Video: Boxer gets personal with Condi at Senate hearing; Update: “Great leap backward for feminism,” says Snow

posted at 9:36 am on January 12, 2007 by Allahpundit

I don’t recall the lack of fruit from Janet Reno’s womb figuring heavily into scrutiny of Waco or l’affaire Elian, but that was a different time. A time of magic and wonder, when America knew peace while Osama studied flight schedules.

Nice to see this particular corollary to the chickenhawk argument for once being used against someone other than Bush and his daughters, though. I wonder, what implications might it have for those childless supporters of the war in Afghanistan among us, such as Purple Heart awardee Col. Glenn Ellison “Duke” Ellers? The mind reels.

Note Condi’s reaction. Thanks to Newsbusters for the catch.

Update: The New York Post goes nuclear on Boxer.

Update: CNN has video lowlights of her exchanges with various senators.

Update: The Snowman’s feeling frosty. And exaggerating considerably.

“I don’t know if she was intentionally that tacky, but I do think it’s outrageous. Here you got a professional woman, Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice, and Barbara Boxer is sort of throwing little jabs because Condi doesn’t have children, as if that means that she doesn’t understand the concerns of parents. Great leap backward for feminism,” Snow told FOX News Talk’s Brian and The Judge.

Update (Ian): An example of “Olbypocrisy.”


Related Posts:

Breaking on Hot Air

Blowback

Trackbacks/Pings

Trackback URL

Comments

Would’nt that’ve been funny if Condi went all black on her…

Boxer: “… and because you have no children …”

Condi: “Oh no you di’int! OH NO YOU DI’INT! (cobra head swivel) GIIIIRRRRRLLLLL! (hand up, arm out, palm facing Boxer, looking away) No, you did NOT just say that.”

Boxer: “Uh … um … (long pause with a confused look on her face) … HUH?”

Tony737 on January 13, 2007 at 10:18 AM

The Boxer channels her inner Chihuahua.

Yapping ineffectually at the ankles.

We all pay the price if the jihadists get through the lines. Anywhere.

Fool.

Smarmy, insulting, hypocritical fool.

profitsbeard on January 13, 2007 at 11:41 AM

Don’t use Scarlett and Gone with the Wind as an example of Racism. It actually was the exact opposite, in the novel and the book they treated them like family, as did virtually all Southern Slave owners Tim Burton on January 12, 2007 at 6:27 PM

If in your family, members are bought and sold. And I am going to have a word with my local library, they have Gone With the Wind in fiction section. LOL

honora on January 13, 2007 at 12:48 PM

Watched O’Reilly last night to see how the admin talking points were taking shape on this. I was not disappointed. O’R at one point yelped that Boxer’s comments (which were no longer recognizable as her actual comments) that if you didn’t have a kid in the military or of military age, you couldn’t make decisions re war would have been a “big surprise to Lincoln and FDR”.

I guess Fox has decided that fact checking isn’t an issue given their core audience. Yikes.

honora on January 13, 2007 at 1:10 PM

“HotAir.com: So easy, a liberal can do it.”

Thanks Geico!

Tony737 on January 13, 2007 at 1:20 PM

Honora, you may wish to follow the advice you give Fox and do your own fact-checking. The dems have tried for the last few years to insulate so-called victims with the “untouchable” label. Examples: Michael J. Fox is allowed to step into the political arena with false assertions but no on is allowed to analyze or criticize his assertions. Cindy Sheehan can interject herself into the political arena but anyone disagreeing with her will be vilified as heartless and cold–Sheehan is untouchable. This is the new-left’s tactic of debate-to put someone out there as the face of their agenda and proclaim them untouchable. Murtha is another example. So, when Boxer starts down this path of who will pay, we who pay attention and aren’t blinded by the left’s tactics see her words for what they really are and what they really mean. She clearly wanted to imply that Rice was making decisions without personal consequence. The fact that Boxer said she herself has no children of age to fight is meaningless. She wanted the impression left in the public square that Rice is making policy decisions that is costing the lives of Americans, all of whom don’t have her last name or her blood-line. The conclusion of Boxer? How dare you have any imput into this policy when you are paying no price. Libs believe only blacks can lead blacks, women lead women, gays lead gays, latinos lead latinos, one-armed midgets lead one-armed midgets..with one caveat of course, they all have to be lib dems. This is the group mind-set they have and their vision of so-called diversity. Since Bush and Rice have no children in the war on terror, how dare they make decisions to send others kids to fight. This is who they are. I think you know that but you would rather stay in your liberal bubble.

As for Fox repeating the Bush talking points, really, you can’t do better than that? If O was saying what you say he was then he was right on the money. Boxer took a cheap shot to further the notion that this administration is making decisions costing the lives of Americans but they themselves are paying no price. And if, as you conspiracy kooks want to believe, Fox is in posession of GOP talking points well they are still trailing in sheer numbers considering CNN, MSNBC, ABC, NBC, and CBS are holding the DNC talking points. You really want to play that game Honora? You may want to take at look at the MSM audience before you take a swipe at the Fox viewers..unless of course you’re worried you will be swiping yourself in the process…..

I like that Tony737, the Geico model for libs……

ritethinker on January 13, 2007 at 1:56 PM

I like that Tony737, the Geico model for libs……

ritethinker on January 13, 2007 at 1:56 PM

I repeat: for a “news” program to allow such a huge blooper re Lincoln and FDR is laughable. And a pretty good bbarametor of FNC standards.

honora on January 13, 2007 at 2:38 PM

barometer. Duh.

honora on January 13, 2007 at 2:39 PM

Honora, you may wish to follow the advice you give Fox and do your own fact-checking.

And you may want to ponder the difference between fact and opinion.

honora on January 13, 2007 at 2:40 PM

Yeah ’cause we all know that the libs are all about facts and fugures while the cons are about feeeeeeelings and emotions, right?

Tony737 on January 13, 2007 at 2:59 PM

If Rice had a son or daughter in the military would Boxer defer to Rice’s policy advice and keep quiet, if it were the same? If Rice had two, would she consider it sacrosanct and actively caucus her party comrades to join in her support? If Rice had three, would Boxer praise her judgment and attack the moonbats who question such a wise policy?

Or would Boxer assert that, by holding this policy and risking her “personal price”, Dr. Rice’s judgment is clouded by the exhilaration of making war? Lastly, if Dr. Rice’s policy advice was to “cut and run” would Boxer, in her oversight role for the country, inquire as to whether Dr. Rice is placing personal preferences ahead of conviction, principle and the good of the country? Would she ask why Dr. Rice doesn’t think we should do this for the future of our country’s children?

The manner in which questions can be asked, are boundless. A question I have, however, is what quality of Senatorial oversight do the Democrats provide if they staff this committee with members who can’t appreciate the policy options advocated because they have no personal price to pay? I have one answer for that! Great oversight, because it removes a heavy and influential conflict of interest, a conflict of interest greater and more burdensome than mere financial risk. That leads me to a last question: Then why would the Democrats staff the committee with a Senator who would ask questions like this of a Secretary of State, someone free of this conflict of interest? I’ll answer that, too. The Party needs to properly represent it’s views based on their modes of thinking, i.e., to tar Dr. Rice as deficient in the most often decried potential flaw in judgment that can be asserted on Capitol Hill — conflict of interest.

Today, Boxer says she was “speaking truth to power” to “send a powerful message”. The “truth” of the matter is that Boxer, again, did very little thinking before “speaking” and the “powerful message” she sent was that she rarely does it well. But at least she admitted that by telling us that she was “just saying what she felt” rather than what she thought.

Dusty on January 13, 2007 at 3:00 PM

“big surprise to Lincoln and FDR”.

I guess Fox has decided that fact checking isn’t an issue given their core audience. Yikes.

honora on January 13, 2007 at 1:10 PM

Most of us are aware that Bill mis-spoke on that issue, but are honest enough to realize that even though his examples were not apropo to his point, there are many other examples that are and that proves Boxer is suffering from a delusional thinking.

Only someone who is terminally bitter would believe that all viewers of Fox are mindless robots that swallow everything that is said without thinking. The mindless robots are what the MSM and the liberal biased media are for. Watching Fox is a indication that a person is serious about getting a balanced reporting of the events affecting us today.

csdeven on January 13, 2007 at 3:01 PM

fugures? ha! fug you! *FIGURES*!

Tony737 on January 13, 2007 at 3:02 PM

“I’m just wondering when the National Organization of Women is going to comment on the very sexist remark the democratic Senator.”

Are you kidding ? NOW is too concerned with why they can’t play a round of golf with the boys at Augusta Nationl. WE know where their priorities are.

clubgitmo on January 13, 2007 at 4:41 PM

Ms. Rice comments:

“Gee, I thought single women had come further than that.”

Unwittingly, the ‘illustriously clever’ Ms. Boxer is attaining the reverse results. Life is magic!

Entelechy on January 13, 2007 at 6:11 PM

…one more thing – Ms. Boxer:

My point was to focus attention on our military families…

Tick, tick, tick…my day still has 24 hours in it!

Entelechy on January 13, 2007 at 6:15 PM

Thank you honora for not addressing the salient points of my post, like the victimology of the dem party. Mis-statements? Is this all you have? I don’t believe there were any forged documents being presented as fact. Opinion becomes fact when one opens ones mind to what IS rather than what one WISHES. You have far to go on this journey but I will be here to help you down that path. After all, it is the obligation of conservatives to help our truth-challenged friends on the left…………

ritethinker on January 13, 2007 at 6:53 PM

Been away – anybody else say this first anywhere?
Summary:
Millionaire Democrat accuses ORPHAN of not understanding the concept of untimely loss.

naliaka on January 13, 2007 at 9:18 PM

William2006 on January 12, 2007 at 8:20 PM
Terrific post. Thank you.

fogw on January 12, 2007 at 8:35 PM

“fogw,”

Thank you for your encouraging words!

I am happy that you enjoyed the post and that you took the time to express it.

William

William2006 on January 14, 2007 at 1:20 AM

I agree with fogw, “William 2006” and ritethinker on Saturday afternoon also had an excellent post.

Why either of you waste time with such a spiteful, deliberately ignorant troll is beyond me. That old hag only comes on this blog to go after people with the same tired cliches and the same refusal to comprehend.

She does give those of you with enough patience the opportunity to shine, so maybe for you it’s worth it. But I have never, ever noticed that bitter old woman make either an intelligent or a gracious statement.

Janos Hunyadi on January 14, 2007 at 2:32 AM

How I would answer:

No, Senator Boxer, I don’t have any kids. But, I was one for a time. I still have the attachment and feelings I had for my parents as I grew and I recall the love and affection they had for me. All that aside, I recall how I was brought up and it has served me well. Discipline and tough choices made me who and what I am today. Feel-good lunacy and hypocracy have made you who and what you are today.

Woody

woodcdi on January 14, 2007 at 10:12 AM

Liberals believe the following people may never advocate military action:

1. The majority of civilian men.
2. a greater majority of civilian women.
3. Any people born with a disability that prevents them from joining the military.
4. Any refomed hippies who came to believe in the use of military force after the age of enlistment.
5. I’m sure there are more…

Of course, any of these people are free to oppose military action. It’s great when you can stack the deck that way.

What the liberals will never acknowledge, is that the policy is either right or wrong on it’s own merits, regardless of you advocates it.

Coyote D. on January 14, 2007 at 3:19 PM

I would add more:

And another thing, Senator Boxer; Our military is an all volunteer force. Our Soldiers, Sailors, Marines, and Airmen chose to join and fight. What me having any kids has to do with any of this is beyond me – beyond your search for a valid excuse for not accepting responsibility for the security of the nation?

Woody

woodcdi on January 14, 2007 at 8:24 PM

No, Senator Boxer, I don’t have any kids. But, I was one for a time. I still have the attachment and feelings I had for my parents as I grew and I recall the love and affection they had for me. All that aside, I recall how I was brought up and it has served me well. Discipline and tough choices made me who and what I am today. Feel-good lunacy and hypocracy have made you who and what you are today.

Woody

woodcdi on January 14, 2007 at 10:12 AM

This, in a nutshell, is, I believe, the point! Boxer stated that she would not pay a personal price, either – from perspective, to remember what is important.

Many legislators will not, nor ever will pay a personal price for their decisions concerning war. Those legislators who have been there will of course have a different perspective and will pay (and I beleive have paid) a personal price one way or another.

Neither Boxer or Rice will. This argument could divide both parties.

If wars were decided and fought upon purely human concerns, perhaps there would be no war – who knows?

Since they are not, then we must finish what we have started and fight to win.

Emmett J. on January 14, 2007 at 8:32 PM