I find is appalling that a US Senator could have the nerve, lack of faculties, and lack of decorum necessary to sit on a Senate committee. The gallactic stupidity that it took to address a person of the calibre of our Secretary of State, is mind-boggling.



Should Senator Boxer offer a formal and public apology to Secretary of State Rice?

Should she remove herself or be removed from the hearings?

Should she offer a formal and public apology to the citizens of the State of California and the Governor?

Should Senator Boxer offer a formal and public apology to Secretary of State Rice?

No! If Sec. Rice can't stand the heat, she should get out of the kitchen. Rice is a mouthpiece for Bush. After four years of this damnable war she deserves whatever they throw at her or her boss.

Should she remove herself or be removed from the hearings?

No. Is there any precedent for a Senator removing his/herself from a hearing for asking hard questions?

Should she offer a formal and public apology to the citizens of the State of California and the Governor.

Boxer was elected by the people of California. If they think she erred, they will let her know. I can think of no reason she would owe the governor an apology.

BTW: The New York Post is part of Rupert Murdoch's empire. I take Murdoch's stuff with a very small grain of salt. This is just more nonsense like David Brock described in his book The Republican Noise Machine.

Should Senator Boxer offer a formal and public apology to Secretary of State Rice?

Absolutely not- it is about time actually. Rice has just not got the pounding in hearings in fact.

Should she remove herself or be removed from the hearings?

Quite the opposite- she should be the lead from now on, and hopefully, turn it up a few notches. The GW regime has been treated far more respectfully than Clinton ever was, and I don't recall conservatives asking for Jesse Helms resignation when he actually threatened the president with bodily harm should he come to his state. Once again- higher standard held to dems than repubs by repubs- and those that say that "situational ethics" are a bad thing -

GW and co need to be slapped down, hard and repeatedly, for thier behaviors- they have got off far too easy by the Republican leadership.

Should she offer a formal and public apology to the citizens of the State of California and the Governor?

Quite the opposite- she should be awarded a medal, something just short of the medal of honor, for saying what we are all thinking- that the cowards in the GW regime don't have any stake in this war, but profit from it daily. IN fact, that should be the start of a special prosecuter- I am thinking Al Franken - and give him about, oh, 2-300 million dollars to dig up anything they can find on GW's regime henchmen and thier families- and be sure and threaten any friends and family members with ruination for not "cooperating".

Seems conservatives, apparently, as a group, have some selective amnesia when it comes to hearings and questioning prior to the last 6 years.

This would possibly be the most benign thing said by a person in elective office compared to the treatment of Clinton.

Rice and GW NEED to be called cowards and chickenhawks, to thier face, for thier horrible treatment of America- bully for Barbara!

1) No. This is a big pile of nothing for the Hannitys of the world to bleat about. Frankly it's an astoundly stupid sentiment and I wonder if anyone else could have uttered those idiotic statements besides Boxer.

2) No.

3) If she's smart she will. Judging from the flatly stupid things she says quite often she won't though.

However- why are these comments callous or stupid when they are undeniably true?

I mean, what is wrong with Boxer's statement here? Condi pays NO price for this war, and Boxer stated she doesn't- GW has never accepted personal responsibility for a darn thing his whole life- so what is so wrong with this statement?

"What nerve"- huh? "What lack of decorum"- now, we are talking about Boxer and not GW or Cheney- right? Those two low class foul mouths get a pass from you- but not a relatively benign statement of truth from her? I mean, you got GW flipping off the camera, Cheney dropping F bombs, yet, this outrages you? Seriously?

Should Senator Boxer offer a formal and public apology to Secretary of State Rice?

I’m going to surprise the heck out of everyone here and say that I think Sen. Boxer’s words were poorly chosen, and also a cheap shot. As a childless woman myself, I do have a nephew who I love very much, and would feel a tremendous impact if he were to pay the price of this war with his life.

Now, that being said, I don’t think Sen. Boxer should offer a formal apology to Ms. Rice. Why? Because the Republicans have said the same and worse many, MANY times over. And the decision to send more young men and women into harm's way is an indefensible one. The comment is a tempest in a teacup, and not worth the hysteria being given it.

Should she remove herself or be removed from the hearings?

Oh, please. Did Cheney apologize or remove himself from anything for telling Sen. Leahy to F off? No. Did Limbaugh apologize for calling Sen. Obama “Osama”? No. Has ANY Republican ever apologized for impugning John Kerry’s military service or calling Democrats traitors? No. Sen. Boxer needs to consider her words a little more carefully.

Should she offer a formal and public apology to the citizens of the State of California and the Governor?

See above.

I'm not giving anyone a pass. I'm clearly not outraged. I stated pretty clearly that this is all a bunch of hooey. I'm all for growups speaking like grownups do. F Bomb... who's the idiot who coined that?

The reason the statement is idiotic is because it presumes that to lose something in the war, or to be able to feel anything about this war, or to be able to think about the war you have to have a dead family member from this war - you don't. Barbara Boxer says lots of stupid things:

"It's a new day. Communism is dead. It's even dead in Cuba. I hate to say it, it's dead."

is a favorite.

Okay- but why would it be callous to say this to Condi rice- who undeniably, or, as a rep of GW, has undeniably, had nothing to lose from this war? I mean, if you want callous, look at the way the GW regime has handled this war- why does this even rise to that level?

Seriously- why pick this rather inane, but accurate, comment about BB as debate worthy? Is it your own disdain for BB, because, really, you have to admit- there is nothing idiotic about this statement, in fact, much of the country is saying "why our poor- why not your kids? I mean, if it is worth the sacrifice, why are your kids still alive and in the US? "

It is well known that GW has had 0 impact in his personal life from, well, pretty much anything, but this war has left him untouched, and Condi as well.

There is no personal toll for those poeple- that is why it is easy to keep coming up with non-solutions for them- they have no stake in the outcome, nothing personal anyway.

You make a lot of blanket statements. You parrot a lot of talking points. And you are loaded with opinons.

I know there's no amount of my typing that will change your ideas about any of this so I'm not going to really try. I am going to simply say you know nothing about a man you read about in the papers. GWB may be whatever you think he is or he may be a man doing a job as well as he's able - you critisisms be damned. So for you to decide that GWB has had no hardships, sacrifices or impact ever is, of course, just another baseless, uniformed blanket statement that you cannot back up. Hey though, it could be true. Maybe next time you can accuse him of eating children, I mean you have as much information on that as you do about his personal life.

I do disdain Barbara Boxer. Her statement is idiotic. If you want to go on believing that the entire USMil is filled with poor people you go ahead and believe that. Far be it from me to correct you. While I suspect you're not asking me why my kids are here in the US I'll still mention my 7 and 2 year old are too young to join. I mean this isn't Palestine.

As for the debate... it's not my question I just thought I'd answer it.

Should Senator Boxer offer a formal and public apology to Secretary of State Rice?

I don't know. Senator Boxer said something that a lot of us have thought about members of the administration but some of us haven't articulated.

The job of a Senator or a member of Congress is to represent their constituents. If what she said is representative of what her constituents think, then maybe it needed to be said. These leaders routinely send the military into harm's way, often to their deaths. How it affects them sounds like a valid question, however pointedly Senator Boxer phrased it.

Should she remove herself or be removed from the hearings?

No.

Should she offer a formal and public apology to the citizens of the State of California and the Governor?

Why?

Should Senator Boxer offer a formal and public apology to Secretary of State Rice?
No, but it wouldn't hurt if she offered a private one, simply for being crass.

Should she remove herself or be removed from the hearings?
Well, yes, but not because she's being crass and a bore. She should simply resign her seat because she clearly misunderstand's the Constitution.

Should she offer a formal and public apology to the citizens of the State of California and the Governor? Her formal apology to her constituents, aka employers, would be nicely encapsulated in her resignation. As for the Governor, not relevant since Senators are now directly elected.

Okay, so why have I come out so contrary to everybody else thus far? Is it because I detest Boxer? Nah, although I do detest her. Is it because I'm all attwitter over Rice's wounded psyche? Nah, I figure Condi is more amused by Boxer's antics than anything else.

No, its because I find Boxer's ignorance of the Constitution, along with the inevitable paradox of her logic, to be appalling. By extending her logic, nobody without a personal stake in an issue is permitted at the table. Hmmmm, if that's the case, then Boxer herself should remove herself from the hearings, precisely because "she isn't going to pay a personal price."

"No taxation without representation" is an articulation of the principle that those paying the price get input into the decisions. What's novel about our system is that we don't require a poll tax.... so even those NOT paying a price get input, and where military matters are concerned the final authority explicitly rests with those not at risk of "paying the ultimate price." Boxer seems to be remarkably confused about this, but then, we shouldn't be surprised.

After all, this is a woman pickled in the vinegar of "the personal as political"

Frankly, I think it would have been a golden moment if Condi would have responded with "well Senator, if 'paying the price' is the cost of admission, then I suppose we should both be leaving now, right?"

You have got to be joking. Is there some big outrage among Barbara Boxers "employers" in California or is this just a product of Rupert Murdoch's noise machine. Next week this will be completely off the radar screen if not before.

Resignation? Get real.

Should Senator Boxer offer a formal and public apology to Secretary of State Rice?

It would probably resolve nothing. Anytime someone apologizes their sincerity is usually questioned anyway. Having said that, Senator Boxer would do well to approach Secretary Rice privately to apologize as the statement was a cheap shot and not befitting a senator.

It's disheartening that some on this thread would advocate virtually anything goes in our public discourse as long as it's the truth.

To quote,

"The job of a Senator or a member of Congress is to represent their constituents. If what she said is representative of what her constituents think, then maybe it needed to be said." PE

Again,

"However- why are these comments callous or stupid when they are undeniably true?" CR

And finally,

"If Sec. Rice can't stand the heat, she should get out of the kitchen. rice is a mouthpiece for Bush. After four years of this damnable war she deserves whatever they throw at her or her boss." BoF

Any sense of etiquette in public discourse be damned! Unfortunately, these types of things go on regularly from both sides of the isle - it's not the first nor will it be the last time this happens. It's unfortunate in this forum we cannot at least agree that a modicum of civility would be expected from our representatives.

Should she remove herself or be removed from the hearings?

Probably not needed. The insensitivity does not rise to that level.

Should she offer a formal and public apology to the citizens of the State of California and the Governor?

Not necessary. It would be over-the-top.

Should Senator Boxer offer a formal and public apology to Secretary of State Rice?

Are we kidding here? Was my hearing aid off or did I not hear Senator Boxer apply the same reasoning to herself before she addressed Secretary Rice? Are we so thin skinned in the good old USA or is it the fact that we are stuck with "talking news heads" 24/7, and we are obligated to provide them with the outrage of the week? Help, what am I missing here? I don't really care for Senator Boxer either, but GOOD GRIEF ENOUGH IS ENOUGH!

[b]Should she remove herself or be removed from the hearings? NOT!!

Should she offer a formal and public apology to the citizens of the State of California and the Governor?

Haven't we all about had it with apologies? How about forgetting it, shrugging it off, and getting on with the business at hand? What about that?

Any sense of etiquette in public discourse be damned!-

Yes, sometimes the truth is ugly and vulgar- etiquette be damned, if the truth must be sacrificed for decorum.

once again- how is this a violation of even mild etiquette? You have a war being prosecuted by poeple that have never served, indeed, did everything they could to make sure they WOULDN'T have to go to combat, by either deferments or by hiding out in a "champagne" unit- this is a valid question, and very gently put. Much more gentle than neccesary- this admin has NEVER really faced tough questions from the other branches until this election- this is not crass, it is entirely appropriate- basically "You are asking for the nation to do something you would have no intention whatsoever of having your own family go through"- it is true, it is on target, and it is about dang time someone asked it!

I believe it was Mrs P or DTOM that published the link that had basically, statistically 0, amount of rich kids going into the military, and the recruiters not even bothering to go to any nieghborhood where the average salary was over 60k- because the cause is hopeless.

Bikerdad- I don't think BB ever said that it was a constitutional ideal for the "senator's son" to sacrifice for the country- but you have practically an ENTIRE admin that avoided combat at all costs, all while "supporting" it. Perhaps it IS time for us to change our policy in military recruitment- now, ONLY those that "support" the war should be there- and NO soldier should be sent into a country that isn't actively attacking or has attacked the US if they don't volunteer for it- it is a great check of excess to allow the soldiers to veto going into any country were we are obviously not needed- how many soldiers and ra-ra war types would volunteer to go into Iraq under current management? Think enough to prosecute a war?

There was no "ignorance of the constitution" even marginally spoke here BD- that is a real stretch to call it so- BB simply spoke to the lack of direction, and those who have to sacrifice for no darn reason whatsoever, to the whims of a corrupt and incompetant administration- possibly the worst in over 100 years, so, there wasn't even a crossing of decorum here.

BaphometsAdvocate- when you show me that rich poeple are really represented in the military- I will go along with you- but it is still primarily the poor doing the work, by thier own choice- but still the poor. Not stupid, not ignorant- they just weren't born Bush or Rice, or Cheney.

The Congress does not operate under the same civility rules as this forum.

Things like this have happened among our public officials on and off throughout our history. There was one instance where a House member actually beat a Senator with a cane. I can give you the details from David McCulloch's biography, John Adams if you would like.

Remember when Cheney's used the "F" word on the Senate floor? This is in the same category - that is, a non-issue.

You will have to realize vanguard that there are some of us here, including me, who are very, very angry with the current president and by extension those, like Rice, who do his dirty work.

I hate to say this, but I really don't care what Boxer or anyone elses says to Rice, Bush or any of the administration cronies. I also enjoyed what Virginia Senator Jim Webb said when Bush asked about his son, who is serving in Iraq.

These people have started a needless war that has robbed us of life, limb and treasury. They deserve all the derision they get.

The current escalation or "augmentation," as Rice called, it is a grand design to rescue Bush's historical legacy. Bush's legacy be damned, especially if it is enhanced at the expense of human life.

Even if I do you'll complain they're in cush jobs, or officers, or never see real action. I appreciate the opportunity but we both know this argument is going nowhere. Do people who could not otherwise afford college join the military? Yes. Do rich white kids join the military? Yes. The point you're making is nice. The facts however are different than your complaint. If I were to link them you would complain that all the organizations that hold the websites are Right Wing and you'd be mostly correct. However, not for the reasons you think... the reason are the vast resources of the Left Wing are not going to go proving that the US Mil is made up of a lot of upper middle class kids rounded out mostly by middle class kids with less than 10% at, near or below the poverty level as stipulated by the US Census.

But facts aside you have a really great talking point and I don't want to mess it up for you.

Since BA isn't logged on right now, let me throw something out there to chew on The (right wing) Heritage Foundation conducted a survey in 2005 and found your supposition to be untrue. Temper that with my anecdotal experience and you'll have to decide whether you believe it or not. The only recent viewpoint that supports your assertion came from Michael Moore in Fahrenheit 9/11. I invite your rebuttal.

They all volunteered. The U.S. soldiers pitching in with hurricane relief along the Gulf Coast and those fighting and dying in Iraq, Afghanistan and elsewhere decided, on their own, to serve their nation. Or was the decision made so freely? Could it be that unscrupulous Pentagon recruiters duped them, taking advantage of their poverty, their lack of education and the bleak futures they share as members of the USA's urban underclass?

That's the view of some critics, such as New York Times columnist Bob Herbert, who writes that "very few" of the soldiers fighting in Iraq "are coming from the privileged economic classes," and that there would likely be no war if rich kids had to fight. According to Rep. Charles Rangel, D-N.Y., social equality demands reinstatement of the draft, which he justifies by asserting that "the most privileged Americans are underrepresented or absent." Herbert concludes that there is "something very, very wrong with this picture."

What's "very, very wrong" with the Rangel-Herbert picture is that it has no factual basis.

According to a comprehensive study of all enlistees for the years 1998-99 and 2003 that The Heritage Foundation just released, the typical recruit in the all-volunteer force is wealthier, more educated and more rural than the average 18- to 24-year-old citizen is. Indeed, for every two recruits coming from the poorest neighborhoods, there are three recruits coming from the richest neighborhoods.
USA Today Op-Ed

edited to add BA beat me to the punch

What galls me about Boxer's words is that she used her children to make her point. Rice is unmarried with no children, so of course she won't pay any price in that regard. But what if a Republican had made the same point against someone like Barney Frank?
She made a charged political statement, nothing new here. Except those admirer's coming to her defense...............and the fact that I would expect more from the Speaker of the House.

Well, darn, I stand corrected- I was sure I got this info from YOU, or is it Mrs P? LOL- it was off a thread here too- because I have always known the richest recruitment is from the families of soldiers- that was why I was taken aback- turns out soldiers aren't as poor as they once were either

Anyhow- that is great if we have a better cross section.

I, of course, would love to see the methodology behind the Heritage report- I didn't see a link to the journal it was published in? Is there somewhere where a non-biased study has been done? Alaska has always ranked high in recruitment- but then, we have over 70k vets living in a state of only half a million poeple total! - they consider us "upper middle class"- when that is pretty far-fetched-

I am very interested in to hear thier methodology and definitions for "poor" and such as well- but I will concede to your study until there is a plausible rebuttal.

Here is the link to the Heritage Foundation report on military demographics:

Our review of Pentagon enlistee data shows that the only group that is lowering its participation in the military is the poor. The percentage of recruits from the poorest American neighborhoods (with one-fifth of the U.S. population) declined from 18 percent in 1999 to 14.6 percent in 2003, 14.1 percent in 2004, and 13.7 percent in 2005.

This report updates the previous Heritage Foundation report, with data on all U.S. recruits during 2004 and 2005. We introduce the term “wartime recruits” to identify volunteer enlistees in all branches during 2003, 2004, and 2005.
Link

Again, the Heritage Foundation is right wing, for full disclosure, but at first glance the statistical data seems sound to a novice such as me.

Should Senator Boxer offer a formal and public apology to Secretary of State Rice?
Should she remove herself or be removed from the hearings?
Should she offer a formal and public apology to the citizens of the State of California and the Governor?

Absolutely not! George Bush's Cabinet has asked American soldiers for tremendous sacrifice, as in doing 3 or 4 tours to Iraq, yet Bush and his Cabinet members will not ask their own sons and daughters to join the military. And that's not right.

Here's the fallacy of you statement......you don't even know if Bush or any member of his cabinet has asked their applicable children if they would serve their country. Would/should you be held accountable if your adult children didn't do as you wished?

I am having a very hard time seeing what the problem is here. Let me quote the exact words, from this extremely angry editorial.



Maybe I'm just naive, but I don't really see how we get from this statement to the conclusion of this editorial:



Yes, it would be; if there was even the slightest indication that this was being implied.

Am I missing something here? I just don't get it. If I happen to be talking with somebody about, say, the building of a child care center here at work, and she says to me "Well, neither you nor I will be using the center, because my kids are grown, and you don't have any kids," it's hard for me to understand why I would be insulted. This would be a simple statement of fact. It certainly doesn't imply "You shouldn't work here because you don't have children."

Does anybody have any evidence that Rice thought this was an insult? If so, an apology would be a nice thing to do. (One should apologize for unintended offense, I think.) Otherwise, this is really a big deal about nothing.

I sort of agree with DTOM. It is true that the Bush twins have not rushed down to their nearest recruiter. Their serving in Iraq would be a potential secret service nightmare. I can only imagine the international turmoil if one of them got abducted.

I don't particularly like the Bush twins. Their "comedy" act at the 2004 RNC simply reeked, but I don't want to punish children for the father(s) sins.

I agree with you on this. I have not viewed or heard anything about Rice feeling insulted. This is controversy is generated by right wing radio hosts, for the most part. But I think the curiosity about her question can be valid. I don't think an apology is warranted, but that's primarily because we don't hold our elected representatives to any type of standard anymore. We expect them to say stupid things.

C'mon DTOM, have elected representatives ever been held to a higher code regarding conduct or speech? The real fly in the ointment is that we didn't have the 24-hour-a-day news media reporting every gaffe until recently.

This is a bit off-topic, but I think it illustrates the point. Before around-the-clock news, would we have heard about Rosie and The Donald, Britney, Paris (Hilton not the city), Brangelina or a non-talent like Taylor Hicks and the rest of American Idol clowns, who would have been laughed out of Sun or Chess recording studios 50 years ago by the likes of Sam Phillips or Leonard Chess. Hell no!

This whole thing, as other - including you - have said, is a right-wing engineered story.

One news cycle and out.



Victoria, I usually agree with you, but I'm not so sure about this. It seems to me that there are people around who are just waiting to be offended by something or other. Like you, I'm not sure Rice was offended, but even if she was, I don't think anyone owes her an apology. I personally am not going to apologize to someone who is "offended" without any real reason to be offended. There is such a thing as being too polite. In other words, there is a time for tact, but also a time for bluntness.

Well, having watched basically for lack of better words what could be called blooper tapes following our current president around and of course all the glorious insight into his speech craft I don’t find any move like this all to shocking unless you are of course extremely sensitive to bipartisan politics, which seems to be the game of the day anymore on which I would place the responsibility for such on our dear leadership like so many other woes in the world currently

Should Senator Boxer offer a formal and public apology to Secretary of State Rice?

No, its true that rice has no direct ties to a situation she so strongly endorses but like her business associations can so hardly explain really.

Should she remove herself or be removed from the hearings?

I don’t see why.

Should she offer a formal and public apology to the citizens of the State of California and the Governor?

I guess it would tie to the above question if overall the people of California demanded such.

When I heard the outrage on the news and then here from a few I came to the same conclusion as Victoria Silverwolf, some are reading only what they are into to it and taking it out of context of how Barbara Boxer applied it to herself before she applied to Condi. So like BoF says nothing to apologize for even if Condi was offended because a fact is a fact and if she can't handle a fact that Barbara Boxer applied to herself first then maybe Condi needs to look for a new job.

It seems to me that Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice made her own lifestyle choices. There seems to be an implication in there somewhere that Rice should somehow be ashamed of being unmarried and childless, that having Senator Boxer mention that (again, after acknowledging that she had no personal stake in the war) was a terrible faux pas because Rice was--what?--an "old maid"?

No the terrible faux pas is that Sen Boxer is contending in order to feel loss at this war you need a dead son or daughter - and that unless you're willing to pony up a dead son or daughter you should have any say in the prosecution of this war. The smart political move is to apologize on page 37 of the NYT and be done with it.

If we allow that it is unnecessary to have a dead son or daughter in order to feel loss in this war and in order to be one of the principals who prosecute the war, then we should also validate the position of the protestors who are calling for a speedy end to it.

It is interesting that such umbrage is taken for Rice's sake, and yet many apologists for the war like to say that anti-war activists who have not experienced personal loss (nor stand to) are to be dismissed for being so vocal about it.

Again, I fail to see that what Senator Boxer said needs an apology. Now is the time to say what we mean and mean what we say.

No flesh in the fight, that's what it is and that's what it has always been. There's nothing new here, nothing shocking or appalling, nervy, lacking, galactic (hah!) or boggling.

One cannot claim to be objective with such language. Sorry the American public has seen through the facades, the twist and shout tactics of the party that recently lost power. That must smart, but hopefully the party gets smarter, as in more truthful. Truthiness doesn't cut it, not when we're talking about life and death situations.

Fact: Barbara Boxer has no flesh in this fight, i.e., no children to sacrifice for military actions.

Fact: Neither does Condi Rice.

Question: Who in this administration does? I don't know of anyone, but I'm willing to be enlightened if this is so. Personally, I'd like to see them all get flesh into the fight, not just career ambitions.

Fact: Condi Rice is Secretary of State.

Fact: Barbara Boxer is a senator from California.

Question: Who is more responsible for the project in Iraq?

I'm sorry if taking responsibility for one's actions is painful, but that's the way it is. I'm not so sorry that in this country, an appointed government officer gets the full truth thrust into her face by an elected official. That's our representative democracy at work.

I don't have any flesh in this fight either, have been pointing this out since day one, yet the project doesn't have enough return to make it worthwhile. It never did. The sales pitch almost swayed me when Powell made the administration's pitch at the UN until I saw the figurative sweat. He didn't believe it either, but the sales pitches finally worked on most Americans and off we went. The rest of us got a grip, as advised with single-digit salutes.

Now most Americans think that was a mistake. It sucks, doesn't it. Well, Boxer didn't make this bed. Rice worked her tush off to make it so -- and got rewarded for her efforts. Meanwhile, she has never had flesh in it. That is the ugly fact of life. I don't need to use hyperbole either. It's just ugly.

Boxer owes Rice an apology like a fleeced customer owes an apology to a crooked used car salesperson. Boxer needs to remove herself like I need to abandon my house at twelve below zero. There's simply no logic to these outrages and demands by a party and philosophy that is quickly becoming a tiny little comma in the annuls of history (see -- I can do it too).

Boxer told the truth. The twisting shouters try to make a big deal out of it. *sigh* They don't know what they're doing, don't think they ever did, and now most people are thinking that way too.

Okay, now that this little thing is over, what do we do about Iraq? Send more sons and daughters, mothers and fathers, husbands and wives over as cheerleader Rice is pushing? Any of her own going? These are fair questions and highly important to everyone except those making the decisions, so it seems, and that is very wrong, if it is true.

In this case it is.

Should Senator Boxer offer a formal and public apology to Secretary of State Rice?

Should she remove herself or be removed from the hearings?

Should she offer a formal and public apology to the citizens of the State of California and the Governor?
No, no, and no.

Offer an apology to Rice? For stating a fact that neither one of them has children that are going to die in this war? There is still free speech in this country. Right?

The outrage, if you can call it that, is about interpretation and politics. Rational members of AD know this story is fodder. People that are outraged by Sen. Boxer's opinion only care that she opened her mouth. It really did not matter what she said, Barbara Boxer said it, so it had to be offensive and outrageous; typical argument ad hominem.

To Donttreadonme,

The Heritage Foundation report you cited is misleading. The incentives offered by the military branches disproves Dr. Kane's assertion, that service members do not primarily come from poor backgrounds. If the recruits are not poor; why offer all the incentives? He makes this statement:
Talk about a contradiction! A recruit cannot be middle-class if they have not had a full-time job.

Dr. Kane does not have any individual income data to analyze. His report leaves important questions unanswered. Unemployed recruits can live in their parent's basement, come from a ZIP Code with a median income of over $50,000, and be classified as middle-class.

A better analysis would have to been to analyze the data from the Census Bureau about population income and compare it the the recruitment income levels. He could have looked at two Bell Curve's and figured out the truth. Instead, he uses selective data and misleading numbers to justify his conclusion.

I have not championed the Heritage Foundation's report, there are bound to discrepancies that people find. But that being said, your assertion seems rather silly. You're saying that an 18 year old kid from a middle class family, cannot be considered middle class if he/she joined right out of high school, and had not held a full time job?
I joined at 17 right out of high school from a middle class family.........guess I was actually poor.

I am about to shoot you a PM DTOM- because, I have been searching the journal's various search engines- and there ISN'T a single scientific study, with a well thought out questionaire- on this subject, that I have been able to find, despite about 4 hours of searching!

I think this will be a GREAT stats research project for me- considering that Alaska has the highest % of military population within a population in the US, AND only Hawaii has us beat in ethnic diversity.

You have been very ethical in your presentation of the heritage study DTOM- but there are holes in it, obvious in some cases.

Typically, I will accept a Zogby or Ditmer poll as science, because they are not really interested in changing the findings- as long as the questions are relevent.

I think this is a great way to show the validity of cluster survey Stat method- because it is so accurate when the samples are done correctly.

CR, I feel your pain on searching for demographic stats. Aside from the Heritage report, the only numbers I have found have come from DoD. I'll see if I can dig those up after I get back from the gym.
Unfortunately, many people won't believe DoD stats anymore than Heritage, but interestingly enough, I haven't found any surveys done by left wing/anti-war groups either, though the general line of thought remains that the volunteer military is the 'poor mans draft'.

So sorry to burst your bubble, but the use of Zip codes for income classification is a standard survey technique, and yes, it will have some occasional anomalies when compared directly against separate surveys of actual income. Dr. Thomas Sowell pointed this out when he identified Zip Code 94305 as, based on income alone, one of the poorest Zip Codes on the Penninsula (SF side of the SF Bay). Oddly enough, there haven't been legions of initiatives to assist all the poor people, who are also overwhelmingly young....

Why not?

Because Zip 94305 is the Zip Code of Stanford University, and only Stanford. Reasonable folk conclude that while all those poor starving students may not have ducats enough for two lattes to their name, they are not, by and large, "lower class" or "poor" in the sense that class-warriors get all hot and bothered about. So, while there are anomalies, they are statistically speaking, few and far between, and not relevant to the matter of prosperity classification. How prosperous one is related to, but not absolutely linked, to one's income.

However, if you want to continue to believe that every kid coming out of high school without any income is "poor", have at it, just don't expect to gain much traction with anybody else. On a statistical basis, out of 100 kids joining the Army from Harlem, 99 are going to be "poor/lower class", and one is going to be elite/rich/love child of America's First Black President. Similarily, 99 out of a 100 joining from Zip 89145 will be middle-class, but probably also poor.

Yes BD- a true cluster survey, like the one John Hopkins used in Iraq, and others (or was it JH, I forget?) would be the definitive statement here-

let me say, anecdotes mean nothing to anyone as far as real numbers go- so I will relate my personal anecdote anyway - My Pa and Ma are firmly middle class- and when I graduated high school- I was immediately poor- why- because my parents could not afford college for me, even though I had a near "full ride" scholarship to a couple places- most folks don't realize even a "full ride" scholarship allows a person to live off it- some do, but usually only for elite athletes- which most of us are not.

So- I had two options

1) "Would you like fries with that?"

2) "I do solemnly swear..."

So, my Pa probably made close to 60k a year in 1983 money, however, I would have called us "poor" at the time- as we didn't have a pot to pee in outside our home and the cars my bro and I fixed up and sold on the side.

Housing prices were just to out of reach for your average middle class person at the time in the AK.

So yeah, in my case, I would say I enlisted because my Pa was poor, though, by the Heritage study- that would not be true.

So a good study should be done.

I am suprised that not even the anti-war types have commisioned this- it may very well be that the heritage foundation is right, and they are afraid of the truth. If that is the case- shame on them.

I don't give a rat's fanny for my beliefs- I only care about the reality instead.

If only rich kids are going to war- okay- so be it, deal with it, move on. Being wrong about something is not the end of the world- only the end of your belief system- and it doesn't hurt a bit!

I would agree with both of these sentiments...particularly the part about the talking heads fanning the flames here (which I had been blissfully ignorant of! ) To be honest, when I first saw the quote in question here on , my first response, was 'You've got to be kidding me.'" On the spectrum of political comments, this one hardly registers a 1.0 on the Richter scale. It has already received millions of times more attention than it deserved. Attention, which, btw, only furthers the cause of the one who uttered it. Something those talking heads should consider before opening their pie holes. They are actually do far more damage in perpetuating this than Ms. Boxter did in uttering it. But I gather they're not really that concerned about any impact on the left...not exactly their target market, is it. But even amongst conservatives, I can't see how this could generate much but ridicule at them for making a big deal out of it. But perhaps I'm assuming far too much on the part of their typical listener?

To Bikerdad and Donttreadonme,

So you think you are members of America's middle class? I assure you, you are not.

400-Richest-Americans Their worth ranging from 53 billion to 1 billion.
Total worth = $1.25 Trillion dollars
The number of millionaires in America reached record highs in 2004, hitting 7.5 millionAt the value of just $1 million dollars, the total assets of all millionaires in this country is $7.5 trillion dollars. Bringing the cumulative total of American millionaires and billionaires to $8.75 trillion dollars. That is the low-end total.
America's GDP is approximately $12.46 trillion dollars.
Population in 2004 was 293,638,158

Poverty statistics:
In 2004, the number of Americans living in poverty jumped to 35.9 million.
Poverty Line is 1999 Federal Poverty Guidelines

Simple math problem.
293,638,158 - (7,500,400 + 35,900,000) = 250,237,758
7,500,400 = Rich (R)
286,137,758 = Middle Class (MC)
35,900,000 = Poor (P)

Population % of R = 2.6%
Population % of MC = 85.2%
Population % of P = 12.2%

GDP % of R = 70%
GDP % of MC = 26%
GDP % of P = 4% **
** - 2.6 people per home I rounded up to 3 and multiplied P * $13,880; according to the Poverty Guidelines Chart.

These numbers lead you to one conclusion, there is no middle class. There is rich and there is poor.

The IMF has the average U.S. citizen making $41,399 thousand dollars. So if you think you are middle class, or that a middle class even exists, explain why you are only $28,000 thousand dollars away from being in poverty but $960,000 thousand away from being rich? You are both a lost job away from being homeless. The Middle Class, Santa Claus, and the Easter Bunny were in a room.........

The "newsworthiness" of Senator Boxer's comments are really the product of a low news week. Simply nothing interesting happened and subsequently some hay was made out it.

Condi and Barbara are probably quaffing Irish Car Bombs and comparing shoe bills right now.

It is not a slow news day. Bush's proposed escalation, surge or augmentation - whatever you want to call it, has received criticism from both sides of the aisle. That's news! That the NYP chose to cover this crap rather than real news is the old Republican trick of creating a diversion.

The NYP, today's "worst persons in the world." Thanks for letting me borrow this Keith.

I just noticed that this thread is in the section "War on Terrorism."

Would someone, preferably The Founders' Intent, who started this thread, kindly tell us what in holy hell an exchange between a U. S. Senator and the Secretary of State has to do with the "War on Terrorism"?

Oh, I assure you that at the moment I'm not either, at least not based on either income or assets, but that's neither here nor there.



Simpler math problem:

Assets <> Income

aka Apples <> Oranges

Sheesh, even a halfway competent Comrade should know that.... go read Das Kapital a few more times.

Your math versus your assertion makes abso-friggin-lutely no sense whatsoever. Do 85.2% of us simply not exist?
Who are you to assure me that I am not part of the middle class? Does that mean that I'm poor? If that's the case, then I simply have no pity whatsoever for the poor in this country, since having owned several homes, have IRA's, savings and quite the nice materiel holdings, I can now only assume that our 'poor' are pretty darn well off.

1. Sure. Right after Condi Rice personally apologizes to the thousands of American families whose loved ones she's helped kill, maim and cripple.
2. For what? Doing her job and asking hard questions from an Administration official? Don't think so.
3. Not just no, but hell no!

What we have here is another manifestation of the right-wing attack and propaganda machine. Insincere liars and chickenhawks who care nothing about the sacrifice of soliders and their families crying crocodile tears. Rice richly deserves to be sweated for her part in shaping a policy that has been such an unmitigated failure. She's lucky. Someone less congenial that Barbara Boxer might just have spit on her.

While we're talking about U.S. Senators and apologies, what about this little bit of cheap shot "unfair and imbalanced" journalism as practiced by the fine folks at Fake...err..Fox News?

GRETCHEN CARLSON: You talk about the hostile enemy, obviously being Iraq, but hostile enemies right here on the home front. Yesterday Senator Ted Kennedy, proposing that any kind of a troop surge should mean there should be congressional approval of that. A lot of democrats not coming to his side on this. But obviously this is not going to be an easy sell on Capitol Hill, even if it’s not an easy sell to the American Public.

DAN BARTLETT: We don’t view Ted Kennedy as hostile enemy but we do view him to be an open and often critic of the war. He has been from the outset. I don’t think that’s anything new.

Link

Nothing like a little editorializing slipped into being "fair and balanced." More of the typical "we distort--you can't decide" bull from the same folks that identified disgraced sex freak Mark Foley as a Democrat---repeatedly.

I don't think those two are as chummy as Bill Clinton was with Newt Gingrich, back when there was actually some cooperation going on that brought us a better balanced budget.

Don't know about a slow news week either. Democrats are churning out bills left and right for President Bush's veto pen, thus setting the stage for the 2008 election season. President Bush has lashed out at his Congressional opposition in what seems a yuppy-ish tantrum. Republicans up for reelection next time or with presidential ambitions are opposing this administration too.

Maybe what this stormy teacup reflects is the lack of any real material to use against the Democrats. They seem to be nice family people, although critical of this administration. Looks like that's the touchstone: Criticize George, or in this case Secretary Rice, get conked by a certain branch of the news media. But it really wasn't a criticism, simply a statement of fact, an observation, possibly a warning to be careful.

No, not slow news but a lack of material and the deadline looming. Gotta write something bad about that nasty Congresswoman with a couple of kids too old for Iraq and a grandkid too young. How dare she!

Self-righteous indignation for a grandmother, oh yeah, that'll fly. Next: Democrats eat apple pie! How dare they, those un-American terrorist-loving etc. and so on. We'll probably have more of this as things unfold over the next couple of years, which we should be accustomed to, but there is one difference: Fewer people are swallowing the vitriolic brew. Well, self-righteous swill here.

This comparision is terrible. Gretchen C is not a Senator. This exchange has no meaning beyond ratings. And hello, it's Fox News so if you're standing around looking at Fox News you're standing around waiting to be offended.

Barbara Boxer is a Senator talking to the Secretary of State! These are not two shiny faces reading teleprompters on a TV show. Things they say actually have meaning at thee end of the day.

Says you. It's totally apt when conservatives are getting their undies in a bunch because an elected representative of the American people put a Administration official under some tough questioning. The false outrage exhibited by the Right shows how desperately they are floundering to find issues that resonate. This one doesn't.



We are in agreement that Gretchen Carlson isn't a senator. She isn't much of a journalist either as she takes a cheap shot at Senator Kennedy because he dares to question how the war in Iraq is being waged. That's just as "outrageous" as a testy exchange at a Washington hearing.

I don't have any problem with Barbara Boxer's remarks to Condoleeza Rice. All things considered, Boxer should have really ripped into her. After six years of lapdogs on the Hill, the right-wingers are having trouble adjusting to a Congress that actually holds the Bush Bunch accountable.

They'll get used to it.

Besides the NY Post exactly how many other people are outraged by these comments? I mean nearly everyone who aligns themselves as Rightwing on this board is saying this is a farce.

Your comparision is still terrible.