« Iraq -- MM, VDH and BDS | Main | White stuff!!! »

January 12, 2007

Barbara Boxer - Insufferable Bitch*

Babs was first elected to the Senate when her campaign pulled a sleeze dirty trick, and she has rarely wandered away from such schtick. Even her supposed moment of clarity when she withdrew an award from a person who hid their position with terrorist-front organization CAIR can't quite take away from a career filled with stupidity and a craven sense of entitlement -- i.e. Babs being one of the queens of check kiting in the 1992 Congressional scandal. Think any of us 'little people' would have been able to bounce over 300 checks and suffer no consequence?

Now, probably taking a page from patrician Nancy Pelosi's PR campaign of trying to remake herself into humble granny, Boxer decided to go personal with Dr. Condoleezza Rice and attack Dr. Rice for the awful sin of being single and not having kids

Sen. Barbara Boxer, D-Calif., noted Rice has no children of her own to lose overseas. "Who pays the price?" Boxer repeatedly demanded. "You’re not going to pay a particular price," she told Rice, because the secretary has no "immediate family" at risk.

Rice is notably unflappable. Her face was tight, her voice even, occasionally and briefly speeding up to meet the jabs coming her way. She did not give much away or lose her temper.

Dr. Rice is a class act, in contrast to the California Cunt* Senator.

See, I would have leveled my glare at Babs and said something like

Sister, not only will every American have something to pay if Islamists do as promised and start bringing their bombers here because you and the rest of the cut-n-runners want to surrender in Iraq, but you have some brass ovaries in suggesting that I'm somehow less authentic to speak on this issue because I haven't bred to your specifications. Real feminist solidarity there, bitch. And if you want to play the 'blood tie' card, let's talk about your grandfather paying for the boats that hauled my grandfather to the new world in chains, eh?
See? This is why I'd never make it in Congress. I don't suffer fools like Babs well.

*I used "bitch" in the title because "cunt" may not make it past certain filters.

UPDATE
see Beth
NY Post
AllahPundit has the video
Caltechgirl

No wonder American women are conflicted. We now MUST be superwoman. We can't be an important part of the political discourse of this country unless we're wives and mothers, evidently.

Ironic turn of events, no? 100 years ago wives and mothers were thought to be the least fit to have a political opinion. Now, according to Mrs. Boxer, the only women fit to make political decisions are wives and mothers.

Heh.

Technorati: , ,

Posted by Darleen at January 12, 2007 06:37 AM

Comments

brass ovaries indeed

Posted by: Jane at January 12, 2007 07:16 AM

Boxer & Pelosi: Raging Grannies on the Hill!
Rice: Chickenmommy!

Gawd, Boxer is a fucking moron.

Posted by: Beth at January 12, 2007 07:24 AM

My favorite Rice moment was when she made Tenet the fall guy for the yellowcake debacle.

Posted by: Josh at January 12, 2007 07:44 AM

Josh

why are you peddling Wilson's lies?

Posted by: Darleen at January 12, 2007 08:38 AM

Darleen: he hopes people will fall for it.

Oh, was that a rhetorical question? ;)

Posted by: Patrick Chester at January 12, 2007 08:45 AM

My account has nothing to do with Wilson. And why are you so credulous of the administration, expecially at this late date?

Posted by: Josh at January 12, 2007 08:53 AM

"The administration" is made up of lots of people who say lots of things.

A better question, josh, might be why are so eager to generalize and dismiss? Other than the fact that it makes thinking a whole lot quicker and easier, and leaves plenty of time for important things, like trolling "wingnut" sites trying to appear simultaneously erudite and bemused (neither of which you can quite pull off, so long as we're being candid).

Posted by: Jeff G at January 12, 2007 09:47 AM

Jeff G,

Your comment doesn't make any sense. Do you have any thoughts on the interaction between the CIA and Rice preceding the infamous SOTU address, or do you just like to troll websites trying to appear simultaneously erudite and disinterested (neither of which you can pull off, so long as we're being candid).

Posted by: Josh at January 12, 2007 09:53 AM

Way to go, Darleen. Every time I hear Senator Barbie open her mouth I cringe. When I saw her tripe about Rice, I called Senator Moron's office and Held forth about becoming a common prostitute would be an elevation in status for Senator Barbie.

Posted by: Mark at January 12, 2007 10:20 AM

Hey Josh,

My favorite Rice moment was this little exchange when she testified before the 9/11 Commission:

BEN-VENISTE: Isn't it a fact, Dr. Rice, that the August 6th PDB warned against possible attacks in this country? And I ask you whether you recall the title of that PDB?

RICE: I believe the title was, "Bin Laden Determined to Attack Inside the United States."

I cringe every time Condi opens her mouth. She's an idiot and a stooge and she thinks she's married to Dubya.


Posted by: Brad at January 12, 2007 10:36 AM

That's a good one too. They've all had their moments over the years, but Rice is second only to Rumsfeld when it comes to ridiculousness.

Posted by: Josh at January 12, 2007 10:43 AM

Boxer is a hard-nosed unpleasant person. She only listens to a small band of advisors; anyone outside is simply ignored.

She isn't a very nice person, but being a liberal democrat covers a lot of sins....

Posted by: Carl W. Goss at January 12, 2007 11:48 AM

Condi apparently didn't at first understand what Boxer was suggesting regarding her childless status, probably because of the somewhat muddled wording. The exact quote is:

"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."

So basically, "You and I don't pay the price because my kids are too old and you don't have any."

This was kind of a stupid thing to say, but I don't see it as so incredibly offensive as people are trying to make it out to be. It's kissing cousins to the old line about "Would you send YOUR children off to die?" -- which of course ignores the fact that these "children" are not signed up by their parents, they're all volunteers.

Posted by: Stephen at January 12, 2007 01:27 PM

Definitely dumb, but Babs ain't the brightest. But is it more or less silly than the idea that withdrawing from Iraq will inevitably lead to suicide bombings in Missoula? I say less.

Posted by: Josh at January 12, 2007 02:52 PM

Rice and Rumsfeld are many things but ridiculous they are not.
Your comments here lately have been puerile. Why?
Because you spray them everywhere with no evidence of historical knowledge, perspective or reference. How old are you? What informs your opinions? Seriously, what personal historical perspective do you bring with your polemic?

Posted by: Hugh at January 12, 2007 05:28 PM

Josh
The above was directed to you....

Posted by: Hugh at January 12, 2007 05:30 PM

Josh and your BFF Brad - Jamil Hussein Ghoulab XXX Ghadabwhatever has a story for you. Why don't you visit him in Baghdad and give it the old liberal treatment a la AP.

He can probably clue you in on the yellowcake deal Joey made.

As for Boxer and her asshat attempt to appear intellectually superior to Secretary Rice - too bad moral bankruptcy equates to moral authority in the liberal brain cave. Otherwise she would have had me at "Who Pays".

Posted by: Enlightened at January 12, 2007 05:36 PM

What special historical perspective do I need to understand that Rice is the paradigmatic bureaucrat, concerned only with covering her own ass and the asses of those who can help her? Do you care to discuss that statement, or are you just going to stick to the ad homs?

Enlightened, what makes you think the Jamil Hussein Ghoulab XXX Ghadabwhatever is relevant here? Do you just reflexively reach for whatever idiot talking point is making the rounds this week, regardless of whether it has any bearing on the subject at hand? Oh, I see you've referenced Joe Wilson, who has nothing to do with Rice's throwing Tenet to the wolves in order to do some of the aforementioned ass-covering, so I guess your ability to parrot wingnut cant goes back a bit farther than a week.

Posted by: Josh at January 12, 2007 06:09 PM

Well, hmmm. I can't argue with sheer stupidity so I'll let the idiot talk the talk.

Posted by: Enlightened at January 12, 2007 06:48 PM

Methinks "Enlightened" is only 14 years old and still learning how to sling mud.

Posted by: Brad at January 12, 2007 08:14 PM

Ok Josh, let's discuss this statement of yours:

"Rice is the paradigmatic bureaucrat, concerned only with covering her own ass and the asses of those who can help her?"

Tell me why it should be kept out of the "ad homs", and back it up with facts.

"Paradigmatic bureaucrat"?: A young black girl born in racially polarized Alabama who made her way to to the distinguished Hoover Institution at Stanford University and later served as National Security Advisor and Secretary of State. She is not a bureacrat, Josh.

"concerned only with covering her own ass and the asses of those who can help her?" You mean she can't make it on her own? I think that's exactly what you mean, only you don't really know what that means about you, Josh. You wouldn't last one minute in the same room with Rice. Here's a life lesson for you Josh: People who reach the heigths of power and reponsibility as Rice has don't get there by "covering their ass". That technique becomes ineffective way way down the ladder. That's the "special historical perspective" you need but clearly don't have.

Posted by: Hugh at January 13, 2007 06:01 AM

Yep, good mom she is too; Raised a daughter dumb enough to marry Hillary's brother and then had to go through a custody hearing.

This is the same woman who marched with other congresswomen up the stairs in support of Anita Hill and told the floor this "all male, all white congress has to do something" re; Clarence Thomas not getting on...

When Paula Jones and others popped up re: the sex scandal... crickets. SFChronicle finally put her on the spot (after Feinstein decided to speak out against Clinton and the treatment of the women), Boxer admitted it was inexcusable.

I wonder how much her statement will hurt the coffers re: NARAL, NOW and Planned Parenthood?

Babs blew it when she said "You won't pay the price...AS I UNDERSTAND IT..." That means she checked it out. Also, go back to the video and she how it was framed. BTW, Babs... the military was voluntary when I joined and still is.

Not only did she bounce 144 checks over three years in the House Banking Scandal... don't forget Enron Air.

Posted by: Ali at January 13, 2007 09:55 AM

Hugh,

It may surprise you to learn that one can be black with a Ph.D. and nonetheless be a bureaucrat. Why are you so shamelessly eager to play the race card? Rice was instrumental in placing the blame on CIA for the mistakes leading up to the war. She was covering for Bush and for the NSA, of which she was director. Unfortunately you're so impressed by her life history and the fact that she's a senior official that you can't see her flaws.

Posted by: Josh at January 13, 2007 10:18 AM

Josh
You said "(covering the) asses of those who can help her?” In your liberal world view of Orwellian code language, you played the race card, not me. If a conservative had uttered those words the Thought Police would have issued an APB.

And in fact, I am not "impressed" by her accomplishments, but rather in awe of them. She has a publishing history that is at once extraordinary and impossible to hide from by currying favor with or being a lackey to her bosses.

And Josh, this is your most vacuous comment: "It may surprise you to learn that one can be black with a Ph.D. and nonetheless be a bureaucrat." Josh, you apparently don't even know what a “bureaucrat” is. For your edification, a bureaucrat is a career government employee who cannot be fired or removed from office or position for political reasons. Secty Rice serves at the pleasure of the President. President Bush can fire her tomorrow for ANY reason. President Bush cannot fire a career employee of the State Department, IRS, CIA, USDA ad nauseum without the approval of myriad government agency protectors.

Posted by: Hugh at January 13, 2007 03:19 PM

What barbara boxer said was fact, As a matter of fact I bet Condoleezza Rice never put her life on the line to fight a war that she had no choice in. Oh and hey if everyone is so for this war then go join, no ones stopping you, but don't commit our men and women so freely if your not willing to do the same.

Posted by: cutter at January 13, 2007 06:27 PM

cutter

Are you a police officer? No?

Then you can never have an opinion nor express support of police officers.

Are you a prosecuter? Then you can never have an opinion on Nifong.

Have you ever been raped? Then you can never have an opinion on the Duke debacle.

Do you YET see the idiocy in the "chickenhawk" you seem eager to wave about?

And, oh yes, last I checked the military is both VOLUNTARY and its members ADULTS.

Posted by: Darleen at January 14, 2007 07:42 AM

Josh

Hugh gives a precise definition of bureacrat; something Dr. Rice is not.

And I wonder why suddenly you seem to be pro-CIA when it appears that a lot of intelligence problems due to entrenched bureacracy are clearly in the offices of the CIA (who have felt they should be in charge of foreign POLICY, not the Executive Branch).

Posted by: Darleen at January 14, 2007 07:46 AM

For your edification, a bureaucrat is a career government employee who cannot be fired or removed from office or position for political reasons.

I've never seen THAT definition anywhere. Reference, please?

Here's a legitimate definition From the Oxford English Dictionry:

bureaucrat: an official, esp. an unimaginative or doctrinaire one, in a bureaucracy; a person who endeavours to centralize administrative power

simply put, bureaucrats are not accountable to the public. I'd argue that Bush and Co. certainly think of themselves that way.

Hugh, you forgot to mention in your Condi c.v. that she was a Director of Chevron from 1991 to 2001, and even had an oil tanker named after her (it was brief-- they remaned it Altair Voyager; apparently someone thought the naming of an oil tanker might be a bad thing)

And let's not forget Rice's misleading remarks about Saddam's supposed WMD programs leading up to the Iraq war (all the "mushroom cloud" bs). She claimed those aluminum tubes could only be used for enriching uranium, and she persisted with this lie long after the IAEA examined and debunked the claim.

Remember her testimony that the US had never anticipated an attack by an airliner -- when in fact the Pentagon itself had planned in detail how it would respond to just such a scenario from October 24-26 2000.

I short, she's been quite the disingenuous apologist for her "husband." Not that such a position disqualifies her or means that she is untalented. She's very talented, and very good at supporting her white male bosses' errors and deceptions.


Posted by: Brad at January 14, 2007 08:47 AM

Do you YET see the idiocy in the "chickenhawk" you seem eager to wave about?

Oh, yes, and Darleen,
"having an opinion" and making policy decisions are two quite different things. The fact that our foreign policy since 2000 has been largely ironed out by men and (1) woman who have never seen actual combat -- and who do not have relatives serving in a war zone -- should strike a careful thinker as ironic in the least. Wouldn't you think that our leaders should at least consult with experts in the military before making decisions to commit more troops? Do you actually believe that Bush, Cheney and COndi give a rat's ass what our military commanders think about this "surge"? If so, please provide some evidence for it -- the Iraq Study Group certainly considered it, and their recommendations have been shunted aside.

Posted by: Brad at January 14, 2007 08:55 AM

Hugh's definition is nonsensical. Of course a bureaucrat can be removed. He is strangely confusing a general definition of someone who plays a role in any large organization with a particular set of civil service protections applicable only in the United States in recent decades. You don't get to define words to suit your ideological purposes. The stereotypical bureaucrat is primarily interested in protecting his/her turf, making sure that he/she is never blamed for mistakes, and pleasing his/her boss. That Hugh thinks these traits are somehow associated with black people says more about him than anything else.

Posted by: Josh at January 14, 2007 09:29 AM

Josh

"That Hugh thinks these traits are somehow associated with black people says more about him than anything else." Show me where I said that, Josh.

Brad, the OED may suit your response, but in the real world the difference between political appointees and bureacrats is determined in the courts. See "Commonwealth of Kentucky vs. Ernie Fletcher" Case Number 06-M-00812.

Posted by: Hugh at January 14, 2007 10:36 AM

Right here:

You said "(covering the) asses of those who can help her?” In your liberal world view of Orwellian code language, you played the race card, not me.

You read into my description of bureaucratic ass-covering, a race-neutral concept, that I was somehow referring to black people.

Posted by: Josh at January 14, 2007 12:22 PM

Josh
You said "a race-neutral concept"....sorry, you do not pass GO, you cannot collect $200. Own it in its context Josh.

Posted by: Hugh at January 14, 2007 04:06 PM

Hugh, why do you associate ass-covering toadyism with blacks? You're reading your own stereotypes into my words. Shameful.

Posted by: Josh at January 16, 2007 07:32 AM

Hello! informative nice site with interesting design.

discount laptop battery
diamond earring


Thanks!

Posted by: Achates at January 27, 2007 07:20 AM

Hello! informative nice site with interesting design.

discount laptop battery
diamond earring


Thanks!

Posted by: Achates at January 27, 2007 07:21 AM