http://www.foxnews.com/opinion/2009/06/22/peter-ferrara-iran-bush-doctrine-working/

What have I told ya'all about Bush's legacy??

We're seeing it formed right here....

Michale....

My point is that Boxer WOULDN'T do it because A> Hillary is a fellow Democrat and 2> Hillary isn't in the military.

Any senator, male or female, is WELL within their rights to tell the WITNESS in the hearing to correctly address "the bench," just as any judge can literally have you thrown in jail for not calling him "Your Honor" (contempt of court). Ask a judge some time if he or she thinks it's a "silly little thing" or not.

Agreed. Boxer was within her rights to do what she did. No one is disputing that. But I feel she did it, not because it was within her rights or not because she genuinely felt slighted but because she saw an opportunity to publicly embarrass a military General Officer.

It's her motivations I question. And, considering her well-known disdain of the military, I think it's a legitimate point.

Again, having said all of that, I still am not convinced it's worth wading though pages of committee hearings to find out the answers to the context question. On that level, I do agree this is silly — there are far more important things to do with all of our times. Like phoning your Dad for Father's Day…

No argument there.. :D

What interests me about Boxer is whether Arnold Schwarzenegger is going to take her on for her Senate seat… but that's more of a local thing to California.

"The Schwarzenegger Presidential Library. Wasn't he an actor when you...?"
-Lenina Huxley, DEMOLITION MAN

Michale.....

I bet Hillary Clinton, having BEEN a senator, knows exactly how to refer to senators and always does so, without fail. I also bet that Boxer would call her "Madame Secretary." And if Boxer didn't, Hillary would be just as right to make a stink over it as Boxer did. And, yes, I would support Boxer if she had dressed down Clinton in the same fashion if she was using "ma'am."

But as for Boxer taking him aside later in private, I have to say: Hogwash! This is a HEARING. It's like a COURTROOM. Any senator, male or female, is WELL within their rights to tell the WITNESS in the hearing to correctly address "the bench," just as any judge can literally have you thrown in jail for not calling him "Your Honor" (contempt of court). Ask a judge some time if he or she thinks it's a "silly little thing" or not.

Oh, and Michale, you raise a good point. If at any time during the hearing, Boxer did not use "General" in speaking to the witness, then I would be just as strongly taking her to task. You are right -- respect for titles works both ways.

Again, having said all of that, I still am not convinced it's worth wading though pages of committee hearings to find out the answers to the context question. On that level, I do agree this is silly -- there are far more important things to do with all of our times. Like phoning your Dad for Father's Day...

What interests me about Boxer is whether Arnold Schwarzenegger is going to take her on for her Senate seat... but that's more of a local thing to California.

-CW

I agree that, in the early stages, it was wise for Obama to maintain an aloof stance. The logic behind this is two-fold. First, blatant US vocal "involvement" might have pushed the theocracy into a violent response. Secondly, it would be a propaganda issue if Iran could point to the US and claim it is instigating things..

Well, that logic is no longer valid, because the theocracy has instigated violent responses to the protests. And, as is clear, the government of Iran is already blaming the US for things, even though the US response has been tepid and half-hearted (assed??)

It's becoming clear that the Obama administration is afraid of offending the Iranian government which will make it that much harder to deal with them over the nuclear issue.

This is a GROSS mistake by the Obama administration. It's clear that diplomatic overtures to the current Iranian leaders is not going to work.

Kissing their asses now, in hopes that they will reciprocate down the road is foolish at best.

The best thing the Obama Administration can do now is to launch a full scale PR blitz in favor of the protesters.

The US is going to get the blame anyways...

"If we are to be damned, let us be damned for who we really are."
-Captain Jean Luc Picard

Michale.....

Secretary Clinton would NEVER have used such a term to refer to Senator Boxer…even I know that.

Really??

Are you saying that Secretary Clinton would never refer to a sitting Senator as "sir/ma'am"?? I'll have to research that one. :D

My entire point is simple.

If Boxer truly cared about this as a "respect" issue, she would not have disrespected a flag officer by publicly calling him out on something that is perfectly acceptable.

If Boxer DIDN'T have a political ulterior motive, then her course of action would be to let things slide and then, in a private moment **AWAY FROM CAMERAS AND REPORTERS** she would have asked the General that, in future encounters, could he refer to her as Senator instead of ma'am.

THAT would have been the appropriate response if it was truly and solely an issue of respect.

But, because Boxer was playing to the cameras and publicly dressing down a flag officer, it's apparent that Boxer's issue had NOTHING to do with respect.

Respect is a two-way street. If Boxer wants General Walsh to respect her Senator-ness, then she damn well better respect his General-ness.

Anything less is hypocrisy....

Granted, we all have our biases here in play, so it's all pretty much a moot point. :D

Michale.....

I just saw a very short clip of the 'ma'am' incident and it all makes sense now.

The military gentleman in question is with the US Army Corps of Engineers and he was testifying about restoring coastal Louisiana in the wake of Katrina...no, check that, in the wake of the damage and carnage due to the drowning of New Orleans in the aftermath of Katrina as a direct result of poorly designed and constructed levees and flood walls courtesy of the US Army Corp of Engineers.

Maybe, if you ask real nicely, Chris will delete your 'One has to ask' paragraph...beacuse, well...that is a silly little question and doesn't quite rise to the level of a 'point'. Secretary Clinton would NEVER have used such a term to refer to Senator Boxer...even I know that.

Fair enough.

I would agree with you. If General Walsh had been addressing male senators as "Senator" and reserved the "ma'am" for Senator Boxer, then that would be a snub.

While this is possible, it probably would have come out by Boxer's people in defense of Boxer and her "come-uppance".

And I also agree that the media and conservatives are "picking on" Boxer over this and it wouldn't have been any big deal from any other Senator. But, considering Boxer's well known contempt and conflict with the military, it is definitely understandable.

Yes, it's a silly little incident that really has no meaning in the large scheme of things. Just as General Walsh calling Boxer "ma'am" instead of Senator is a silly little thing that she didn't need to make such a hoopla over.

One has to ask.. If Boxer, for whatever reason, had Secretary Clinton in front of her and Clinton referred to Boxer as "ma'am", would Boxer have publicly chastised Clinton over that? I doubt it.

But we can all agree, it's a minor point. :D

"Let's rub all these points together and see what we can come up with."
-Denzel Washington, THE SEIGE

Michale.....

I don't know a lot about Senator Boxer but I would assume that if she actually asked to be addressed by her proper title, then the ma'am she received was given with less than the respect she deserved and/or the military gentleman in question was expressing ideas more in tune with the last administration.

Personally, you can call me anything you want except late for dinner...and...ahem...ma'am! I hate being called ma'am - absolutely, positively, unequivocally! It doesn't happen often but, when it does I cringe...with great animation.

Now, without searching out the transcript of the hearing, which would certainly put this in some necessary context, I have to give an example here.

In the military, saluting is a sign of respect. Mandatory respect. But it is an action reserved for the military. Civilians are not supposed to salute military officers at all. In fact, when they do it, it is incorrect. There is one exception to this, and currently his name is Barack Obama. As far as I know, the only civilian allowed to return a salute is the C-in-C (although possibly there are allowances for ex-military, not sure about that one). Now, if an eight-year-old kid salutes a soldier, everyone knows he's not being disrespectful by it, and it's OK with everyone. But say you were in uniform in a bar, and a biker came up and insultingly saluted you. A fight may be imminent, because the respect is definitely missing.

In other words, a salute can be a sign of respect, an improper sign of respect, or an outright insult, depending on the context.

Which is why I'd have to dig out the transcript. If the officer had addressed every male senator as "Senator" and called Boxer "ma'am," that would be a definite snub. Tone of voice would tell a lot, too, so the transcript may not even be enough. But yes, "ma'am" can be used insultingly.

Even if there were no pertinent context to go on, he is in her realm. If you appear before a judge in a courtroom, you are going to call him whatever he demands you call him -- "Your Honor" or "Judge" or whatever. If you call him "sir" he may take offense, even though "sir" is usually a sign of respect. This is his prerogative, in his courtroom.

As it is Boxer's, in her committee room. Sorry, but if Boxer were touring a military base and an officer called her "ma'am" that would not be as disrespectful as calling her "ma'am" in her hearing room. And she is well within her rights to demand it. Anyone who thinks this is "just her" or "just women senators" has not spent a lot of time in DC. Titles are important in that town, and their usage is properly given even on the street -- but when in an official hearing, not using them is indeed a sign of disrespect, even if "ma'am" is usually OK. She is not a ranking officer. She is a United States Senator, and if she wants to be addressed by her title, then you better do so. Just because the news media had a little fun with it doesn't change that. She certainly isn't the first to demand it (male senators do it all the time, and it doesn't make the news).

Hmmph.

-CW

The problem as I see it, is that rank and file Democrats (and, to be fair, independents) put Obama on such a high pedestal that the only way to go IS down.

They hyped Obama as the coming messiah and NO ONE can live up to such hype..

Forgive the crude terminology, but Obama's legions have stepped on their wee-wees and Obama (and the country) is going to pay the price.

If Obama can show the same guts and mettle in Iran (and North Korea) that he showed in dealing with the Somalia pirates, then his popularity with Joe & Jane Voter will sky rocket..

Of course, he'll piss off his base, but c'est la vie... :D

Michale.....

I think you may be right about President Obama taking a hit on this - from all sides - if things take a turn for the worse in Iran. I base that simply on the reactions that he typically receives from his so-called supporters - especially those who like to call themselves progressives - not to mention the typical Republican reaction.

I also agree with you that President Obama is handling this crisis quite deftly. But, then again, that is not too surprising considering the intellect of the President and the sage advice that he is receiving on this issue from you know who.

And, by the way...what do you propose we do about the ‘average Joe and Jane voter’ and their collective knack for inviting a 100% chance that President Obama will be blamed and for ensuring that there is a 100% chance that those accusations will stick!

Sorry, Chris, but I have to call foul on this one.

In the military, civilian leaders are always referred to as "sir" or "ma'am". The General was not being disrespectful at all.

This is simply a childish attempt by Boxer to display her well-known contempt for the military.

@Liz

Depending on the next move of the Supreme leader, over the course of the next hours and days, President Obama may no longer have the luxury of a measured response.

Very well said.

I think that A> Obama is doing the right thing, but 2> is going to take a real hit on this.

Why? Simple. Things WILL blow up over the next few days. There will be a HUGE crackdown by the theocracy in Iran and Obama will have to weather accusations of, "SEE!! If you had been more forceful, this wouldn't have happened!!!"

Of course the logical and rational amongst us know this isn't true, but average Joe & Jane voter will eat it up.

If things do go down this way, you can expect Obama's poll numbers to go even lower.

I give it a 65% chance that the theocracy in Iran will crack down and do so very violently. If that occurs, there is 95% chance that Obama will get blamed for it and a 85% chance that the accusations will stick..

{Michale casually puts away his crystal ball and gets ready for work} :D

Michale.....

On medical marijuana: there is no legitimate purpose to the presence of marijuana on Schedule I. None. Even cocaine is on Schedule II. It's the politicization of a plant, pure and simple.

Now as to the talking point: I've come to the realization that Americans don't value history the same way the rest of the world does. In fact, there are times when it seems like we have no history, or at least no sense of it. Some of it is enforced: even recognizing the existence of history -- say, the 1953 coup -- draws fire from the right for "blaming America." Come to Alabama, and you'll find a state haunted by its history, where the only history allowed in polite company is the one invented by D.W. Griffith and Margaret Mitchell.

I'm quite pleased with the way Obama has handled this situation. It's vital that the focus remain on Ahmadinejad and Khamenei; this can't be about 1953 or 1979. It needs to be about 2009, and the enemies of Iranian democracy must stay Iranians. Inserting the US is neither appropriate or smart.

I will check it out. If you think it's strange to be agreeing with Pat Buchanan, imagine how I feel agreeing with Henry "Mr. Realpolitik" Kissenger...

-CW

Hate to say it as I rarely agree with Buchanan, but think he's dead on when he says things like:

“When your adversary is making a fool of himself, get out of the way... U.S. fulminations will change nothing in Tehran. But they would enable the regime to divert attention to U.S. meddling in Iran’s affairs and portray the candidate robbed in this election, Mir-Hossein Mousavi, as a poodle of the Americans.”

The conservatives who are criticizing Obama probably do understand the situation, but are trying to score cheap political points with those who don't. It sure sounds good to say "We support the demonstrators!" until you realize that saying this officially as the US government can hurt their efforts.

- David

More on Buchanan ...
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2009/06/16/pat-buchanan-praises-obam_n_216347.html