Need I point out that Boxer included herself? She stated that neither she nor Rice was going to pay the price.

She's right, of course. Maybe that's what bugs you?

The treatment Condaleeza Rice has received since joining the administration shows the leftist feminist movement and a lot of the current Civil Rights movement for the phonies they are.

Of course, they will disagree with her, but not one has ever defended her for acheiving what they continually claim they stand and fight for, freedom to acheive and not be tied down in marriage to a husband or children. I/O/W. they preach freedom to choose, but only respect it if one chooses liberalism.

As a Black person, she should be held up as a heroine to young Blacks, even if they disagree with her. She came up in troubled times and has worked hard to acheive a position of respectability few people, male or female, Black or White, ever acheive. Instead, she is ridiculed endlessly and denigrated as a 'lackey' in some Political Cartoons, without an utterance from the NAACP.

Senator Boxer was absolutely correct in pointing out the lack of personal responsibility (Ed. Note: this really creepy comment has been truncated because once you find out that someone thinks that Boxer had a point, there's really no point in going further).

I am sure chris matthews, jack cafferty the new york times and the rest of the lib media will spend every show this week on criticizing barbara boxer and demanding that she resign and then apologise. oh wait, she's a dem. Never mind.

Dean,

No, what bugs me is the idiotic notion that unless you serve, you can't judge war; unless you can get pregnant, you can't judge abortion; unless you're a mother, you can't judge the loss of a soldier in war...it is stupid, stupid, stupid...

Watched the encounter with total disbelief!

What a rational thinking person would first surmise is that(a)there is far less descrimination in America than there was in the 50's and 60's, and (b)that this country has been working to abolish discrimination and instill an anti-segregation/discrimination mentality with our youth so that they grow to believe that all mankind was created equal, however, it appears that the Boxer familia was left out of any cultural studies classes in school.

After watching this despicable woman display her racist remarks, yes racist. Barbaric Boxer is simply fuming that an African American, and an African America woman no less, is the Secretary of State rather than her or one of her cronettes and she simply could not contain her remarks.

Simply analyse her comments and anyone can see that she harbors an incredible hatred for Condi so you can only imagine the choice words that she has for Colin Powell and the rest behind their backs.

But, with the Charlie Rangel and such on her side of the isle, I'll bet she kisses their ars like you can't believe.

If I were Condi, I would have told that bitch to shove it where the moon don't shine.

See the irony in what I just said. When the libs espouse their hatred for Bush in the same ludicrus way I just stated above...it hurts don't it?

See libs, this is how much sense your anti-Bush rhetoric makes.

I disagree with Mark Noonan's last comment. Before I had children, I (like Mark) thought that I was just as able to understand what it meant to love a child as someone who actually HAD kids.

How wrong I was.

I think anyone who has kids will tell you the same thing -- before you have them, you THINK you understand what it means to love a child. You have nieces and nephews that you love, etc. etc.

But once you have a child of your own, you discover feelings and emotions that you never even knew existed.

Mark, if you have children, you must know what I am talking about. Ask any parent.

So I will respond to Mark's point (which really has nothing to do with the point that Senator Boxer was making): I do think that someone without children is inherently less capable of understanding the consequences of losing a child (to anything -- war, cancer, car accident...) than is someone with children of their own. Does this disqualify them from being Secretary of State or Secretary of Defense? No. Does it affect their ability to make reasoned and responsible decisions? Of course not. But that was never Boxer's point in the first place, obviously.

I thought what Boxer said was extremely offensive. It does not matter how many children you have to be connected to this war to think of the sacrifices.

Boxer is an liberal ass who thinks more of herself than anyone else. She is disconnected!

yek,

Yes, it was - Boxer's point was that Rice could not judge the cost of war because she isn't a mother...and that is just stupid. If you think people without children have no conception of horrible the loss of a child is, then you're a self-centered moral midget...

For ones as Boxer who claims to be so concerned over our children fighting this war, if we don't stop them now, it will be our grandchildren fighting them down the road.

The jab at Condaleeza Rice was condescending and mean spirited. Even without children, many have nieces and nephews and love them as well.

For Boxer, if her concern is losing children, how does she justify abortion?

It's all a show to raise herself above an obviously better qualified woman.

Condolezza Rice graduated high school at age 15, and went on to study foreign affairs under a professor named Josef Korbel, father of Rice's predecessor Madaleine Albright. Dr. Rice is also a classically trained pianist. She's got a resumé that most of us can envy (including a Masters from Notre Dame and a PhD in International Studies from the University of Denver), and thus deserves a lot more respect than Boxer gave her.

Barbaric Boxer is simply fuming that an African American, and an African America woman no less, is the Secretary of State rather than her or one of her cronettes.

One thing that the left can't stand, which drives them into conniption fits, is a non-white person who is not on their side of the aisle. Dr. Rice doesn't even seem to be that far to the right, being pro-choice on abortion, for one thing. But for Boxer and others of the same mindset, working for the Bush administration is bad enough. (Dr. Rice even worked for Bush Sr. at one time.)

For ones as Boxer who claims to be so concerned over our children fighting this war, if we don't stop them now, it will be our grandchildren fighting them down the road.

Lew, another thing that they don't get, but which even our allegedly stupid president understands, is that not stopping them in Iraq would eventually cause terrorists to come here and start killing us, right here in the U.S., which some of them have already done, in 1993 and 2001. If that happens (again), you, me, Boxer, and everyone reading this will be in danger of paying the price, whether or not any of us or someone we love is in the military. (Yeah, I know I've made this point few times already, and I may be "preaching to the choir", but when it comes to understanding our enemies, I don't think I can stress this point enough.)

No, what bugs me is the idiotic notion that unless you serve, you can't judge war;

If that bugs you, well...that's your business. Fortunately, that has nothing to do with what Boxer said. Her quote is "You're not going to pay a particular price, as I under stand [sic] it, with an immediate family." Note how she's talking about a very specific thing (as keyed by the word "particular"): parents having their children killed in the war. It's something neither Barbara Boxer nor Condi Rice is going to be dealing with because neither of them has kids or will have kids serving in the Iraq war. Do you dispute that? I would certainly hope not.

So now that we've established that Boxer was not talking about the war in general or even the general concept of "understanding sacrifice," or that "Rice could not judge the cost of war because she isn't a mother" as you (perhaps intentionally) erroneously claim, but rather a specific sacrifice that it is undeniably true neither Barbara Boxer nor Condi Rice will be making...what is your real problem here? Is it just that you don't like Barbara Boxer?

I did not realize we had children fighting in this war. When did the enlistment age drop? Am I missing something? Furthermore, using Boxer's flawed logic, none of us can complain about killers and rapists unless we are actually law enforcement ourselves or have family members that are. The argument that a person has to be personally involved to be an expert or even have an opinion is probably one of the dumbest ones out there, but we hear it everyday. Can I be against racism or do I need to keep my mouth shut about it because I am white?

First of all, navy -

There was nothing racist; explicit or even implied, in Senator Boxer’s statement. Show me where on earth you gleaned the idea that Boxer hates black people. Please? Besides your desire to vilify all things Democratic, where do you get any sort of impression that Sen. Boxer brought race into her statement?

Second, Mark –

I’m surprised (or not) that this is given time here. This is absolutely a non-story. Sen. Boxer’s point – while ineloquent – is the same which has been advocated by many on both sides; but particularly by the military. If you haven’t been there; you don’t understand.

How many times here have we been privy to the argument that we Americans with our MSM and Starbucks don’t really know what’s going on in Iraq? That is obviously a rhetorical question.

It is constantly been many people’s position here that our debate and discussion in the US doesn’t fully grasp the magnitude of the goings-on overseas. And this is absolutely true. As a civilian you have absolutely no concept of how the military mind works. And even with my military experience, I have never been shot at and therefore don’t pretend to have a frame of reference on which to base hypothetical decisions relating to those our active duty men and women are making right now.

I’d like to point out that you switched order of her statement. She first said that she (Sen. Boxer) isn’t feeling the personal impact of the war like people whose immediate family is over there then threw in the fact – which no one has disputed – that Secretary Rice has no brothers, sisters, fathers, mothers, or children there either.

And trust me as I say I’m the last one to ever think I’d be saying this; but seriously if you don’t have a child you have NO IDEA. I used to think myself very intelligent, empathetic, and open-minded; at least enough to comprehend what a parent feels towards their child. But until I saw my boy in real life, it was all just an intellectual exercise, and a futile one at that.

I worry about his future. And that is why this short-sighted strategy Bush is pursuing – not matter how “long term” he says it is – is of dire concern to me. As we are going now, trying to kill off all those who oppose the US and Western ideals, he is going to come up in a world which knows nothing of tolerance, multilateralism, understanding, let alone peace.

I know what people are going to say; “Well if we don’t win this war, that’s exactly what kind of world the terrorists will impose.”

No. It isn’t. Islamic fundamentalists despise the liberalism of our culture; our ability to get along even with those we disagree with; our willingness to listen to dissent; our desire to solve our differences with our minds and not our muscle; our unwillingness to be prejudice or petty in whom we call “friend” or “countryman”; our love for learning; and most of all for our embrace of “different” as a virtue.

But as it stands now, we have national leaders wanting to close our boarders to people for their religious belief, we have paranoia and suspicion for our neighbor, we project a ‘might makes right’ foreign policy, we turn our backs on the Founding Fathers’ principles, we ignore the teachings of Jesus (which ironically makes us more like Jefferson and Franklin), and we bow to the specter of big government out of fear.

But most of all, we let our national dialogue sink to new lows like this one. The issue we ought to be discussing isn’t the content of these hearings; any thinking person knows they are a dog and pony show to make the administration look strong and steadfast and to make the new majority look like they are doing something.

I am just as disillusioned with a government; executive and legislative, which makes such important decisions about the use of force and allows our countrymen and women to be put in harms way when so few of those decision makers have ever worn the uniform.

But the fact remains that Secretary Rice is still the person who smiled, laughed, and said "I believe the title said 'Bin Laden Determined to Attack in the United States'", like it was amusing that our national security messed up.

I don't care that she's black. I am surprised that - this being an anti-affirmative action crowd - people even bring up the idea that her being black warrants any sort of mention.

Was Senator Boxer's tirade dumb? Yes. Was it racist or insulting? No.

Admittedly off topic, but I am wondering how you guys feel about Dr. James Dobson. I just saw an interview with him on Hannity and Colmes where he looked like a complete retard. After discussing a certain line, and correct me if I am wrong, line 220 on Senate bill 1, he was proven wrong by Alan 2-3 times, and kept repeating his rhetoric that his "lawyers told him", when really he's just afraid of the public finding out just how much money he gives to legislators to push his ultra-right agenda.

Considering I was forced to listen to this reject on a daily basis in grade school, followed by having to watch the lunatic Rush Limbaugh every day in some high school classes, I am proud to say that these 2 men contributed to me later becoming a liberal.

It's all a show to raise herself above an obviously better qualified woman.

Spot on, Lew, and this isn't the first time Boxtop has attacked Condi at a hearing. And once again, Dr. Rice took the high road.

These hearings, especially the Foreign Relations and Armed Services Committee ones, are all show and posturing by the DemocRATs. Look who's on these committees--Clitton, Biden, Feingold, Kerry, Boxhead, Feinstein, Kennedy--all left-wing kooks who think they're the smartest ones in the room.

The only time any of the above kooks is the smartest one in the room is when they're in the room alone...

First, Noonan, your rap on Boxer is an excellent example of your trademark demagoguery. In fact, Boxer didn't mention childlessness; that's your jumped-to conclusion. Boxer could just as well be alluding to Rice not having a father, brother, sister, husband, boyfriend, favorite uncle or closest friend in the world heading for a meetup with an IED or sniper's bullet in Iraq.

What Boxer is hitting on is an all too real psychological pitfall that high government officials — ones whose decisions can cost other people their lives — too often fall into. Our troops, other countries' troops, Iraqi civilians and others become abstractions.

Officials come to accept a certain level of war casualties. They come to wall themselves off as much as possible from individual names and faces, and from the the grieving of bereaved loved ones.

I think if you were to ask Boxer, she'd tell you it shouldn't be that easy, even in a just and necessary war. It most especially shouldn't be that easy for people like Rice and her bosses when the war in question is an epic blunder entered into via deceit and wanton disregard for facts, truth and the sound advice of people who actually knew what they were talking about.

If Rice felt some discomfort, good. She should. Bush should. Cheney should. Rumsfeld, Wolfowitz, Feith, Kristol and a whole bunch of others should. The bloody, failed business they are about shouldn't be easy, ever.

What has Boxer outraged — along with more than two thirds of all Americans now — is what's happening to human beings because of the hubris, bungling and stubborn selfishness of incompetent leaders. There you have solid grounds for outrage and tough-as-nails quesitoning.

You had better get used to it. The senator spoke for tens of millions, and the Bush administration's first experience with congressional oversight is just beginning.

"Officials come to accept a certain level of war casualties" No sh#%? Stunning observation. I guess the opposite would be officials not doing anything for fear of a single casualty(see U.N. and Dems during Rwanda genocide). Lots of people get killed on our highways every year. Many college students commit suicide evey year. Many doctors and nurses get ill from close contact with their patients and die every year. Policeman and firefighters sometimes die while protecting us every year.

Anderson -- How many children did you lose in 9/11? None? Then what makes you competent to judge a policy designed to prevent another 9/11?

Did you read the one about Jerry Ford dissing Reagan? Jeez, first George the Chimp and now the Gipper? He didn't like ANY of your heroes, did he Noonan?

JPL, your question makes embarrasingly obvious how badly you need some remedial help with logic.

Cyber -- You mean the same Gerald Ford who described Jimmy Carter as a "disaster" and the worst president of Ford's lifetime? You mean that Gerald Ford?

Anderson -- Me: 1600 SATs; Harvard honor graduate; near-200 IQ. I assure you, logic isn't one of my weaknesses.

So why don't you simply answer my original question? If Boxer had a point minimizing Rice for having no family members in Iraq (as you argue), why am I wrong to minimize you for losing no family members in 9/11? Maybe it's you who needs the lesson in logic.

"After watching this despicable woman display her racist remarks, yes racist. Barbaric Boxer is simply fuming that an African American, and an African America woman no less, is the Secretary of State rather than her or one of her cronettes and she simply could not contain her remarks."

Navydad,

How was this racist? What evidence do you have that Barbara Boxer is a racist? Please be as specific as possible. I agree that Senator Boxer's remarks were egregious, but calling them racist is a whole other ballgame. Your interpretation seemed to exemplify the type of rhetoric many on the right condemn: just because the target happens to be black, any personal attack must be racially-motivated.

Gar Wood

Hey yek, how about those of us who are single...since we cannot POSSIBLY know what it is like to lose a child...I suppose you believe we don't hurt when a mother, a father, a grandparent, a brother, a sister, a spouse, a friend, or others pass on. You are a complete idiot for spouting that your love for your lib kids is something we cannot possibly understand. I'd like to stick your head in my toilet so that you can understand what crap you sound like.

Only a true liberal moron would believe this statement; "In fact, Boxer didn't mention childlessness", so I guess that leaves you in the position of being the moron...Anderson!

Let's see, Condi has a mother and she has a father, therefore since she doesn't have a brother or a sister and SINCE SHE'S AN ONLY CHILD, the Dog must have meant "children", don't ya suppose? This wasn't a multip[le choice condemnation.

You loons tend to talk in general terms when you say things like "she spoke for tens of millions", so, what about the other fifty million that she isn't speaking for and don't they have a say or opinion? Obviously not according to the left, because it's all about power...period.

I believe all you loons need to write or call your senator or congressman and demand that the funding for the war be cut off...really, I mean it, and if you had any juevos at all, you'd come right out on the streets of SF and proclaim your hatred for the troops since they're the ones that you hate the most.

"For ones as Boxer who claims to be so concerned over our children fighting this war, if we don't stop them now, it will be our grandchildren fighting them down the road."

A post on Andrew Sullivan pointed out that pulling out of Iraq may be good for Iran but terrible for Al-Qaeda. If al-Sadr takes over, and the presumed genocide of Sunnis takes place, then al-Qaeda's presence in Iraq disappears. I hate to sound so detached from discussing such a terrible event happening, but what effect would this have on the GWOT?

Gar Wood

It's interesting how liberals know the hearts and souls of Democrats when they make statements that are EXTREMELY offensive, yet accuse anyone who didn't vote the way they did of trumping up saying we don't have any idea what's in the hearts of these demagogues like Boxer.

It must work the same way if a conservative does it, because they know that if a white Republican doesn't say hi to a black member of Congress it was bound to be racist.

Let's get it straight, Boxer wasn't interested in getting any answers from the Secretary of State. She was intersted in trying to grandstand AND worse, try to further win points with the Sheehan's of the world by suggesting that NO ONE can have empathy and no one can have sympathy unless you've experienced the EXACT event someone else has.

Not only is that just stupid, but it shows just how deluded she is... how Liberal leaders advocate one way of living yet live completely differently. But then again, Democrats have always been the party of "think the way we demand you think" and the party of "do as I say, not as I do."

Also, any reason why you defend Boxer, yet remain COMPLETELY silent when your savior, er... I mean Speaker has clearly misplaced her memo on ethics.

I'm just surpised Boxer didn't call Condi Bush's mami... you know she was thinking it. If liberals can say what's in the heart of Trent Lott... I am 100% entitled to do the same with Barbara Boxer.

Gar Wood

Don't ya hate being set up?

Navy said:
"See the irony in what I just said. When the libs espouse their hatred for Bush in the same ludicrus way I just stated above...it hurts don't it?"

"See libs, this is how much sense your anti-Bush rhetoric makes."

See Gar, you only read the top portion of my post and since the post was to indicate just how absurd it sounds to say that the Dog was racist( because even I know she's not), I was trying to make my point that you loons can be suckered into believing just about anything your side spews, because you're so emotional, you can barely compose yourselves.

Good luck in 2008...fools.

Boy, I really didn't think I'd catch a flounder this quick!!

Imagine - a single brilliant black woman Secretary of State. How dare she?

Think N.O.W. will back her up?

Think the N.A.A.C.P will back her up?

Navydad,

Ha, well I think we're on the same page then. If everyone, starting at the top, would turn down the grandstanding and actually debate the issues, the country might be better off. It doesn't help that 10% of the Senate is running for office.

Gar Wood

Gar

It would be even better if we all could have a dialog that was less hate-filled and more intellectual.

Get my drift?

Does anyone actually expect to not be called names when they make absurd comments such as Anderson made about Condi? For God's sake, she's doing the best she can and guess what, one of the biggest sacrifices a woman can make is the decision not to have children.

Gar stated: "It doesn't help that 10% of the Senate is running for office."

Your forgot to mention another 60% are arrogant blowhards who WISH they could run for President but know they don't stand a chance.

Boxer was being glib. It's like John Kerry's many "lapses" where things are taken quote taken out of context unquote, even if it's by EVERYONE BUT HIM and his supporters.

Boxer has been rude and condescending to Rice in the past. It's how Boxer operates. The question is why? Rice was offended. If Boxer wasn't trying to offend, she would have apologized right off the bat. But this will blow up bigger and bigger and then we'll get a fake apology a la Kerry.

It seems to be how Democratic Senators roll these days. However, we're still waiting for an apology from Kennedy and Byrd for their transgressions. Oh, and Reid, and Durbin, too... oh, and Steele is still waiting for an apology from Schumer. Should I continue?

"Your forgot to mention another 60% are arrogant blowhards who WISH they could run for President but know they don't stand a chance."

Willyo,

You're being generous with 60%. I think it's more around 85%. The only Senators that aren't blowhards, IMHO, are Thad Cochran, Jon Tester (may be soon to say), George Voinovich, and Maria Cantwell.

Gar Wood

wawilliyo - she was being glib to someone who was under oath and required to be there. And it was public. If her feelings were hurt, this meets the European Unions standards for torture. Not kidding, really it does.

navydad wrote:

". . . and if you had any juevos at all, you'd come right out on the streets of SF and proclaim your hatred for the troops since they're the ones that you hate the most."

Same old angry radical-right nonsense. Facts and logic aren't on your side, so you just make things up. Don't like someone's opinions? It's OK spew hatred.

I hope you get the help you need.

Kahn wrote:

Imagine - a single brilliant black woman Secretary of State. How dare she?

Think N.O.W. will back her up?

Think the N.A.A.C.P will back her up?

If the lady is just parroting talking points, citing lame platitudes, blowing smoke, evading the questions and otherwise wasting everyone's time with shuck and jive, the answer is no.

Happy to help.

You little schoolyard bully Republicans can find something to offend you in the most ridiculous places. If you found Boxer's comments offensive, then what the hell do you make of Laura Bush saying this:

"Dr. (Condoleezza) Rice, who I think would be a really good candidate, is not interested. Probably because she is single, her parents are no longer living, she's an only child. You need a very supportive family and supportive friends to have this job."

SHAME on Laura Bush for this incredibly offensive, racist remark.

Mark, I didn't say that "people without children have no conception of horrible the loss of a child is" -- those are your words (that you're trying to put into my mouth).

What I said was that they were LESS able to understand it than someone who has a child. And I would go further and say that people with children, but who have never lost one, are less able to understand it than people who have actually LOST a child.

This is only common sense, Mark (and what's up with the name calling? A "moral midget"? Is that supposed to be funny or clever or something?)

Happy to help.

But you didn't help, S.W.--all you did was parrot talking points.

Apples and oranges, yekepyt..

Jenius,

In case you haven't figured it out yet, the best posts on this site go without response. Well done, sir.

Gar Wood

Gar & Jenius

Looks like you descent from "best" is happening now.

The two remarks are worlds apart. (a) by tone and (b) by content.

Mrs. Bush's comment was meant in a humanistic, compassionate tone and The Dog's was complete sarcasm, and ridiculous hate filled rhetoric directed to inflict as much political pain as possible....get a life, both of you.
So, where's the feminist now or is it simply considered a "cat fight" until it comes from the other side...ehh?

BTW Anderson. Tens of millions don't have a clue who Piglosi is or most commonly who the Vice President is or Barrack OH Big Ears (like that Keefer?), so get off your high horse thinking that just because your side finally won one election that the country has somehow miraculously converted to liberalism...puke!

The last time I looked, the country was still pretty much 50/50 and the only reason the Donks won in Nov was due to the 35% Rebuplican turnout. Indisputable fact that our base didn't show up. Add a few ticks to that and you've got yourself a mighty large swing...wouldn't ya say?

Man, is oversight ever going to be fun! Salvo for the junior senator from California.
I saw this "debate" on FOX while visiting a friend the other day as he surfed the cable news.
I'm pleased to note that as I predicted at the time -- this is what will dominate Limbaugh, this site and others like it vis-a-vis coverage of yesterday's Congressional hearings. The exchange certainly was more important than noting that not a single member of the Foreign Relations Committee, from either party, backed Bush's escalation -- or accepted Condi's assurances that it had a chance of success.

Turn the other cheek, christians.

How many times has the rallying cry been "for the children"??? How many times, as a gay man without children, have I heard that I can't possibly understand what parental sacrifice is?

You Rightwingers push that bullshit *all* the time, whether it's applicable or not. It's a rallying cry for you people, to walk on the backs of the "poor children" in order to get your ranting way.

Someone uses it in a specifically applicable way, and suddenly you all come apart.

Rush Limbaugh is calling Boxer a racist. Do you agree? What can you take out of context in order to try to make it seem so?

Here's my 2 cents. The letter I sent to her office via fax last evening...

________________________

January 12, 2007

The Hon. Barbara Boxer
112 Hart Senate Office Building
Washington, DC 20510

Dear Senator Boxer,

I join the chorus of voices rising up in indignation to the remarks you made today to Secretary of State, Ms. Condoleezza Rice appearing before the Senate in defense of President Bush's proposed tactical changes in Iraq.

"Who pays the price? I'm not going to pay a personal price," you said. "My kids are too old, and my grandchild is too young." Then, to Madame Secretary, you further mentioned, "You're not going to pay a particular price, as I understand it, with an immediate family." Congratulations. You’ve sunk even lower in the realm of political debate than John Kerry. In the process, you’ve dragged the level of public discourse even further into the gutter than anyone thought possible. Your comments were an insult to Madame Secretary, to the families of those who have made the ultimate sacrifice to this country, and to millions of Americans across this nation who understand both what is at stake in this present struggle, and who our enemies are. To put a litmus test upon government officials based upon whether they have children, or whether their children are in the military displays a most callous and insensitive approach toward political leadership.

Your attempt to link Secretary Rice’s credentials or credibility in her role as Secretary of State to the state of her motherhood is both a slap in the face of the modern feminist movement - which you claim to represent - and to your more traditional sisters who embrace one of the most important roles in our civilization - raising the new generation. It is also a slap in the face of our military force, which, in case you’ve forgotten, is comprised of a completely volunteer force.

An Op-Ed appeared in The New York Post today, entitled “Boxer’s Low Blow.” They put it succinctly enough, in stating:

“...The vapidity - the sheer mindlessness - of Sen. Boxer's assertion makes it clear that the next two years are going to be a time of bitterness and rancor, marked by pettiness of spirit and political self-indulgence of a sort not seen in America for a very long time....It would take a truly hard heart not to be touched, deeply, by the sacrifices made by the young men and women now wearing their country's uniform. And one can only imagine the pain felt by the families of those killed and cruelly wounded in service to America. Just as it was hard to imagine the agony of the loved ones left behind on 9/11. But even to suggest that Condoleezza Rice is not fit to serve her country because she is childless is beyond bizarre. It is perverse.”

Your comments were deeply offensive and inappropriate. You owe an apology to Secretary Rice, to our troops in harm’s way, and to the American public. You need to do it now.
____________________

Blue Rev....
So you were forced to listen to Rush in your HS?? Fascinating!!!!! just..too bad your skull full of mush, was too full of mush to have anything penetrate.