Barbara Boxer accused Secretary Rice of not caring about what happens in Iraq because she doesn't have any children at risk. I can't imagine anyone saying anything more reprehensible or cruel:
Condoleezza Rice came under a shocking Democratic attack yesterday - as a childless woman who can't understand the sacrifices made by families of U.S. troops in Iraq. In a bitter personal assault on the secretary of state during her appearance before the Senate Foreign Relations Committee, anti-war Sen. Barbara Boxer fumed that Rice didn't com prehend the "price" of the war.
"You're not going to pay a particular price, as I under stand it, with an immediate family," Boxer (D- Calif.) ranted.
"Who pays the price?" she repeatedly demanded during Rice's Capitol Hill grilling.
"I'm not going to pay a personal price. My kids are too old, and my grandchild is too young . . . So who pays the price? Not me, not you."
"You can't begin to imagine how you celebrate any holiday or birthday. There's an absence. It's not like the person's never been there. They always were there, and now they're not, and you're looking at an empty hole."
What a repugnant thing for Senator Boxer to say. She really scraped the bottom of the barrel with her questioning of Ms. Rice and she needs to apologize.
Newsbusters is just as sickened:
Is it not outrageous that Senator Barbara Boxer (Dem, Cal) verbally attacked Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice for not having children as Rice appeared before the Senate Foreign Relations Committee on Thursday to discuss the Administrations position on Bush's Iraq military "surge" plans? Is this an acceptable criticism of a political official? Is the fact that an official might not have children reason to doubt their capacity for policy making or ability to advise an administration?
Is this the Democrat's new era of niceness, their less rancorous way of governing?
Update: AJ Strata is spot on when he places Boxer's comments in the larger picture:
While losing a loved on is hard, it should not be seen as 'paying a price'. We all die. Some get to chose whether their death is for a good cause or is simply a useless loss. Drunk drivers cause useless losses. They make others 'pay a price'. Criminals make others 'pay a price'. What has been happening on the battlefields of late is a 'sacrifice'. It is a priceless gift someone gave to all of us. It is an honorable sacrifice. And that is how those close to the person lost see it. They lost their loved one, yes. But they take pride and solace in the fact that loved one died doing what they wanted and in a cause they believed in
As some of you know, my husband's cousin, SFC Jim Priestap, was killed in Iraq by a terrorist sniper on Thanksgiving day, and let me say that AJ is absolutely correct. Jim's death was not a "price" that he "paid." It was an amazing sacrifice, and those of us who are lucky enough to be related to him or even know him are so honored and humbled that he chose to risk, and ultimately give, his life for his country and all it stands for.
That is the difference in 'paying a price' and making a sacrifice - the intentions of the one who died are either in conflict with conditions of the loss or in support of the conditions. Boxer is too BDS driven to comprehend the difference. In fact, she clearly implies to die for one's country is to 'pay a price' - which means she really should not be in a leadership role. If she and her family cannot understand why people volunteer to fight and possibly die for this country, then they do not have the wisdom and insight to lead those people.