Taking Condi From A Baby: War Suddenly Turns Barbara Boxer Pro-Life
California Senator Barbara Boxer (D-UMB), perhaps one of the biggest proponents of non-living children in the United States, has actually criticized a woman for her appalling choice to not have kids.
This week, Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice stared stupid straight in the face and lived to tell about it:
Rice appeared before the Senate in defense of President Bush’s tactical change in Iraq, and quickly encountered Boxer.
“Who pays the price? I’m not going to pay a personal price,” Boxer said. “My kids are too old, and my grandchild is too young.”
Then, to Rice: “You’re not going to pay a particular price, as I understand it, with an immediate family.”
If it makes Boxer feel better, we’re all paying a price for her being in the senate.
Barbara Boxer is quite possibly the biggest doofus ever to enter the Senate chambers, including carpenter ants, mice, and the time Paris Hilton and her friends took a private tour. Each time she opens her mouth, out comes a bigger embarrassment than the time Robert Byrd ’sharted’ during a filibuster.
So, is Boxer ultimately right to criticize Rice for having a say in foreign policy decision without having children of her own at risk? Jeremie Jordan sums it up right at the CornBeltwayBoys blog:
I don’t want my leaders weighing important war time decisions on whether or not it will affect their immediate families. Check almost any liberal blog and you will see a button or an advertisement that says something to affect of “send the Bush twins.” This attitude is clearly wrong. Bush and Rice need to make overarching policy decisions based on the greater good, not whether Barbara and Jenna will see combat and possibly die.
War sucks. War should be avoided at all costs. Life is precious, but unfortunately there are times when a nation must call on its’ military personnel to make the greatest of all sacrifices; putting their lives on the line. Whether or not a President’s son or daughter will be involved in the fighting should be part of the equation for war, but it should not be the overriding reason for it or against it. Basing a military decision solely on the personal welfare of one person just isn’t sound policy.
If it isn’t sound policy, you’ll hear it being promoted by Barbara Boxer. I do enjoy consistency in politicians, and Boxer delivers.
———-
Note: If you’re seeing only this post, the entire blog can be accessed at DougPowers.com
Possibly related posts...
| More from Doug Powers
Stumble It!
If you want to see and even more outrageous statement concerning Condi Rice from a member of the Democrat party check out this article from the Washington Times. It has a guy named Abercrombie questioning Rice’s ability and wondering if it has something to do with race or gender. Incredible, but watch this guy get a free pass from the Democrat party friendly “mainstream” news media.
Here’s the link: http://www.washingtontimes.com/national/20070113-122725-4717r.htm
Very cool title, Doug!
Once again the rat party and leftwing feminists like Boxer show what disgraceful frauds and hypocrites they are. They have been promoting-for years- the notion that women don’t need men or children in their lives to be successful and powerful. Now that there is a women in power-who has no children- defending policies they don’t like, they turn around and act like she shouldn’t be speaking out at all because she doesn’t have a bunch of kids piled in her lap like the phony Nancy Pelosi photo op. The phoniest thing is the Democrats don’t give a damn about children, they are to be used as props and slogans. How many times have we seen “for the children” slogans used to push anti-freedom laws on adults? Btw, Mr Powers I love your clever writing.
For a funnier answer to that question, rent the movie “Along came Polly.”
Well, it’s a composite term for what happens when somebody tries to break wind but instead they get an unpleasant and somewhat messy surprise.
You’ve really got me curious, Mr. Powers! What does “sharted” mean?