Boy, what a ride.
First, she refused to testify. She refused to address the many contradictions between her recent statements about 9/11 and previous sworn testimony, including that of Richard Clarke. She refused to testify to the Presidentially appointed Commission investigating 9/11; she refused to appear in public and answer critical questions under oath.
Meanwhile, she was seen on every news interview show between here and the planet Mars, ripping her new nemesis, Richard Clarke; but folks like Katie Couric and Oprah Winfrey don't have the power to file charges when a guest perjures themselves, so a bit of hypocrisy seemed to raise it's gigantic ugly head like those two little black curly horns that jut out from the sides of her doo (I believe it's hair?).
Then--after the majority of the American public awoke from their standard, self-induced somnambulant slumber and asked "WHAT DOES THE PRESIDENT HAVE TO HIDE?"-- the administration quickly changed its mind (probably the only time in history) and decided to defuse the potential electorate time-bomb, allowing Rice to audition for "American Idol from Hell" before a special Committee made up of sedated Republican Paula Abduls and pissed-off Democratic Simons.
Boy, what a SHOW! All we're missing is Janet Jackson, that little monkey-faced boy-band singer, and a costume malfunction!
Okay. Okay.
Well, it's over for now. Condoleeza Rice finally appeared before America and, for the first time in three long years, an official of the Bush administration HAD TO TELL THE TRUTH, THE WHOLE TRUTH, AND NOTHING BUT THE TRUTH! (mark your calendars, folks!)
As of mid-morning, Rice had spoken more words and been seen for a longer period of time by the American people than President Bush and Vice President Cheney COMBINED over a THREE YEAR PERIOD. (Guinness Book officials are currently searching their files to see if our National Security Advisor set a new record.)
It wasn't a home run and it wasn't a strike out; it was a draw, the kind we're becoming used to in this incredibly divided nation that is ruled by a "uniter, not a divider".
For true believers on both sides, (that's all there are anymore), Rice's testimony will surely prove whatever anybody wants it "to prove": vague ambiguities will be seen as concrete pronouncements; concrete pronouncements will be interpreted as loose analogies.
That's the way it is with true believers.
Republicans, Neo-Cons, Bush supporters, and reactionaries saw her as a combination of Madonna (the first divine version) and Margaret Thatcher on a bulimic binge.
Democrats, progressives, and liberals saw her as a combination of Medusa and Martha Stewart. (And what is it with Rice, Cheney, and Bush where they're all able to smile when saying something incredibly serious, tragic, or hateful? I've never seen anything like it! It reminds me of the public speaking habits of Hannibal Lechter.)
Article comments
— go to most recent comments1 - David Flanagan
she refused to appear in public and answer critical questions under oath.
Shark,
Your bias is showing through here. Dr. Rice was not allowed to testify. If you want to blame anyone on that point, you have to blame the President.
As far as your points about people reading in what they want, I can tell you that we partisans, you and I, will most certainly do that. What I hope is that those who are yet undecided in this election season will see Dr. Rice for the intelligent and accomplished woman that she is.
As far as her trying to fill the time up, I think that also has no basis in truth. Democrats praise Senator Kerry to no end for his ability to "nuance" issues, yet they accuse Dr. Rice of wasting time when she simply is trying to explain complex issues.
If there was ANY doubt as to whether the 9/11 Commission was about politics, then I think it became very clear today how political this whole thing is as participants in the audience started applauding at various times while Dr. Rice was treated like some kind of criminal on a witness stand.
I think going after Dr. Rice that way was a big mistake on their part because it made her into a sympathetic figure. There she was, calmly trying to answer, and they started snipping at her and cutting her off.
It started to sound like a talk show with the host cutting off the guest, trying to force Dr. Rice into saying only what they wanted her to say at times. It was completely transparent.
But thats just my opinion. :-)
David
2 - David Flanagan
BTW - Should have mentioned before that I think the picture of Dr. Rice on the rice box diminishes every point you make.
David
3 - Mark Saleski
...very much like the Bush/Cheney 04 logo at the top/right of viewpointjournal diminishes yours.
4 - Shark
David: "Dr. Rice was treated like some kind of criminal on a witness stand"
I agree that this was wrong: since Bush, Cheney, and Co. are the biggest *criminals in the Executive Branch in American history, Rice should have been treated as an accomplice to crime.
* history will bear me out on this point
5 - Shark
David: "It started to sound like a talk show with the host cutting off the guest..."
You meant to say "a talk show ON FOX" didn't you?
Like Hannity? O'Reilly?
Yeah. That's better.
6 - Shark
David: "Your bias is showing through here."
I hadda laugh at that!
Dave, ya know, I have no illusions: if anyone wanted "unbiased" reports, they wouldn't be reading either one of us.
PS: The name is Shark for a reason, mi amigo.
7 - RJ Elliott
This was, I beleive, supposed to be a bi-partisan, if not non-partisan, Commission whose goal was to find out what went wrong in the months and years prior to 9/11 in order to prevent somethng like this from happening again.
It has turned into a sideshow, a circus, and place for washed-up Senators and Governors to badger those whose testimony they don't find ideologically palatable.
Bob Kerrey, who once was a part of a massacre of Vietnamese villagers, has no moral platform from which to shout at, interrupt, or denounce anybody.
This whole thing should have been a private, calm, rational, civil, fact-finding affair, not a sick piece of political theater in an election year. Oh, well.
8 - Shark
RJ, call me if you find a 'bi-partisan' anything.
The only place you'll find a bi-partisan opinion is in a cemetary.
9 - RJ Elliott
Good point, Shark. But still, this Commission does not pass the "truth-in-advertising" test...
10 - TDavid
I thought Dr. Rice did a good job answering the questions put forth to her. She spent nearly three hours being questioned (a couple of times being drilled) and didn't lose her composure even once that I saw.
Yes, she clearly overused some words like "systematic" and "strategic" and she carried on too long, but if one doesn't want to answer a huge number of questions, the best way is to ramble. Somebody taught her that and she used that technique.
At least she rambled on somewhat intelligently making the commission appear unintelligent at times.
I'm not saying though that I believed everything that Dr. Rice had to say, but I think she put on a good show. Dog and pony show is what I think of most of these hearings.
Reminded me somewhat of the Clinton impeachment hearings.
11 - Chris
Kerrey couldn't even remember to use her right name, kept calling her Dr. Clarke.
Pre 9/11 there was an inability, legally, of the FBI to share information between the criminal department and counterterrorism department.
That is why 9/11 happened.
12 - David Flanagan
...very much like the Bush/Cheney 04 logo at the top/right of viewpointjournal diminishes yours.
Mark,
Here is the difference; on my site, I am actively supporting President Bush. In most of my articles, I'm again supporting President Bush. In this article, Shark is demeaning Dr. Rice rather than SUPPORTING anyone.
How does it help with such an important issue to post a picture of Dr. Rice on a rice box, with all it's racist undertones, with her eyes crossed and looking silly? You may disagree with her, but this kind of attack HURTS any argument that Shark might make.
I believe we should disagree with each other on the merits of our arguments, not mock the person who advances any argument.
There's the difference and that is why I think it invalidates anything Shark tries to say in this post.
Thanks.
David
13 - Shark
David, my team is laughing our way toward an Apocalypse created by your team.
Laughter is the only thing we've got.
(By the way, see also: Mark Twain as to the strength of mockery and laughter;
(see also: various right wing sites that portray Kerry as some dickheaded, beret wearing French pussy.)
re: racist undertones - jeesus, man, are gettin' paid by whats-her-name to fuck with me? I've got an entire WEB SITE devoted to mocking these criminal bastards in every way I possibly can. You should see what I do to the White Boyz!
Best,
Shark
14 - Shark
David, Is it all right with your PC Monitoring Group that I called Justin Timberlake a "little monkey-faced boy" --- or was that verboten, too?
Buck up, man.
15 - David Flanagan
see also: various right wing sites that portray Kerry as some dickheaded, beret wearing French pussy.
Shark,
Here's a rule I've learned in life:
Don't let the actions of others determine your own behaviour.
Obviously, if someone attacks you, you have to defend yourself. At the same time, if they attack you so that they can kill your dog, you don't have to kill their dog to defend yourself.
If someone attacks a person you admire in a dishonorable way, then defend that person, but don't lose your own honor in the process. Thats just my view of the world. I don't always succeed in living according to that principle, but I try.
Thanks.
David
16 - HW Saxton Jr.
Yo Flanagan My Man,It's called "SATIRE".
RE: Satire-1.the use of wit, esp.irony,
sarcasm,and ridicule to attack the vice
and follies of humankind. Get it NOW???
17 - David Flanagan
David, Is it all right with your PC Monitoring Group that I called Justin Timberlake a "little monkey-faced boy" --- or was that verboten, too?
I thought that one below the belt too. What use it is to label people this way? What do you accomplish?
I think you are a good writer, but these kinds of ad hominem attacks take away from the content and the humor they offer is of the kind that requires the destruction of a human being. You've had people mock you and try to tear you down because of what you believe, how does it feel?
Do you really want to be a writer? If so, then I think you're going to have to learn to grow beyond this kind of thing.
My two cents on the issue.
Thanks.
David
18 - Shark
David: Do you really want to be a writer?
Dave, my first paid writing gig was in 1974.
Thanks anyway! I can always use career advice.
best,
S
19 - David Flanagan
Shark,
I apologize. I thought that you were saying somewhere else that it was your goal to get into writing. You may have been joking. I believe it was the post: "I, ME, MAC: The Gospel of Blog."
Thanks.
DAvid
20 - Bob King
I was unsurprised that nothing of substance emerged and that Condi's statements could be reasonably interpreted in ten-thousand ways. That's what happens when you get a politician under oath; an emphasis on the specific task of being as non-specific as possible.
I thought one comment I caught out of the corner of my ear on CNN was hiliarious, though. It may have been Dennis Miller, but I'm completely unsure... but putting Condi together with the Imperial Theme from Star Wars was hiliariously apt.
I mean, the woman makes James Carville look warm, fuzzy and apolitical.
21 - JR
It may have been Dennis Miller, but I'm completely unsure... but putting Condi together with the Imperial Theme from Star Wars was hiliariously apt.
I believe that was The Daily Show on Comedy Central. The best news editorial program on TV.
22 - Debbie
HW,
"Yo Flanagan My Man,It's called "SATIRE".
RE: Satire-1.the use of wit, esp.irony,
sarcasm,and ridicule to attack the vice
and follies of humankind. Get it NOW???"
How is this different that the ignorant Yeager's comparison of Jackson and a gorilla? Was that just satire? Personally, that goes beyond satire, I think it was SICK!!!
23 - bhw
It's different because Yeagley was making a direct comparison, as if it was truth. There was no satire involved.
24 - Al Barger
BHW- I don't understand about Yeagley not being satire per comment 16. He was using ridicule and sarcasm, and certainly intended the gorilla picture to be funny. The obvious point would seem to have been that Janet Jackson baring her breast as she did was exhibiting low, animalistic behavior- even a gorilla could do what she did.
Understandably, most people did not take humor from that. As applied specifically to the case at hand- Jackson- it may have been fair comment, though harsh. Still she asked- BEGGED- for ridicule with that dumb stunt.
The main problem really was how this gesture would be seen as a generalized statement about black folk. Other stuff on his site would do little to make you think otherwise. Bad on him.
Nonetheless, the gorilla picture certainly did constitute SATIRE. You might reasonably judge it to be a poor use of satire, or a failed attempt- meaning that you didn't find it funny. Still, it WAS satire.
25 - bhw
Oh god, not to relive *this* thread, but: he was not, in my opinion saying what you think he was. It was a visual metaphor comparing a black woman to a gorilla. He was saying that a black woman is as "naturally" sexually unattractive to him as a gorilla is. To him, they look the same and create the same "sexual aversion."
That doesn't pass as satire in my book, sorry.