Political Punch
Power, pop, and probings from ABC News Senior White House Correspondent Jake Tapper
RECENT POSTS
- Will It Get Ugly? Both Sides Prepared for Start of Sotomayor Hearings Monday
- Obama in Africa
- Out of Africa
- Kenyan President should be “squirming”, says country’s political analyst
- An Emotional President Obama Tours Former Slave Port with Family
- O Baby! The Obamas Visit Maternity Clinic in Ghana
- In Ghana, President Obama Gives Tough Love
- 2 Prez Obama: Questions Sent in Via Text, Email from Africa & the World
- Obama Campaign Plane Emergency: Report Shows it Could Have Been Catastrophic
- Give it Some Time, Obama Says in Defending the Recovery Act
MONTHLY ARCHIVES
« Previous | Main | Next »
Boxing Condi
January 12, 2007 10:00 AM
At yesterday's Senate Foreign Relations Committee hearing, Sen. Barbara Boxer, D-CA, said the following to Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice:
"Now, the issue is who pays the price. Who pays the price? I'm not going to pay a personal price. My kids are too old and my grandchild is too young. You're not going to pay a particular price, as I understand it, with an immediate family. So who pays the price? The American military and their families."
Some say Boxer was trying to draw attention to the fact that Rice is single and does not have any children. Boxer's office insists that's reading too much into it, that Boxer was merely trying to draw attention to the fact that few policymakers are affected by the Iraq war in human terms.
Says a female friend: "Whether or not it hurt Rice really isn't the question -- it's whether it was hurled with the intent to harm or embarass. We'll never know what was in Sen. Boxer's heart when she said it..or whether there was that intent. But it's a standard female psychological tactic that many of us recognize.
"And you need to understand female psychological warfare. The most effective bullet is the one that sails in looking like a butterly-- the 'innocent' remark. There's no defense against it. To defend against it is to validate it as an attack, and allow it to hit. Had Rice publicly taken offense at Boxer's statement, it would have sent the whole thing nuclear."
What do you think?
-- jt
January 12, 2007 | Permalink | Share | User Comments (144)
You can follow this conversation by subscribing to the comment feed for this post.
A Nov. 15 2007 AP story indicates Chevron was fined $30M by the SEC for bribing Saddams’s thugs in the “oil for food” deal and that Chevron may face tax evasion charges later. The bribes were in the millions so someone pretty high up at Chevron had to sign off on the payments. Unfortunately the AP story did not mention Dr. Condoleezza Rice the Chevron board member and the chairman of the “Public Policy Committee” which is responsible for making sure this kind of activity does not happen.
The Chevron website says the committee’s purposes include “identifying, evaluating and monitoring social, political and environmental trends, issues and concerns”, “analyzing how public policy trends could impact business activities and performance". Dr. Rice never discussed the Iraqi bribes on the record (not in the minutes) at company meetings. That should not surprise anyone who is familiar with her lack of response to 911 warnings.
President Clinton put sanctions on Iraq. Actions by Chevron and Rice clearly violated those sanctions and amount to treason. I urge our new Attorney General Michael Mukasey and California Attorney General Jerry Brown determine who at Chevron authorized the millions in bribes.
Ellis
Posted by: ELLIS GOLDBERG | Nov 16, 2007 3:50:22 AM
Good Lord, what a joke! If any woman in Condi's position is offended by this, then she doesn't have the preverbal "balls" to be in the job. I read the transcript and this is so over blown it's ridiculous. All she meant was the neither had no family members that were being affected. Which is a fact.
Talk about spin…. To use this as a springboard for any discussion is a joke.
Female psychological warfare??? I think I must be reading a comic book here.
What do you label it as when men speak frankly?
Posted by: NBM | Jan 16, 2007 10:04:24 AM
While I have very little respect for Secretary Rice's policies, I can not overlook the snide remarks from Senator Boxer.
As a reasonably successful (divorced)African American female, with no children, I understand the difficulties associated with finding an appropriate partner. Successful African American males are few and far between when compared to the number of available successful African American females. Rather than kick Dr. Rice to the curb because she has no children, I would tell Senator Boxer that it is to Dr. Rice's credit that at least she has not crossed the color line in matrimony as she has done in her public policy work.
There are many single African American women similarly situated i.e. Oprah Winfrey, that theoretically could have any man their money could buy. Yet, they remained mindful of the fact that race matters in the USA.
Posted by: Sandra Lang | Jan 15, 2007 3:21:21 PM
Politicians who have a heart that says 'when you hurt, I hurt. Your loss is mine as much as it is your' are fast becoming an 'endangered species'. I don't think the Senator's remark to Dr. Rice was as much a snide at the well accomplished Secretary as it is an unwitting admission of her own shameful selfishness. Of course, her children are either too old or too young so she has nothing to lose personally. Well, this is about America and not about the Boxer clan. Now, we know whether or not the Senator is for "God and Country" or for "me and my own". Go Boxer, you have nothing to lose, not even your reputation because it is already in the mud!
Posted by: Zizi Yosheved | Jan 13, 2007 1:46:13 PM
So with 3019 US troops dead from combat in Iraq, perhaps 600,000 Iraqi civilian deaths (at least 30,000 admitted by US and Iraqi officials), an Iraqi standard of living destroyed economically, socially in terms of human rights for females and non-Muslims, and in terms of security - all for a war of choice so that Bush could satisfy an Oedipal need to show up his daddy, and so Rice could please her - as she said - "husband" (meaning Bush) - all this and the thing ABC wants to discuss if whether or not Boxer was being mean in noting that Rice had no one that had been, was, or would be at risk from the Bush/Rice decisions to invade a country that did not threaten us, under the cover of a lie that the country did threaten us.
The media (including ABC) was never been other than a cheerleader for the Bush/Rumsfeld/Cheney/Rice war to get votes, and now the media wants us to ponder if Boxer was mean. Pathetic. But such is to be expected of a media not controlled by the right wing GOP Rich and Corporate - they just act that way.
Loved the way you folks never do a flip-flop count on Bush and the GOP like you did on Kerry, or a Brown suit means less of a man story on a GOP political fiqure, like you did on Gore. But ABC Political Boss Mark Halperin does not see a bias - so I guess there must not be one.
Picking up Murdoch's NY Post and Fox News Smears is just reporting what other responsible media outlets are reporting - eh?
Posted by: papau | Jan 12, 2007 11:52:58 PM
Senator Boxer, although fundamentally valid in her pointed frustration, was more of a grand stander, in her address to Secretary Rice. Who pays the price; was her banter, but what exactly was her point? Why was she acting like she was engaged in caring for the concerns of our countries patriots. Where was Senator Boxer when terrorism was known throughout the Clinton years? This is not a simple matter of winning freedom for Iraq. If we can not launch operations from a friendly ally in the Middle East we are going to be in deep trouble when Iran and Syria escalate the threat; and ‘yes’ they will escalate the threat. We need an ally in that geographical location or we are going to be continually threatened by extremist.
My heart breaks for my comrades in arms and their children and loved ones who suffer with them; however, we do not honor or help them by tearing our country a part in political debate. If Boxer really wanted to help she would find a way to unite this country in a campaign that spurs this nation towards a collective stand; one that supports the necessary sacrifice to defeat this threat. Terrorism is not going to go away… even the President stated, during the early days of 911, that this fight will be ours, our children’s, and our children’s children, to fight. Wake up! ‘Career politicians;’ who ‘this American’ feels is the real problem.
It is time for senators and congressmen to quite running for office, using the Presidency as a scapegoat, and start doing their job to support their country. We are at war and politicians need to also be soldiers in combat; servants that do not have the option of saying ‘no’ to their commander and chief’s call to duty. Our governing officials should be helping the enlistment efforts; after all, they are a paid servants just like those in boots. They need to get off their aristocratic pedestals and start earning that fat pay check, benefit package, and ‘pork feed’ job security.
Why do we keep pointing out the fact that other nations are holding back their support? When has any nation given more towards the pursuit of world freedom than the American people? Wake up! It is time to quit filling the media with pessimistic commentaries that only weaken our countries posture; if the world has no respect for us, the congress, senate, and every condescending American is responsible.
It is my prayer that a shift of spirit and resolve will sweep upon this great nation so that every American will realize the need to get involved and support our efforts towards global stabilization. If there were a past mistake worthy of mentioning it would have to be the moment, after 911, when the country was told to go about their business as usual. In stead, Americans should have been instructed in ways to become involved; much like the efforts to conserve resources during the Second World War. We needed a readiness plan. Failing to involve every American was the biggest mistake; and one that the enemy does not hesitate to employ in their media exploits.
Do not waste our time, Senator Boxer, with your unprofessional outbursts, aimed at the heart strings of Americans. These are the times when the tough need to get tougher and we need to get behind the efforts to stop the insane ‘world’ violence that will, if not dealt with, bring this great nation to its knees. Make no mistake, all you on the hilltops of society, it is not the warriors, or their families, that do a disservice to this nation; instead, as Senator Boxer alluded, it is those that do not have any vested interest or are not choosing to “Pay the Price.” In the Second World War the home front united and paid the sacrifice to win the battle; where is that commitment now?
God Bless America
Robert R. White
Former Gunnery Sergeant
United States Marine Corps
Portland, Oregon
Posted by: Robert R. White | Jan 12, 2007 10:09:08 PM
I thank God every day for the courage that President Bush has demonstrated throughout his presidency. Unlike his predecessors, who were only interested in keeping the status quo in the Middle East -- in spite of the building powder keg and frequent suicide bombings -- President Bush has a vision of a free and democratic Middle East. But this is a lengthy, expensive and very painful process.
This is analogous to a cancer patient. One can just maintain the status quo and treat the pain with painkillers, but the cancer still eats away the tissue and eventually the life is lost. Or one can attempt to eradicate the cancer with chemotherapy, radiation therapy, biological therapy, surgery or a combination of some or all of these treatments. But each of these treatments may have extremely serious side effects, which in and of themselves, can be unbearable. And the patient may frequently express doubt as to whether it is worth all the pain. But if successful, the patient can live a normal life for years. And, undoubtedly, the patient is forever thankful for having gone through the process.
Posted by: James Danley | Jan 12, 2007 5:45:20 PM
I was a Bush Supporter, "but now I am not!!"
Why does that sound familiar?
First I was for it and now I am against it.
You people crack me up!
A little late now don't ya think!
Senator Boxer did the right thing....period!
"President Bush has the SOUL responsibility to protect our country and citizens. He is standing alone right now in the face of considerable oposition and standing up for the courage of his convictions. He told us after 9/11 that he would do everything in his power to prevent another attack on the United States. He has done so. "
Yeah! well I have some sad news for you Iraq had nothing to do with 9/11!
Thats why there was an attack on the US Embassy in Athens this morning.
He said he would get Bin Ladin.
Well there is no hide or hair of him is there.
Condie Rices excuse for him not listening to the memos in 2001 before 9/11.
He was tired of swatting flie! I like to know what flies he was swatting, unless of course that was her way of saying there was going to a lot of horse....... coming out of the whitehouse!
Posted by: Theresa | Jan 12, 2007 5:12:52 PM
Sen. Boxer lodged a personal attack on Dr. Rice during her nomination hearing. So it isn't much of a stretch to believe this was a continuation of her animosity towards Dr. Rice. Had a Republican made the same comment to an official within a Democratic administration the Democrats would be demanding an apology. But I, personally, believe too much is being made of the comment. Dr. Rice showed much grace and dignity in not responding to the comment.
Posted by: James Danley | Jan 12, 2007 4:25:54 PM
Unbelievable - we still have people confusing 9/11 with Iraq. Still unable to recognize how Bush's Iraq war has dangerously weakened our nation, in military and international standing. That not only has he stoked the fever of our enemies this way, but that the price tag for this war has impinged our ability to protect ourselves. That he has snubbed the recommendations of the 9/11 Commission while actually increasing the threats to our security.
Unbelievable that there are those who still think that supporting the troops means marching them into mayhem, a civil war, without a clear battle plan or an exit strategy. Update for those in the dark: The troops themselves are the targets of the insurgency, that's what Murtha was flipping out about a YEAR ago. The situation has only worsened. You want to support your troops? Get them the hell outta there. You wanna support Iraq, which is the least we can do now that we've turned them all on their heads? Me too, but their new government needs to step up to the freakin plate and show some interest in their new democracy, instead of funding their tribal friends and using American soldiers as pounds of flesh for barter. Support Dubya, the illegitimate faux president? Ha!
Sure, God bless America, as long as she's doing the right thing - and everyone else in the world, too.
Posted by: Mary | Jan 12, 2007 3:45:34 PM
Someone needs to answer those important questions.
I was a Bush Supporter, but now I find myself wondering if he has any connection with realty.
My Daughter (26 years old) just attended the funeral of her best friend's husband who died when a bomb when off under his vehicle in Iraq.
My other daughter (23) has a good friend that was a Marine. He made it thru 2 tours of duty in Iraq. To us that is a miracle! My oppinion now is to get these people out of there NOW. It doesn't, matter what we do there, they will just fight each other as soon as we leave. History, Yugoslavia. As soon as the dictator was gone, (after 50 years) they started fighting each other again.
Posted by: K E Stachura | Jan 12, 2007 3:43:34 PM
Cordelia: As always, you've said it better than I did.
Posted by: DKNY | Jan 12, 2007 3:40:15 PM
This is definitely an overblown issue. Rice does not have children fighting in this war. I am sure that only a small handful of elected officials and high up policy makers even know someone in the military. Boxer was making an excellent point that this government is quick to send average Joe Americans to fight this blood for oil war while they go off in their SUV’s and have steak dinners with their jerk friends.
Posted by: Vanessa | Jan 12, 2007 3:14:10 PM
Okay everyone. My dad enlisted in the Navy in 1938. On December 7, 1941, he was on the battleship USS Maryland in the middle of Pearl Harbor when Japan attacked. After the Pearl attack, he was involved in all of the major South Pacific battles at Tarawa, Saipan, Leyte Gulf, just to name a few. Did he enjoy war, hell no, but he reinlisted after his first tour of duty was over. My dad realized that something bigger than himself was at stake.
On September 11, 2001, hyjacking terrorists took over US commercial planes and using the planes as bombs, flew them into the World Trade Center.
The attack on Pearl Harbor and the attack on the World Trade Center are called "acts of war."
Whenever a United States' Embassy is attacked, it's an "act of war."
Since 9/11, our government has successfully stopped many attempts by terrorists inside the United States.
Right around the corner from my home there was a Pakistani family. One morning in June, 2004, while taking my daughter to school, out of nowhere appeared four helicopters, FBI and CIA agents in flak jackets, the ATF, and local police, all with exposed rifles, guns, etc. This family had ties to terrorists. This, my dear people, was a little too close for comfort for me.
So, go ahead and bash the President and whomever else in the government. But just the fact that we, as US citizens, can freely go on the internet, sleep peacefully at night, go to the movies, shop whenever we like, without the fear of wondering where or when bombs would strike in the United States (maybe our neighbor's house, or maybe our very own home) is enough for me to support President Bush and our military.
Please don't continue the Democrat against Republican thing anymore. We are all US citizens and we are damned lucky!
Believe me, I cry every time I see a wounded or dead US or ally soldier. But I give them my utmost respect for taking on a job that most of us will not or cannot do.
I truly believe it is in the best interest of our nation to stand firmly behind President Bush and our troops. They truly realize what is going on and are serving us unselfishly.
We cannot leave Iraq until we have given them the opportunity to get on their feet. If we leave now, we risk not only our own security, we risk global security. The terrorists are embedded as it is now all over the world, even in our own country. Now is not the time to retreat.
As the saying goes; "When the going gets tough, the tough get going."
The Pearl Harbor Survivors Association motto is:
"Remember Pearl Harbor - Keep America Alert."
The men and women enlisted in our armed forces are very special people. I thank God everyday for them.
God Bless America!
Posted by: emg | Jan 12, 2007 3:07:51 PM
Your female friend needs to take a Midol. Boxer's remark was: (a) empirically true, and (b) not about Condi. If Condi or your female friend or anyone else takes offense at Boxer's remark, that person is internalizing it and that person has a problem, not Boxer.
I consider myself a feminist, and I take exception to the idea that women are obligated to dance around empirical facts so as to not upset each other.
Posted by: cordelia525 | Jan 12, 2007 2:15:28 PM
Someone worries about poor Condi Rice after all the blantant lies she has told we the people. You have GOT to be kidding!!!!
Posted by: Ala Claxton | Jan 12, 2007 2:14:43 PM
I think it's ridiculous to have a "female friend" commenting on this matter. And your female friend seems to have a view of female behavior right out of the dark ages. Or the Republican Party.
Posted by: DKNY | Jan 12, 2007 1:46:06 PM
President Bush has the SOUL responsibility to protect our country and citizens. He is standing alone right now in the face of considerable oposition and standing up for the courage of his convictions. He told us after 9/11 that he would do everything in his power to prevent another attack on the United States. He has done so. His strategy for Baghdag is very logical and on a smaller scale already worked in NYC (with 2500 murders annually). Mayor Guiliani segregated the worst neighborhoods, took them over, the criminals left and the NYC police stayed and didn't let them come back. Once Baghdag feels safe they can become the democracy they deserve. I believe that if the U.S. military left Iraq now; the entire world would become even more unsafe. Leaving will imbolden the terrorists and they would declare victory! Why can't anyone offer up a solution for victory? Maybe because it's easier to criticize then to decide on what's in our country's best interest. Well, Dems, "what would you do if you were in charge". Ms. Rice is well equipped to take care of herself; I'm sure she simply considered the source of the comment and immediately dismissed it. Afterall, doesn't Boxer know we have an all volunteer Military.
Posted by: Barbara | Jan 12, 2007 1:45:23 PM
I don't believe that the senator intended to attack the secretary on a personal basis. But, what the senator failed to understand is what is more important, country or family, to anybody, be it a public official or an ordinary citizen. In my opinion, country is more important than family. The question is whether or not the war was a necessary war in the first place. I am not sure if she voted for the war in 2003. If she did, she does have the moral ground to disapprove the new strategy now.
As far as one believes that the war is a necessary war to defend the country, he or she has to die for it. I don’t think that the Bush administration has made the decision to go to war because members of his administration don’t have family members in the army. I don’t think that his administration is less concerned and less thoughtful than the senator for the loss of life. The bottom line is instead of attacking each other for political or other reasons, it is better to stand together and get rid of the problem for once and all. Not doing everything possible to come out victorious in this war will be a tragic mistake of the 21st century.
Posted by: Sebebu | Jan 12, 2007 1:39:27 PM
It wasn't a choice of cut & run or stand and fight. It wasn't a choice of eliminate Iraq or lose the United States. In fact it was never a choice... to begin with.
Bush Hawks & company needed a cause for the administration given them by the Supremes. They ware already planning the Iraq war before 9/11 and those incidents gave them justification for their plans. Each cause of the invasion and war has been shown to be wrong. Intelligence officials told the admin. it was wrong. Plain and simple Bush needed and wanted a war.
Now, a volunteer army is shipped like cattle to a slaughter, and for what? We destroyed any infrastructure Iraq may have had left after the war by the means we used to govern and supervise it. We provided the means, if not the methods, of opening the door to Iran, and now complain because Iraq, limited, cannot close it.
In medieval times, the kings led their armys to war. This was expected. Perhaps it is time to return to those practices. Want to make war? Get in front of your army and lead, not safely at the back pushing my countrymen to their death.
Two closing thoughts of others, paraphrased:
1. War cannot determine who is right, only who is left.
2. War is the last refuge of the incompetent politician.
Posted by: kbutler | Jan 12, 2007 1:35:45 PM
Post a comment

