What part of “Death to America” is hard to understand?!

aero on January 13, 2007 at 6:55 PM

Please aero, they’re just speaking “truth to power.” Personally I prefer the saying “The Great Satan.”

If Condi wants to have kids. I would be more then willing to help.
I’m just saying.
F15Mech on January 13, 2007 at 5:30 PM

Sigh, more competetion, great.

Asked if her exchange with Rice was, as some suggest, a personal attack, Boxer insisted it was not.
“I spoke the truth to power,’’ she said. “Condi Rice is in the room when George Bush decides to send 20,000 more of our beautiful men and women into the middle of a civil war.
“And I’m not going to apologize for making an extremely clear point,’’ she said.

Her protestations to the contrary aside, personal attacks seem to be nothing new to Boxer, and it’s unfortunate that her desire to “make an extremely clear point” so completely clouded her ability to distinguish an appropriate comment from an inappropriate scolding here. (Not the first time she’s made value judgments re: the personal lives of others; for those who may not recall, her camp torpedoed one-time opponent Bruce Hirschenson’s campaign by “revealing” that the single man had actually set foot in a topless club – “the horror!”). Boxer’s inability to exercise the same good judgment that she finds wanting in her political opponents constitutes prima facie evidence that she’s the last person who should be trusted to make such a call.

I found out earlier today that this blog is a ‘wingnut outlet’. Apparently, some progressives have taken exception to what I and others have written about Barbara Boxer’s comments to Secretary of State Condoleeza Rice recently. It see…

Barbara Boxer was showboating because the limelight, the cameras were on her, and she took advantage and tried to look tough and take a shot at someone in a high state of office, Condaleezza Rice.

Speaking Truth to Power?

More like compensating, or overcomenstating, for her inferiority complex and her lack of etiquette and sense of decorum.

William

“A little less talk, a little more shut the hell up.” – Dr. Daniel Jackson, Stargate: SG-1.

2. Does she expect to be taken seriously with that scarf tied around her neck in a military facility, where any fool would have chosen a sweater?

Woody

I am so tired of hearing folks yell about Bush “sending” other people’s “children” to Iraq. Military folks are not re not children. They are adults. Young ‘uns, lot of them, but adults nonetheless. Adults who have made a consious decision to join the military and who then receive the best training possible anywhere in the world, who are then sent out to do the jobs they have been trained to do. What an insult to our military guys and gals, to keep talking about them as if they are “children” who cannot make a coherent decision about themselves, their jobs, their future.

woodie4827 on January 14, 2007 at 2:52 PM

You make a good point – they are the best trained, most committed. intelligent buc=nch you’ll ever spend time with – however, here is the point I draw from this –

These soldiers are our children, mothers, fathers, etc.. This is only admitting to the human element of the conflict, which is always present.

Likewise, the enemies we fight are someone’s children, etc..

In a perfect would perhaps we could play a good rousing game of volleyball (best two out of three maybe) to settle our differences.

Seeing that we are not likely to get there for some time, it is our duty to equip our warfighters with the best training, equipment, and support (including government taking the restraints off) to go out and destroy the enemy. This is harsh, but it is the only way to win.

They, by the way, are equally dedicated to their cause but do not suffer idiots in government telling them they can’t kill.

For the idiots in our government placing restrictions on ours is tantamount to murder.

I do, however, believe that having served in the forces and/or having a child gives one a different perspective in their decision making process that those who have not or do not have cannot fully grasp.

This is not to say that they should not have a say, merely that all thoughts must be heard and weighed out then the best decision made and carried out – not modified in mid-stream due to a lack of thought and/or planning.

Unlike our current leadership.

There is still time to win – the only question is will our government (both parties) do what is right or will they do what is both politically expedient and good for their business (personal and professional)?

Soothsayer, will you be on the ballot in 08? You have my vote!

There is also a BIG jealousy factor with the Dems just wishing they had someone like Condi. She is so intelligent, honest, talented, she has it all.
Ayn Rand is right on and this book was written a long time ago, but it applies to the situation.

The Dems are just so UGLY in every way.

By the way, why haven’t we heard from NOW defending Condi? If the situation were reversed, they would be screaming!

An argumentum ad hominem (argument against the person) occurs when the following happens. X says Y, where Y is some controversial proposition. Z comes along, attacks X, and then concludes that the attack has in some way showed Y to be dubious or X to be lacking the proper judgment or right to assert Y in the first place.

An ad hominem is non-fallacious when the attack is relevant either to Y’s truth or X’s judgment. An attack is relevant when it supports the conclusion drawn by Z, e.g., conclusions such as:

* Y is false.
* X’s judgment is faulty.
* X doesn’t have the right to say Y.

An ad hominem is fallacious when the attack doesn’t give us a reason for accepting at least one of these conclusions. That’s why (fallacious) ad hominems are classified by logicians as a fallacies of relevance.

Let’s look at Boxer’s ad hominem. (Interestingly, Boxer denies having attacked Rice personally, probably because she thinks of personal attacks mainly as name-calling affairs, e.g., “you’re an idiot.” But name-calling is only one kind of personal attack. It’s possible to make non-malicious personal attacks that don’t involve petty insults. Boxer did attack Rice, whether or not that attack was malicious.)

Anyway, here’s the structure of Boxer’s attack. Rice says that we should send more troops to Iraq. Boxer comes along and points out the following: Rice has no children and hence does not have a personal stake in sending more troops. Now comes the salient question: what are these facts supposed to prove in regards the truth of Rice’s position on sending more troops to Iraq or on her judgment in holding that position?

Boxer’s implied–but not stated–conclusion is that Rice’s judgment is compromised on the issue of sending more troops to Iraq. But how does Rice’s not having a personal stake in the war, i.e. not having an adult child who might die, impact her judgment? The reasoning seems to be that Rice et al. would be more hesitant in sending more troops if their adult children might be harmed. But this is question-begging: why is it a good thing to be hesitant about sending troops to war? We know that soldiers die in war. If that’s our main concern, then we’ll never send troops to war. (Note well: I am not saying that we should be undiscerning and hasty in sending troops to war.) Moreover, hesitating to send more troops may actually lead to more loss of life. In other words, there may be a high price to pay for not sending in more troops.

Boxer’s ad hominem fails, then, because it has no bearing on the issue of sending more troops to Iraq or on Rice’s judgment. That issue is a matter of military strategy and foreign policy–it is not a matter of who has children in the war and who doesn’t.