Home
Archive
Columnists
Video
Blogs
Discuss
About
Search
Donate
Advertise
Advertisement
Advertisement
Advertisement
Advertisement
Register to Vote: Rock the Vote, powered by Working Assets Wireless
Advertisement
  • AlterNetYour turn

Support AlterNet
Do you value the information you're getting from AlterNet? Please show your support with a tax-deductible donation.


Feedback
Tell us how we're doing.

Condi Rice, Iraq, and not having children?

Posted by Tara Lohan at 6:44 AM on January 17, 2007.


Only the Right Wing spin machines could turn Barbara Boxer's comments about accountability in Iraq into a chance to attack her feminism.

Share and save this post:
Digg iconDelicious iconReddit iconFark iconYahoo! iconNewsvine! iconFacebook iconNewsTrust icon

Got a tip for a post?:
Email us | Anonymous form

Get PEEK in your
mailbox!

 

Also in PEEK

The Fraud Of Fraud
Digby Hullabaloo

Broken Glass
DCap DistributorCap

Bipartisan Concern About the Dangers of McPalin’s Hate-Mongering
Emptywheel Firedoglake

The best commentary I've seen on this sad situation comes from Elijah Emily Nella:

Welcome to the fourth wave of feminism: Republican Feminism. If you didn't understand Post-Feminism, your head's going to spin around this one . This New Wave is gaining popularity and media attention Susan B. Anthony would never have dreamt about. This feminism has Rush Limbaugh on it's side.

Last week, Condoleezza Rice and White House spokesman, Tony Snow, completely reworked a simple question Senator Barbara Boxer posed to Ms. Condi Rice at a Senate hearing on Thursday concerning the war in Iraq. Boxer asked Rice, "Who pays the price? I'm not going to pay a personal price. My kids are 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. And I just want to bring us back to that fact."

It's the same old argument we've all been using since 2003 -- Congress and the White House don't have kids going to Iraq (with the exceptions of Senators John McCain and Jim Webb). The families of the soldiers who've died in Iraq (and thank you, the New York Times, for printing all of their young faces in your January 1st, 2007 issue), are the only ones who are personally losing in this endless war. Boxer simply brought up the same angle, yet again, but with the accountability that neither she nor Condi, have any family at stake.

However, with no way of responding to this statement except with an absurd, illogical retort from left field, Condi took the smart move -- evading the issue. "I thought it was O.K. to be single," Ms. Rice said. "I thought it was O.K. to not have children, and I thought you could still make good decisions on behalf of the country if you were single and didn't have children."

Luckily for Ms. Rice, the media was on her side, a.k.a. framing the issue the way she wanted it. Rice told Fox News, "I guess that means I don't have kids. Was that the purpose of that? Well, at the time I just found it a bit confusing frankly. But in retrospect, gee, I thought single women had come further than that. That the only question is: are you making good decisions because you have kids?"

It's easy for the public to have Alzheimer's when you don't remind them that the "it" Rice is referring to is Boxer's question: "Who pays the price?" Way to work it, Condi. Just forget about what Boxer really said and talk about being a single woman. Let's face it -- if Condoleezza was a Democrat against the war who responded with that non-sequitor, the Republicans and the media would have brought up The Big M; she would have been called "a menopausal, defensive woman who can't focus."

However, Condi is not a Lib, she's on the Right; therefore the absurdity has the media backing to fly. Tony Snow shared with FOX News ("We Report. You Decide.") the real kicker: "I don't know if [Boxer] was intentionally that tacky, but I do think it's outrageous. Here you got a professional woman, Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice, and Barbara Boxer is sort of throwing little jabs because Condi doesn't have children, as if that means that she doesn't understand the concerns of parents. Great leap backward for feminism."

That's right. Feminism. Not just the word "feminism" but attached to a famous, subconsciously-known lunar quote allusion. Nice touch. Last week on Rush Limbaugh's show, his feminism came out of the closet. "Here you have a rich white chick with a huge, big mouth, trying to lynch this -- an African American woman -- right before Martin Luther King Day, hitting below the ovaries here. What about the childless Gloria Steinem? Drum her out of the feminist movement? I'm going to tell you, I was joking the other day about setting up a lobbying group for the childless. This kind of thinking is exactly where we're headed with Democrats.”

I'm so glad we have Rush now speaking up for us. We've always needed him. This is one giant step for mankind.

Digg!

Tagged as: rush limbaugh, fox news, condi rice, barbara boxer

Tara Lohan is a managing editor at AlterNet.


The Fraud Of Fraud
The process of turning ACORN into a terrorist sleeper cell has begun and I see little hope that they aren't going to be successful.
Post by Digby. October 11, 2008.
Broken Glass
This is no doubt one of the ugliest periods in American political history.
Post by DCap. October 11, 2008.
Bipartisan Concern About the Dangers of McPalin’s Hate-Mongering
"I accuse you of deliberately feeding the most unhinged elements of our society the red meat of hate ..."
Post by Emptywheel. October 10, 2008.

Comments Turn comments off sitewide Give us feedback »
Comments closed.
The comments for this story have been closed. Thank you to everyone who participated.
View:
Wierd
Posted by: rwa on Jan 16, 2007 5:04 PM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
I think most anyone would have to concur, Condi is kinda strange. Scary. Death in a dress.
Boxer's other jab was much more potent: "You aren't listening to the American people, you aren't listening to the military, you aren't listening to Congress, only you know who your'e listening to."

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

I DON'T WANT RUSH ON MY SIDE
Posted by: VZEQICVA on Jan 16, 2007 7:19 PM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
He's a scary guy. Condi is so pathetic. She has an oil freighter named after her. Not even an exotic drink or a club sandwich. OK she's smart and rich, but she's paid a high price. Weekends with George and Laura . Long walks, playing the piano. No wonder she always looks like she's mad as hell She is. Thanks, ANNA

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

Boxer's fine, but who has kids in a stupid war is irrelevant. Nobody should.
Posted by: davelwhite on Jan 16, 2007 7:53 PM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
Now that I've seen an actual quote of what Boxer said, it seems fine to me, but at least one other liberal column I read DID take the occasion to blather on in that politely holier-than-thou way about how "nobody who doesn't have kids understands how strong the parental bond is" or whatever, which IS insulting to people with other types of close relationships (yes, parenting produces tight bonds but other things do too) and irrelevant to the war. In particular, I think blathering on about how the sacrifice isn't shared in this war or any war in the last 40 years (at least) is dumb. The sacrifice shouldn't be shared. It should be eliminated, because there is no point to this war.

One interesting thing about our language about sacrifice could tell us a lot about why we lose wars, though. We always blather on about the Brave Servicemen and Women-- antiwar and prowar people both do-- and it is indeed tragic they are dying and they should not be. And we blather on about the spouses and parents who are bereaved (but strangely omit any other people who might care intensely about the servicemen and women, like best friends and siblings and so forth). And we have a little sentence at the end about how many Iraqis died, oh yeah, them.

But even the antiwar people don't talk about the bereaved of the Iraqis, and in particular, they don't talk about the fact that America's definition of "the most powerful intimate relationships" is a rather local custom. We have a lot to teach the world about gender equality and feminism, generally, but they have a bit to teach us about extending strong feelings beyond the Spouse and Kids, and indeed, for every Iraqi our Army kills, there are cousins and uncles and aunts and brothers and sisters and best friends and all of these are examples of relationships that Americans tend to take less seriously than people in other lands (on average). So those are the actual bereaved. And unlike the prototypical Spouse and Kids-- where if you assume the Army is killing more men than women and therefore the spouse is a grieving widow who was taught that war is men's work, and the kids are in diapers, and maybe they were blown away too 'cuz they're in the same house-- unlike that, the bereaved, possibly furiously bereaved, are of all ages and genders, and many of them are armed.

Gee, I wonder if THAT is where the strength of the insurgency comes from? Imagine if our leaders did a calculation before a war where they said "hmm, these folks have extended families, so 100,000 casualties = 1,000,000 or 2,000,000 furiously bereaved new enemies," maybe they would realize it is better to just NOT START WARS IN THE FIRST PLACE, not only because it is immoral, but because they are doomed to lose. They can't kill their way out of it, because in an extended family culture, or a culture of intensity in friendship, every casualty is 10 or 20 new enemies with intensely personal and emotional reasons to hate us. Let's help our idiotic leaders do the math.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

PS
Posted by: davelwhite on Jan 16, 2007 8:05 PM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
PS, nothing in my above comment should be construed to imply that any particular American doesn't care about people beyond the Spouse and Kids. I tend to think Americans' notion that they can "move on" from all sorts of relationships and only have the One True Connection to their Spouse (and the resulting Kids) is sort of a polite veneer anyhow. But this veneer causes Americans to underestimate how many enemies we will make in a population when we start a war against them; so the basic point of my post is the same.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

Condi and Bush's augmentation- a Cartoon
Posted by: what now cartoons on Jan 17, 2007 12:43 AM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
The war profits keep coming in, and the troops keep marching in Iraq. Year after year, the back door draft continues and our military pays the price.
this new surge is just enough to loose. Keep the troops in harms way long enough to pass this hot potato to the next president. They talk all this freedom, but I seriously doubt that they believe it. They're sociopaths with no feelings for others. I mean if Condi rice can refer to the 21,500 troops putting their lives in danger as an "Augmentation"!!!!
And all the right wants to bloviate about is Boxer's comment about how she and Rice will not be as effected!! Absurd! Trivial!! Here we go again, the madison avenue style sell the war ( and a new one with Iran ), and blame the Democrats. This is the beginning, they have the Corporate media machine to shove whatever twisted spin on events they want, real or imaginary.
At least we have the internet, and word of mouth.
I have a pen and pencil, so I draw progressive cartoons in an attempt to share the progressive side of political cartooning that has very few outlets.
(the right side has many) Check out my Condi, Augmentation cartoon at my website...

cartoons with a progressive edge www.whatnowtoons.com

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

Dr. Stuart Fischoff
Posted by: sfischo on Jan 17, 2007 7:52 AM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
Regarding the Republican/right wing attack on Senator Boxer and her exchange with Dr. Rice, may I suggest that the Democratic party unite behind Sen. Boxer and rather than run from or try to explain away the question by Boxer to Rice, "Who is going to pay?" make it its mantra when addressing the Iraqi issue. The mantra can also meaningfully apply to the unserved citizens of New Orleans and to the loss of funding all those domestic programs and to all the infrastructure repairs left unrealized since we invaded Iraq.

Republicans are adept at twisting around misstatements and using them as cudgels. Don't let them do this with impunity this time. Hoist them on their own petard. Remember "black is beautiful?" Recall how Blacks made an epithet into a virtue, into a powerful, uniting mantra? That can be done with "who is going to pay?" Attack, don't withdraw. And keep it up.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

Condi
Posted by: charemor on Jan 17, 2007 8:03 AM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
Condi is not the brainy whiz kid that many people think she is. She is a dumb woman in a position that is way over her head and she doesn't give a rat's ass who goes to Iraq or who dies there. She is isolated in Dubya's bubble along with him. So often in her speeches she will throw out "I am a student of history", well , if she is she certainly didn't learn a damned thing.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

» RE: Condi Posted by: badkitty
madashell
Posted by: abby on Jan 17, 2007 8:44 AM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
I agree with Dr. Fischoff....take Boxer's "Who is going to pay" and run with it.
As for pitiable Condi, she's already married - to George Bush. Does anyone remember her freudian slip when she referred to him as....my husband?

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

» George W, my husband Posted by: NowYogi
Whose kids are fighting this war?
Posted by: bettyn on Jan 17, 2007 10:41 AM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
The poorest of the poor. Take some young poor white kid (think Jessica Lynch), Hispanic (think of a couple hundred Mexican Americans), or African American (again losses in the hundreds, if not more) who wants to go to college and you've found a way to get it....IF YOU SURVIVE. Jessi's getting a free education at WVU, most of the rest of these poor kids are rotting in the ground.

How about the Guatemalan youngster who got U.S. citizenship...AFTER HE WAS KILLED? Matters a lot to him now, doesn't it?

Bush and Co. doesn't care about these kids. In fact, they probably think: The less of the "riff-raff" the better.

God help us all!

Condi has clearly forgotten her roots entirely.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

Things That Make Ya Go Hmmmm...
Posted by: NoPCZone on Jan 17, 2007 11:14 AM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
A single, wealthy and powerful woman of color lives and works in the fishbowl of our nation's capitol, has never married an is never seen in the company of a companion or significant other.

Nobody in the MSM says a thing.
Silence, except for the crickets (in the wintertime thanks to Exxon-Mobil, etc.).

Can you imagine this same thing happening if she were a Democrat? They would stalk her to the ends of the earth and publish every lurid detail (and rumor) that was floated at Cocktail Hour.

Has she got a back door man? Is she a lesbian? Both, neither, either, whatever.

If the Military will discharge a member with a security clearance as a security risk because of homosexuality, bisexuality or adultery, don't you think the same logic would apply to a National Security Advisor or Secretary of State? The argument about a closet case of whatever stripe being vulnerable to blackmail is somewhat valid, so what gives?

Just like J "Edna" Hoover, the D.C. Press Corps has given Ms Rice a pass for a long time and it's time to come clean. Who she sleeps with is her business, but the public's right to know at this level of government is valid.

Time to come out of whatever closet you are in, Condi.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

Only the neocons.
Posted by: jjs on Jan 18, 2007 6:09 AM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
Look, at this point only the loons are in agreement with Limbaugh, Snow, O'Reilly, etc. For the rest of us, their rants are litmus tests of truth. What they say isn't. It's like Limbaugh's imitation of M. J. Fox. More than being outraged, we were, and still are, entertained by breath-taking public foolishness. Sometimes ya just gotta roll over laughing. I mean, did you get at look at Condi's face after Boxer's statement? Priceless.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]