Rice herself demurs simply that she had thought that, as a single woman, she had come a long way, baby.
Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice yesterday criticized Sen. Barbara Boxer's suggestion that, because she does not have family in harm's way, she will pay no "personal price" in the Iraq war.
"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?' " Rice said on Fox News.
Come on. That is utter nonsense, and Rice knows it perfectly well. Boxer would not and did not imply any such thing about the decision-making capacities of single people, nor did she, as the other goofballs cynically insist, make any judgments about Rice's personal life, whatever it may entail. (Personally, I think maybe she's just asexual. Some people are; perhaps they just developed different priorities in life. Nothing wrong with that.)
But the thing is that Boxer is absolutely correct about this. Because we have a professional military, and because the citizenry have been dissociated both from the decision-making process and its consequences, there is a cognitive gap between those who actually have skin in this game, those who determine their fates but have no such physical stake, and everyone else, who are neither affecting the terms of the process nor physically participating in the actual war or imminent escalation. I know the Grabthar's Hammer crowd (aka The Knights of Prosperity) like to pretend that they're "contributing" by rubbing the world's nose in their profound fever dreams of vicarious bloodlust, or what they like to think are "ideas" and "principles". But unless we are serving, or have a close friend or relative serving, we are not in the shit, we are merely discussing the smell.
And Rice is indeed fair game for criticism because she has always been -- and continues to be -- one of Fredo's more reliable manure-spreaders any time he decides to drop a deuce.
Former senator Alan K. Simpson (R-Wyo.), another [Iraq Study Group] panel member, said that Bush's plan is "better than the status quo" but voiced disappointment that he did not agree to talk with Syria and Iran. "Nothing is ever solved by not talking to somebody," he said. Simpson said he was stunned by Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice's statement that Iran could use talks with the United States to extort concessions. "Where did that come from?" he asked. " What the hell is gained by not thinking of some kind of system to talk? It makes no sense."
Al Simpson is not exactly a pinko commie islamojihadi rent-boy. But he should be a bit more honest about the situation. It is not accidental that they repudiate dialogue with Iran. They don't want dialogue; they don't want peace. They want an excuse to expand the escalation, and take on the mullahs. They didn't laterally move an admiral from PACOM to take over for Abizaid at CENTCOM -- where the only significant body of water is the Strait of Hormuz -- for nothing. They haven't moved a carrier group and a Patriot missile battery to the Persian Gulf for shits and giggles.
And that is why Boxer is right, much righter than Rice's hypocritical defenders and Rice herself will let themselves admit. Someone else deals with the consequences of their grandiose schemes. Someone else foots the bill, pays the weapons contractors and the reconstruction grifters. Someone else takes the bullet, or the sword, or the power drill, or the cluster bomb.
When Pierce Bush has to serve in Iraq or Iran, then Unca George will find a way to jaw-jaw instead of reflexively going for war-war. Till then, it's more cheap sloganeering and cynical posturing, like always. Making this about some imagined insult regarding Rice's personal life (or lack of one) is a ridiculously transparent dodge.
1 comment:
Boxer certainly did take a poke at Rice, but I fail to see how it was offensive. It was widely misinterpreted as a broadside at Rice's personal life, when in fact it was a more measured comment aimed at people who keep mindlessly pursuing a failed strategy, none of whom have any actual skin in the game.
How has Iran been "at war with us" since 1979? The hostages did all come home alive and well 26 years ago, or have we been misinformed? Certainly there have been provocative actions by both sides in the region, but that is a far cry from this imputation of "Persian imperialism".
Look, I hold no brief for the mullahs, theocratic control freaks who really need to just climb out of the asses of their citizens and let them live their own lives. Iran has been a serious nuisance in the region, sponsoring terrorism and aggressively posturing toward Saudi Arabia, etc., etc. I think it's symptomatic as much as it's causal, which means that it can be dealt with.
Iran has also made several diplomatic overtures, including as recently as 2003. There have been opportunities to resolve problems in ways other than militarily. I'm a "trust but verify" type of guy; we work with jerks all the time, when it's economically advantageous for us.
Bottom line -- there is absolutely no compelling reason whatsoever to initiate military action against Iran, as things stand right now. If we want a war bad enough, I'm sure we'll find a suitable pretext for one, and if Pierce Bush is going to be in the mix somewhere, then find. If it's just another opportunity to ship poor kids off to turn another country into a despotic hellhole, then forget it.
Now, I'll agree with you on this much -- the Democrats most certainly have to start coming up with actual plans. You are correct that while they can win without a coherent pronouncement on policy matters, they cannot successfully govern without one. The Republicans have provided many examples of that syndrome for their edification, and Democrats would do well to grow some backbone and explain exactly what they intend to do about the mess we're in. The people who created the mess certainly aren't going to fix it, so someone has to be the adult here.
Post a Comment