Bush & Co, and that Rice is not one of them. She also, I might add, never said anything about Ms Rice being single or childless; that's more BushRepublican smear machine nonsense.

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.

Transcript: http://www.nytimes.com/2007/01/11/washington/11TRANSCRIPT-BOXER.html?_r=1&pagewanted=all&oref=slogin

 

[chance1]

Actually, Chance, you did. Watch yourself because we are. Understood? I thought so.

An attack? really?

When after a poster consistently says we cannot win, I mention that I would not choose him for my basketball team?

an attack??

"Watch yourself because we are?" - a threat? very heavy handed

who moderates the mods?

 

[Centexfarmer]

...

who moderates the mods?

The posters to CE&P, and the other moderators.

Admin always has the final word.

If there is a problem you can bring it to the attention of every mod on JUB by hitting the Report Post icon attached to each post. It's located in the lower left hand corner.

At which point we all discuss what, if anything should be done about it, but the moderators of each forum are given "due respest" because we tend to know who the players in our forum are better than others.

Keep in mind that moderators don't always agree, just like posters here don't always agree with one another's position/perspective/view.

However, with that moderators also have seniority (more experience with some members) than others, so it's really a democratic process.



FWIW

 

[NW007]

If that's the point you think Senator Boxer was making then you missed it.

Her point was not "valuing human lives here and relating that to a decision making process." Her point that's being discussed here had nothing to do with the decision making process. Her point had to do with the result of bad decisions, which Bush & Co have made repeatedly and --her point is-- have just made again despite a loud and varied objection. This is how Senator Boxer opened her exchange with Secretary Rice:



Then, after using Secretary Rice's own words versus the reality, Boxer pointed out Rice's own bad judgement.

THEN she said who is paying the price for Bush & Co's bad decision making?

She never said that decision making about war should be based upon the recognition that people will die, or valuing those lives. She pointed out who is paying the personal price of the bad judgement of Bush & Co, and that Rice is not one of them. She also, I might add, never said anything about Ms Rice being single or childless; that's more BushRepublican smear machine nonsense.



Transcript: http://www.nytimes.com/2007/01/11/washington/11TRANSCRIPT-BOXER.html?_r=1&pagewanted=all&oref=slogin

Your response here just reinforces my points that she was talking about in regard to who pays price(valuing ife) and decsion making processes. You can't say I was off the point and then try to back your argument with her words that talk about "paying price" and "bad decsion making"

This whole thread really is about valuing lives and how it relates to the decision making of our leaders.

 

[NickCole]

This whole thread really is about valuing lives and how it relates to the decision making of our leaders.

If that's true then this thread has nothing to do with what Senator Boxer said to Secretary Rice.

Senator Boxer said nothing about valuing lives and how it relates to the decision making process. You think I'm wrong? Show us a quote from the transcript I linked to where you believe she makes that point.

She pointed out who pays the personal price for bad decisions -- AFTER the decision has been made.

She pointed out that Bush & Co have made bad decisions, that others have provided opinions that could help Bush & Co make a better decision now, and who will pay the personal price of another Bush & Co bad decision. She drew no connection between valuing life and the decision making process.

 

[lancelva]

The Pearl Harbor analogy is no longer relevant. Why? Because we now today that Iraq had nothing to do with 9/11. The War in Iraq and the War on Terror were two different things at the time we began bombing the country. Today, however, things have changed. Al Qaeda has infiltrated the country as a result of our invasion. Everyone agrees the, since 9/11 and thanks to our actions in Iraq, al Qaeda has actually grown. What's more, the War in Iraq diverted our resources from the War on Terror--which was launched in response to 9/11 and was supported unanimously. Had it not been for this diversion, we could have captured Osama bin Laden (Remember him? You know, that guy with a long beard?) and weakened al Qaeda.

So this "fight them over there so we don't have to fight them here" mantra is ridiculous. The only reason we have to fight them over there is because our presence in Iraq is feeding the insurgency. We are making matters worse. When will the Bush administration and his allies wake up and realize this?

 

[NW007]

If that's true then this thread has nothing to do with what Senator Boxer said to Secretary Rice.

Senator Boxer said nothing about valuing lives and how it relates to the decision making process. You think I'm wrong? Show us a quote from the transcript I linked to where you believe she makes that point.

She pointed out who pays the personal price for bad decisions -- AFTER the decision has been made.

She pointed out that Bush & Co have made bad decisions, that others have provided opinions that could help Bush & Co make a better decision now, and who will pay the personal price of another Bush & Co bad decision. She drew no connection between valuing life and the decision making process.

If those two last paragraphs in your post don't relate to personal price(lives) and decision making process then I don't know what does. Calling something 'bad decisions" obviously relates to the decision making process.

Enough with Senator Boxer!!!

 

[springboksfan]

An attack? really?

When after a poster consistently says we cannot win, I mention that I would not choose him for my basketball team?

an attack??

Yes. An attack. Don't try to make it nice and pretty after the fact.

"Watch yourself because we are?" - a threat? very heavy handed

who moderates the mods?

What? You didn't like that little 1984 moment? With all the newspeak you spout, I'd've thought it would make you all warm and fuzzy!

And no, it's not a threat. It's a warning to be heeded.

 

[springboksfan]

This in fact was a discussion item the other night on TV, not Fox by the way, that was discussing the tremendous toll of lives and lack of support for Lincoln at the lowest point for the Civil War; and also in regard to Rossevelt during the low point of WWII.

In every long war, the populace tires of the bloodshed and sacrifices made. War is not popular with the folk burying their dead or nursing their amputee brothers/fathers/sons. One need only look at the mutinies and mass desertions of the Great War to get an idea of how the troops feel. Again, this has nothing to do with the discussion at hand.

By the way, you were taking my ccomment out of context in regard to the broader question I was talking about.

I'm afraid I missed the broader question, then. My apologies. Would you restate for me, please?

 

[springboksfan]

I just want to add a little more perspective to this debate here. (From the link provided by NickCole)

SENATOR BARBARA BOXER: [...] 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.[...*]
[*Already posted; Emphases mine.]

Look! Senator Boxer didn't forget Poland!

Why is no one joining this surge, one wonders? Because of two things, I surmise: 1) domestic pressure by the populace to bring home their soldiers (wow, a responsive government--who knew?) and 2) because the "coalition" has achieved a total and complete failure to occupy Iraq in any functional way, those nations are unwilling to trust in and contribute to this new old policy.

 

[chance1]

Yes. An attack. Don't try to make it nice and pretty after the fact.


What? You didn't like that little 1984 moment? With all the newspeak you spout, I'd've thought it would make you all warm and fuzzy!

And no, it's not a threat. It's a warning to be heeded.

it's not after anything

you are clearly biased

you are not "modding"

as for your warning - you have no basis for warning me as your example is no basis

this is frankly ridiculous

 

[springboksfan]

I have yet to see another "put in the whole conversation" is all

Nope - haven't seen one

I think if that is a requirement, you'll be sending out a lot of emails is all

You can say I'm spinning all u want spring - doesn't make it so

Chance, you seem to have an issue with my moderation of this forum. So that we don't distract from the thread any further, would you please PM me with your concerns. We can settle this like gentlemen. Thanks.

 

[Kurn]

What this country has erred in is in not morally realigning itself in the wake of the end of the Cold War. ALL OF OUR MISTAKES STEM FROM THAT.


[to be sure, the religious right, as such, is incapable of so-doing]

 

[NickCole]

If those two last paragraphs in your post don't relate to personal price(lives) and decision making process then I don't know what does. Calling something 'bad decisions" obviously relates to the decision making process.

You're wrong. And the proof of that is in Senator Boxer's actual words, no matter how anybody spins them.

If you could prove you interpretation of what she said by quoting her actual words, you'd do it.

Enough with Senator Boxer!!!

Unfortunately for BushRepublicans, Senator Boxer is just getting started.

Californians elected her to the Senate and Americans put her in a power position.

Fasten your seatbelts.

 

[ryankeith]

sorry - I keep thinking you guys know me better than u do

what I mean is

the emotional, heart wrenching look at the families, the individuals who suffer casualties during war - is not something the govt/decision makers can/should deal with when making decisions.

it is a private matter - not one that should cloud judgements on national security or policy

Once again, your true colors come to forefront.

Soldiers are getting killed and it effects the people of your country...of course human lives and the emotions tied to it should be looked at. They should be dealt with when making decisions, as it is those decisions by the government that have sent many of these soldiers to death. these soldiers work for the government and their death is a direct result of where their government sent them...the government has no choice but to deal with them.

 

[ComNavFdgPk]

...Don't think for a moment that any U.S.President has enjoyed having to send troops into battle.

At least not the ones who actually stepped up when it was their turn and went into harm's way themselves! One of my biggest problems with Dubya is the fact that he (like a few others) seems more than willing to send others to do a job that he was unwilling to do himself.

 

[chance1]

Once again, your true colors come to forefront.

Soldiers are getting killed and it effects the people of your country...of course human lives and the emotions tied to it should be looked at. They should be dealt with when making decisions, as it is those decisions by the government that have sent many of these soldiers to death. these soldiers work for the government and their death is a direct result of where their government sent them...the government has no choice but to deal with them.

my true colors?

my favorite colors are blue and green - if that's what u mean

emotions should NEVER be tied to decisions by the govt. - not sometimes - NEVER

decisions must be made based on the good of the country

It doesn't lessen the anguish - of the lives lost

It just can't come into the decision

and your true colors was a cheap shot - but it's ok - used to it here

 

[Andreus]

At least not the ones who actually stepped up when it was their turn and went into harm's way themselves! One of my biggest problems with Dubya is the fact that he (like a few others) seems more than willing to send others to do a job that he was unwilling to do himself.

i can tell you it is a nightmare that is beyond comprehension

the radical right has sanitized its conscience by refusing to look at the unneeded pain that they have created for nothing but a pack of lies and a maniacs ego

 

[texpatriot]

It's interesting to me that the biggest "war-mongers" that our country has ever seen, have never actually served.

They've never attended "basic training" of any sort, and have never had to wear a uniform on foreign soil where they've had to watch their backs at every moment.

For the record, I've worn that uniform.

I find it ironic that the National Guard of President Bush's day was just a little more than "weekend warriors." But patriotic volunteers none the less.

Today Bush is using a group of volunteers who volunteered to serve one weekend a month, and two-weeks during the summer to "augment" his war in Iraq. Many of which are now on their second and third "tours of duty."

These are people, neighbors, friends, relatives, mothers and fathers, pulled out of their day to day lives to fight a war thousands of miles away.

They're different from the regular military because this isn't exactly what they signed on for.

But the biggest thing that anyone can find to piss and moan about in this thread is "Barbara Boxer" said this, and Barbara Boxer said that.

Barbara Boxer has one "moment" that's not her finest, but Condi Rice has had how many?

Oh, that's right, she's just a mouth-piece parroting the Bush Administration's "message," and she got called on it!

As we say here in the South, "Poor thang, bless her pea-picking heart."

Condi is a Southern Girl, I know that she's had to have heard that phrase at least once in her life.

Oh, but wait, I guess that this post will go down as "not her finest moment, " or post when they refer to texpatriot!

 

[White Eagle]

Thanks texpatriot!