The Rice Testimony

Discussion in 'Politics' started by Saham, Apr 8, 2004.

  1. Saham


    After watching Rice frustrate more questioners than provide direct straight answers, my conclusion, also taking into consideration her complete and utter emotionless (is she even capable of emotions?) testimony (I would have expected for a woman to have at least broken down once expressing grief about utterly failing in her job that resulted in the tragedy of 9/11 yet this is not built into her) is that she approached her job (and still very much approaches it) simply as a clock-punching civil servant who could care less what happens to anyone but herself (and possibly her bruthahs and sistuhs *ahem*) for the advancement of herself and them.

    Secondly, it was quite apparent that Bush was fully tied up in the little shenanigans pulled off by Clinton and his sex toys, Paula Jones, Monica and whoever else, and was completely emersed in bringing righteous judgement down upon Clinton's head for his "sins" committed in office, by changing as many policies Clinton set up before he left office as he possibly could within his first several months as president.

    "Divine Retribution."

    Instead of realizing, when presented with clear indications upon taking office, that a strike was pending and immenent, that it would most likely have been done at the start of a new man taking office to run the country: Therefore realizing that, and taking proper steps to thwart it.

    That he utterly failed at.

    And that is why, as I stated before, everyone involved (the security guys) in the failure of protecting us should be fired including Bush, and especially Bush due to his botching this war in Iraq as well.

    I lean toward agreeing with Kennedy that we need to put a new president in place, go back to the drawing board with a clear head (not someone who prances around blowing KISSES), and draft a successful plan of action to handle the most pressing national/international issues.


  2. rgelite



    Only one, the only one you deserve: You're a clever writer.

    Oh, this too: Now you're on my Ignore List.
  3. what a sexist thing to say.. Dr Rice is the most powerful black woman in America today and in my opinion is doing a fantastic job.. she isnt a whining, spineless, liberal coward..

  4. There is no doubt that Condi Rice is a highly intelligent woman and speaker. Anyone that thought that she would have been some stereotypical "demure" young woman is sadly mistaken.

    Meanwhile, I would suggest that her "background" as a Soviet Analyst and dealing with the Cold War and rogue nation-states did not prepare her for the events leading up to 911. Remember, her background is one of an academic.

    Yet, members on ET still refuse to raise their heads above the absurd "political" discussion as expressed in the comments above:

    "She isn't a whining . . spineless, liberal coward."

    When are some of you going to grow up?

    The 911 Hearings are not about politics!!!
    It is about seeking the truth so that we can protect our Nation from ever having to deal with another intelligence breakdown like we saw leading up to 911.
  5. rgelite


    The trap here is the emotional pull to continue in the same vein, rather than simply stopping it. It is a matter of focusing on essentials.

    The essentials of the first post were pure vile.

    The essentials of my post were to share my thoughts about the creature who posted it and inform it that I was rid of it forever.

    The essentials of another's post further underlined that creature's racist and sexist muddle because serious people know that one's skin color and gender don't matter to how one can put together an intelligent argument.

    The essentials of another's post was to confirm that Rice gave as good as she got, cite some background that contains an arguable position worthy of debate ("her background is one of an academic"), then use interpersonal political rhetoric while claiming simultaneously to denounce national political rhetoric.

    When we discuss facts and argue opinions, we get a better understanding of facts and opinions. When we slam each other after having made an intelligent point, it only distracts from what serious people intended to be their real message. It loads up the message with inessentials.

    And while chasing inessentials allows moron readers to laugh and join in with glee, it does cause serious readers to cringe and sometimes even miss the more important point. If not that one, then with a now higher probability of missing the next one.

    To that end, one poster would have been better served had the message stopped at " my opinion she is doing a fantastic job" after having correctly pointed out how disgusting the sexist and racist comments prior to it indeed were.

    To that end, another poster would have been better served had the post stopped at "...her background is one of an academic" after having raised a validly debatable pov about her qualifications.

    The way out of the trap is simply to treat inessentials as if they don't exist. And move on.
  6. My specific remarks about Condi Rice were to promote a discussion on her capabilities, hence my comments about her background as an academic which is FACT, not fiction.

    If you know otherwise, please feel free to post.
  7. Bye, have a good weekend. :cool:
  8. rgelite


    You too, sulong! :D
  9. rgelite


    "When are some of you going to grow up?"


    You have a good weekend, too. :D
  10. Don't tell Oprah that she is number 2.

    #10     Apr 8, 2004