Californians do when we have to listen to the inane, non-sequitors of Barbara Boxer.

In her latest dustup with Condi Rice, Boxer very clearly suggested that the Secretary of State would be less sensitive to the concept of losing a loved one on the battlefield because she is childless, and therefore less concerned with sending our soldiers into harm’s way. Boxer, whose children are too old for service and grandchildren too young, ostensibly placed herself in the same boat as the Secretary of State.

The fur is now flying back and forth, with the usual suspects taking their preordained positions. But let’s take a moment to parse this out a bit.

So what was the point of Senator boxer’s comment? Well, it was made during hearings discussing the decision to increase the number of troops in Iraq, so it must be analyzed in that context. Boxer stated that her “…point was to focus attention on our military families who continue to sacrifice…” However, our military families sacrifice in every war or military confrontation. Whether it is tactically appropriate to move forward with a troop surge is a completely separate question.

Was Senator Boxer’s point that only persons with their own family members potentially in harm’s way should be making this sort of decision? I’m sure she would not fess up to that since, by her own admission, she also does not fit into that category. As an aside, neither does Barney Frank, but that’s a discussion for another day.

So unless we assume that it was a purely gratuitous comment springing from Senator boxer’s head not fully formed, what was its purpose? It should be obvious to anyone paying attention that it was no more than demagoguery, designed to play on emotions and to avoid having to offer any real alternative to the troop surge, other than simply saying bring everyone back from Iraq today, which most Democrats will not yet state on the record. Instead, they continue to fan the Vietnam quagmire flames hoping to turn public opinion so against this war that they can then use it for cover. Such leadership.

Can you imagine if a white, male Republican had asked a single, female Democrat Secretary of State the same question? The National Organization for Women would be issuing press releases right and left condemning this sort of “19th century thinking” and bemoaning the fact that in America today we still cannot accept a single woman’s “lifestyle” choice.

If Democrats want us out of Iraq immediately, they should say so very clearly and then vote to cut off all future funding for this particular war effort. But instead, they try to sway popular sentiment in order to avoid having to take a stand. At least if they did the former, I could respect them.

[This article can also be found at Release The Hounds!]

Be Sociable, Share!