Let’s Hope It Isn’t Contageous
Boxer doesn’t speak for everyone.
David Gelernter has written a stinging rebuke of Barbara Boxer in today’s Jewish World Review.
Reflecting on the news that Saddam Hussein went on trial this week and in view of the recent Iraqi elections, Gelernter observes: “This week should have been a time of rejoicing in America.”
“Yet up on Capitol Hill, Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice had been called before a Senate committee. Sen. Barbara Boxer (D-Calif.) was one of those who questioned her. Boxer was obnoxious and frightening.”
Here’s the crux of his “case” against Boxer:
Rice was defending the administration’s conduct of the war when Boxer objected. The administration, Boxer noted (correctly), has changed focus on Iraq. We went to war mainly on account of weapons of mass destruction and international terrorism, she said. But WMD turned out to be a hoax on the whole world, and nowadays we are told that our Iraq mission is gigantic. We plan for a freed Iraq to inspire and stabilize the entire Middle East and to promote democracy everywhere. What kind of bait-and-switch is the administration playing with the American people?
Rice answered that this is the way the world works. For example, we did not go into World War II to build a democratic Germany. Here Boxer interrupted. World War II, she told Rice curtly, has nothing to do with Iraq. Boxer had lost relatives in the Holocaust. No one had to tell her about World War II. But Rice’s analogy was exactly right. And by the way, using the Holocaust as a bat to beat political enemies over the head is demeaning to Jews and to human dignity. Having lost relatives in the Holocaust does not, in any case, confer expertise in U.S. history.
Can Sen. Boxer really be this stupid? It isn’t that Hitler’s Germany “had nothing to do with” Saddam’s Iraq. Still, the principle that Dr. Rice was trying to enunciate was right on the money. We declared war on Hitler’s Germany to eliminate him as a national security risk. We declared war on Saddam’s Iraq to eliminate him as a national security risk. The main reason for invading Hitler’s Germany wasn’t to establish democracy just like the main reason for invading Saddam’s Iraq to establish a democracy. What’s so complicated about that? Obviously it’s too complicated for Sen. Boxer to comprehend that.
It seems that whenever Sen. Boxer tries getting Dr. Rice in her sights, she’s the woman taking the hit, not Dr. Rice. Some might say that that’s inevitable because Dr. Rice is so intelligent. Others might say it’s inevitable because Sen. Boxer isn’t the brightest bulb in the house. I prefer to think that it’s a combination of both.
Adding to Sen. Boxer’s image problem is that she’s obnoxious as well as loudmouthed. That’s no way to go through life.
What do we conclude when the secretary of State makes a plain statement of historical fact and a senator won’t listen? That it is only natural for demagogues to attack thoughtful, polite officials who are trying hard to tell straight truths about a complicated war. The Boxers of this world ought to be met with single-minded slogans, but no doubt Rice can’t see why she should stoop that low.
I wouldn’t waste my time stooping to Boxer’s level, either.
Cross-posted at BoxerWatch
RELATED:
Book Review: “Saints†Fend Off “Snakesâ€Â
in Boxer’s Political Novel
October 21st, 2005 at 1:16 pm
Rice: No timeline for exiting Iraq
Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice declined yesterday to rule out U.S. forces being needed in Iraq
October 21st, 2005 at 2:09 pm
Hear hear! Anybody care to imagine a world today with Saddam still in full power, happily and cheerfully defying UN puppets and their puppet resolutions?
I hate told-you-so commentaries, but I hope I am forgiven when I reminisce here how in many heated debates it has always been my staunch position, that WMD never constituted a prerequisite for military action in order to bring about a regime change in Iraq.
If ever in modern times there is a legitimate analogy to Dictator Hitler, it surely is Dictator Saddam Hussein. Period. How many more innocent subjects did he have to torture, gas, summarily execute for the world to take note?!
As to WWII, I have yet to come accross a more succinct summary of US involvement:
Which brings us to World War II. And, of course, Rice is dead right: Once the war was over, we spent years cultivating democracy in Japan and Germany. But we entered the war because Japan attacked us and, four days later, Adolf Hitler declared war on us.
Again, Hear Hear, David Gelernter!
October 21st, 2005 at 4:39 pm
As much as I agree with the spirit of the article, the U.S. did not declare war on Germany in WWII; Germany declared war on the United States Dec. 11, 1941.
October 21st, 2005 at 5:09 pm
I stand corrected. This is further proof that the readers here at California Conservative are the smartest anywhere.
October 23rd, 2005 at 8:41 am
Others have suggested that - faced with the impossible task of overcoming Boxer’s impressive limitations — the following quote from Samuel Johnson is the right posture to take: “I have found you an argument; I am not obliged to find you an understanding.”