During a January 11 Senate hearing, Sen Boxer discounted the policy-making abilities of Condi Rice because she has failed to breed.
"I'm not going to pay a price. My kids are too old. My grandchild is too young." Boxer's answer misses the point completely.
Decisions made now, just as decisions made in the past, will determine what prices our children, grandchildren, and great-grandchildren pay.
Vietnam showed an America unwilling to win a vicious war. And an American generation unwilling to commit as generations before them.
America was starting to be seen as a paper tiger.
The Persian Gulf War showed an America willing to win, as long as it was quick, and relatively painless, without getting too dirty for television.
Somalia made it clear to terror groups that America was the paper tiger they suspected it was.
America became an easy mark.
Determined not to show itself as the paper tiger, America goes into Iraq, and still unwilling to wage total war, has become that paper tiger.
The only way out of future involvements is to not get involved in other poeple's business. We are involved in our own domino effect: one leads to another, that feeds another, and another...
There will be future attacks on American civilians. Count on it. It will not stop until we call it all back home. Like I said previously
And neither political side, left or right, will get us to this point. The 'right' wants to use our might to promote democracy ,American values, and protect the Zionist dream.
The left wants us to 'do something' about DarFur. This something, of course, requires American military waging war without any pretense of being in American interests.
Decisions are being made right now. And nothing decided that is currently on the table will leave our children and grandchildren without a price to pay.
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
13 comments:
Excellent subject and interesting points Gino.
Not bad for an Italian kid...:o)
How can the left/right suggest intervening is morally acceptable in one situation while intervening in another is morally unacceptable?
And here in lies the problem with American and indeed western foreign policy. It suffers from a multiple-personality disorder. If you know what I mean.
Some Russian dude who liked pounding podiums with his shoe suggested America would self-destruct from the inside. And he seems to have not been too far off the mark.
"Who pays the price?" you ask.
I suggest to you it is the average working gino/gina of America (and every other country for that matter) who pay the price.
With VERY FEW exceptions, the wealthy, the politically connected and powerful have never paid the price and never will.
Indeed they will profit whether America is rising or falling.
That is the nature of the food chain and the human condition.
Very good points made. Do you think that we are the paper tiger because we are a culture that can solve things quickly? In other words, the patience of Americans are so much shorter than that in other countries. For example, we have quick solutions for everything. We jump for one line to the next in the super market so we can get out 2 min faster, we swich lanes back and forth for the same reasons. Then you have Bin Laden who meticulously plans and waits for years to see his plans come through. In Iraq, we've been there only several years and 80% of the American people are against it, meaning that probably 60% of them were for the war several years back.
mercy, i dont think its the patience that holds us back. i think its the squeamishness that leads to loss of patience.
we order a pizza delivered in 30mins. because we can.
we dont want to see the hog slaughtered to make the pepperoni, because we cannot.
and as chills (anon) says: its a western culture problem. not just us North Americans.(nod to canada,chills)
I still think that Islamic craziness needs to get confronted over there and not just cried over back here. And you're right, nothing will leave our children and grandchildren without a price to pay.
We all pay the price, some of us feel it more directly seeing our loved ones go off to war though. Boxer just ticked me off. Who the heck is she to say such a thing to anyone? Is it now only those of us who have loved ones serving in the military capable of having a valid opinion on a war?
Ludicrous and she was obviously making a personal attack instead of sticking to the point. grrrrrr.
:)
Trisha
ox
Now Now Trisha...... Boxer equated Rice to herself. She qualified herself as being in a position of not having to pay the price with immediate family and that Rice was in a similar situation.
So how can you say she was attacking Rice personally when she placed herself on par.
That dont equate :o)
Don,
It was an attack on any person in a position to make decisions about the war who do not have family members in the military. And at the moment of the discussion it was directed at Rice.
It sure seems to me it was an attack on her abilities. If Boxer believes she has nothing at stake and so is not in a position to make decisions about a war, then she really ought to get her butt out of politics. :D
boxer was being disengenuous. she DOES make a decision on the war. her decision is to actively oppose.
she was trying to shame condi, for lack of breeding, not because she makes decisions, but because she makes decisions boxer opposes.
it was an underhanded way of assuming the morally superior position.
Trish & Gino
IMO by putting herself on par with Rice in regards to paying a price.(see my earlier comment)...she undermines her own position as someone who can speak to any decision for those who are actually paying the price.
Indeed she shouldnt have even been in the position of questioning Rice if what she said was of any other consequence.
So I will agree she was being disingenuous but I dont see her questioning as a personal attack on Rice......a political one but not personal.
Anyway
No doubt after the hearings
they went to shop for shoes together. :o)
BTW what the heck is this
NON-binding resolution about LOL.
the non-binding resolution is the US govt's version the of the UN's 'sternly worded report'.
I thought as much..lmao... :o)
She was equating herself to Rice, but she's also bringing to the forefront that Rice is not a mother; therefore, she has no concept of how military actions affect those at home. It was a little sinister trick she chose to use to discredit Rice. Women love head games.
Wow! Senator Boxer is totally sexist!
Post a Comment