I do not accept for a moment that Sen. Barbara Boxer, D-Calif., misspoke when she viciously lashed out at Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice last week. The petulant harridan did same because she thought she could get away with it. It was not only perfectly consistent with her mindset and character (or lack thereof), but it was also intended to undermine debate on the Iraq war, by suggesting that only those with children of fighting age pay a price for decisions made pursuant to the war – while referencing Dr. Rice’s childlessness. Her toxic comments were not capricious – they were as predictable as sunshine in the desert.
The problems with her illogic are legion. First and foremost, our military is an all-volunteer force. Every volunteer who enlists is fully cognizant of the fact that they might be called into combat. Accordingly, even if Dr. Rice had 10 children, all of whom were age-eligible to enlist – they would be under no compulsion to do so. Ergo, Boxer’s reasoning is without merit.
Her comments are emblematic of the lengths she and her ilk will go to suppress the viewpoints of those they disagree with and look down upon.
However, she unwittingly gave rank and file Americans a clear example of the elitist liberal lawmaker’s condescending view of Middle America. Unlike herself, John Murtha, Ted Kennedy, John Kerry, Dick Durbin, and the ACLU – to name but a few – when one of our military men or women is wounded or dies in defense of our country, we all mourn. For us, military loss of life and injury is not a game of numbers used to advance a morally opprobrious agenda. To us, military loss of life and injuries are not stones on a political backgammon board.
Boxer is more closely identifiable to a pettifogger than a lawmaker, albeit some would argue that there isn’t much difference between the two. As such, her attempt at victimhood also falls short. The outcry generated by her insult is not as she now claims, “a really tortured way to attack a United States senator who voted against the war.” That is a contemptuous assertion intended to suggest she is being attacked for taking some sort of noble and defensible position.
The justified disgust with her comments have much to do with the duplicitous double standards of her kind. Her dispassionate, vulgar attack on Dr. Rice would never be tolerated if situations were in reverse.
Sen. Trent Lott, R-Miss., was severely ridiculed by Boxer and forced to repeatedly apologize for jocund comments made at a birthday party. But Sen. Chris Dodd’s, D-Conn., heraldic plaudits of the unrepentant former Ku Klux Klan officer Robert Byrd, D-W.Va., were deemed acceptable by her – the fact that Byrd still has blood on his hands from the lynchings and suppression of blacks notwithstanding.
Boxer’s duplicity is boundless. She railed against Justice Clarence Thomas because of unsubstantiated allegations by Anita Hill – yet she pooh-poohed and downplayed the lasting evidence of Bill Clinton’s presidential debauchery. In her silence she gave her tacit stamp of approval to the numerous accounts of his verifiable sexual assaults of women.
Barney Frank, D-Mass., was given a complete pass by Boxer when he accused conservatives of a calculated policy of ethnic cleansing pursuant to blacks in Louisiana. Yet not even a hint of concern per the true ethnic cleansing by the murdering of millions of black babies vis-?-vis Planned Parenthood and the abortion clinics.
Has she ever offered similar magnanimity to parents pursuant to Frank’s then-homosexual prostitute lover he had solicited through a newspaper ad, and who had an ongoing affair with a principal of Chevy Chase Elementary – whose school office was also used to make calls and meet other dates? Frank’s lover (allegedly) actually operated his homosexual call-service right out of an elementary school office, and yet Boxer now holds Frank in the highest of esteem.
No one has described Boxer more succinctly than did Thomas Sowell when he wrote, “[Boxer is] an intellectual lightweight who has sponsored no major legislation in all her years in both houses of Congress; [she] is nevertheless a cunning political candidate and ruthless in her drive to stay in office. Her campaign ads are slick, her emotional rhetoric well-practiced and her vocabulary of buzz-words extensive.” (Jewish World Review, Oct. 16, 1998)
The answer to her invective interrogatory to Dr. Rice, per “who pays the price,” is “we do.” Every one of us in Middle America – every one of us who are not members of the ruling elite. We pay the price for duplicitous, self-absorbed elitists who care only about satisfying the desires of their liberal benefactors and staying in office.
Related special offer: