Condi Rice, Iraq, and not having children?

Only the Right Wing spin machines could turn Barbara Boxer's comments about accountability in Iraq into a chance to attack her feminism.
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."
Tara Lohan is a managing editor at AlterNet.