Condoleezza Testimony

[preemptingyou03]

Originally posted by DKSuddeth
that would just make you full of shit. While those three reasons are included in it, its not the ONLY 3 reasons. Like I said before, disavowing or refusal to acknowledge 50 years of using them as pawns in the cold war is only perpetuating the myth that the US has zero culpability in why terrorism against the US exists.

You, sir, are helping to perpetuate that myth or you're just plain stupid about it. now which is it?

Wait! I think I got a glimpse of what you're saying! You still didn't come out and say it, but I see something in there about the Cold War. I'm "full of shit" for what reasons, again?

Now, if you could talk more elaborately about our Cold War policies in the Middle East, I'll explain my point.

I don't think you see what's going on. You're hardly making any points for me to counter, and when I try, you claim I'm either full of shit, or the figurative noun of bullshit. It is hard to counter a point when no point is given.

I don't believe us supporting Arabs against communism was using them as pawns. And I don't think that is their problem with us, the fact that during the Cold War, we paid little attention to them. Had we not supported dictators such as Saddam, communism would have taken over the Middle East.

 

[DKSuddeth]

but the thousands that suffered under the support of those dictators are the ones that have a hand in terrorism. Throughout those years of support, did the US truly expect that we would not be making any arab enemies because of it? If thats the case, then I have to say that those who believe that are even more naive than they accuse the dems of being.

 

[preemptingyou03]

Do you realize how two sided people are on this issue? Check this out for a second:

- Radicals hate dictators such as Saddam, yet Saddam funded them.

- People in Arab dictatorships hate us for our support of Israel, yet they hate us if we support their government, because after all, it is a dictatorship.

- People hate us for stepping foot on Muslim soil, even if it is to defend Muslims.

No matter what we do, they have a loophole for hating us. If you think our support of dictators got them angry, then they should STFU, shouldn't they, considering when we try to oppose those dictators, they oppose us? If they want us to act against their evil oppressive regimes, they should do it without claiming we're imperialists or Israel's puppet.

The fact is this: I don't care why they hate us. We're their enemy because they defined us as their enemy. If we are the enemy... we have an enemy. We are theirs. Therefore, they are ours. Rather than suggest our enemy is misunderstood or misguided, or has a legitimate beef... we must understand why they hate us, in order to conquer that hate, not to appease it.

If we support their dictators, we're supporting their oppression. Yet if we oppose their dictators, we are opposing their religion. Terrorists hate because they want to. Because they need to. They live for it.

And we shouldn't be scratching our heads trying to walk the thin line of killing them and appeasing them. We should stand boldly against what they believe, but even more importantly, for what we believe.

 

[JIHADTHIS]

Very True Indeed!

 

[DKSuddeth]

so boldly going forth to destroy those who hate us, without caring to know why, is NOT going to destroy terrorism it will only breed more. If you can't understand that then you are beyond help.

you need two things to stop terrorism. we've got one, nobody cares about the other, therefore it will never stop. pitiful

 

[JIHADTHIS]

Originally posted by DKSuddeth
so boldly going forth to destroy those who hate us, without caring to know why, is NOT going to destroy terrorism it will only breed more. If you can't understand that then you are beyond help.

you need two things to stop terrorism. we've got one, nobody cares about the other, therefore it will never stop. pitiful

I think we know why, the question is how to teach them without sounding like we're on a crusade.......

 

[Aquarian]

BEN-VENISTE: Did you tell the president, at any time prior to August 6th, of the existence of al-Qaida cells in the United States?

RICE: First, let me just make certain ...

BEN-VENISTE: If you could just answer that question, because I only have a very limited ...

RICE: I understand, Commissioner, but it's important ...

BEN-VENISTE: Did you tell the president ...

RICE: ... that I also address ...

(APPLAUSE)

It's also important that, Commissioner, that I address the other issues that you have raised. So I will do it quickly, but if you'll just give me a moment.

BEN-VENISTE: Well, my only question to you is whether you ...

RICE: I understand, Commissioner, but I will ...

BEN-VENISTE: ... told the president.

RICE: If you'll just give me a moment, I will address fully the questions that you've asked.

First of all, yes, the August 6th PDB was in response to questions of the president - and that since he asked that this be done. It was not a particular threat report. And there was historical information in there about various aspects of al-Qaida's operations.

Dick Clarke had told me, I think in a memorandum - I remember it as being only a line or two - that there were al-Qaida cells in the United States.

Now, the question is, what did we need to do about that?

And I also understood that that was what the FBI was doing, that the FBI was pursuing these al-Qaida cells. I believe in the August 6th memorandum it says that there were 70 full field investigations under way of these cells. And so there was no recommendation that we do something about this; the FBI was pursuing it.

I really don't remember, Commissioner, whether I discussed this with the president.

This lengthy of a statemtent just to get the end result of answering "I don't remember" is a good example of what I viewed as skirting (especially since it was not in the end a yes or a no, thereby rendering the question itself unanswered). Again, I understand why she answered that way, but I would think just stating she didn't remember would be sufficient.

Overall, I think her appearance today reflects well on the administration.

 

[preemptingyou03]

so boldly going forth to destroy those who hate us, without caring to know why, is NOT going to destroy terrorism it will only breed more. If you can't understand that then you are beyond help.

Please, do me a favor and read some of my previous posts. I understand this is a battle of hearts and minds. I understand, we must know why they hate us. This is a military, law enforcement, and intelligence war... yet it is also an ideological one.

You want to know why the terrorist's hate us, so we can change that. I want to know why they hate us, so we can change them. If we change, they win. If we withdraw, they win. If we reform, they win. If we stop supporting our allies, they win. If we live in fear, they win.

This is a battle for future generations within the Middle East. We must make sure they don't hate us, not because of something we STOP doing, but because of something they START doing: and that is respecting all, tolerance for all, freedom for all.

They live in the world's most wealthy place but live like rats. We need to change that. We need to help them. Helping them, helps us.

The destruction of actual terrorists protects us now. The destruction of the terrorist's mindset protects us in 20 years. We both understand that. I just have a different way to do it. You wish we stop doing the things that terrorists hate us for. I say, that's us and always will be. Like it or not, we shall always support free nations. Like it or not, we shall always oppose terrorists.

Someone here said, you cannot win over the hearts and minds of the heartless and mindless. http://www.whitehouse.gov/infocus/iraq/liberation.html

The hearts and minds campaign is strong now and in due time, it'll only get stronger. We must take the battle to the ideology before that ideology infects more of its people.

If we retreat, it will embolden them. It will credit their will. The longer terrorists avoid capture, the longer terrorists praise them. The longer we bicker here at home, the better off the enemy is. Radicalism and terrorism have been getting more organized and more wide-spread since the beginning of the end of the Cold War. We did nothing to deserve the attacks in 1983, in 1988, in 1993, 1995, 1996, 1998, and 2000. The more we try to see their point of view, the weaker our vision is... our long term vision.

We could have stepped back in 1939 and said, "Gee... the Jewish people are threatening the German's National Socialist Party. Sure, Hitler's a bad guy, but... he's got reasons for his hate."

Of course he had reasons for his hate. The same reasons Stalin and Saddam put down political opponents. The same ideological reasons Osama bin Laden, if given the chance, would use nuclear weaponry on our cities.

We must understand their views, not to reform our ways, but to figure out the easiest ways for defeating their views and bringing about the best of Islam, not the radical sector of it. And Bush believes, as do I, the best way to defeat terrorism is to flaunt freedom to those who have a choice between living free lives and joining a terrorist group.

 

[jimnyc]

Originally posted by Aquarian
This lengthy of a statemtent just to get the end result of answering "I don't remember" is a good example of what I viewed as skirting (especially since it was not in the end a yes or a no, thereby rendering the question itself unanswered). Again, I understand why she answered that way, but I would think just stating she didn't remember would be sufficient.

Overall, I think her appearance today reflects well on the administration.

Doesn't sound like anything was skirted to me. I personally would like to hear ALL the details surrounding the questions. Why would you want to limit her response, and then turn around and accuse her of skirting the issue? I think the more testimony they allow from everyone the better off we all are.

 

[Aquarian]

I understand we disagree Jim. It would be better, imo, if the format of the inquiry allowed for

1) a direct question to be asked. I saw little of this. I understand the need to preface a question in some cases, for the record, but these guys seemed to be testifying themselves (as I said above)

2) a direct, terse, specific answer to the question asked.

3) a period of uninterrupted explanation by the witness for each answer.

4) followup questions if needed (back to step 2 from here).

and possibly a statement period at the end for the witness to add anything she/he thinks might have been missed.

It's the process I fault in this case, not Dr. Rice.

 

[jimnyc]

Originally posted by Aquarian
I understand we disagree Jim. It would be better, imo, if the format of the inquiry allowed for

1) a direct question to be asked. I saw little of this. I understand the need to preface a question in some cases, for the record, but these guys seemed to be testifying themselves (as I said above)

2) a direct, terse, specific answer to the question asked.

3) a period of uninterrupted explanation by the witness for each answer.

4) followup questions if needed (back to step 2 from here).

and possibly a statement period at the end for the witness to add anything she/he thinks might have been missed.

It's the process I fault in this case, not Dr. Rice.

That would have been fine with me too. The sequence of the testimony wouldn't have mattered to me as long as they allowed full and unfettered testimony. It was a little too obvious that a few wanted to 'load' their questions and then limit her response.

 

[Aquarian]

indeed, it eerily reminded me of the end scene in 'contact'. James Woods really made me want to pull a ross perot on behalf of jodie foster: "can she finish can she finish can she finish?"

I favor the formatted approach myself tho, since at some point a yes/no question needs to be answered that way. We all know how effective both sides are (or try to be) at spinning things. Assuming they are truthful, the less words the less chance for spin

 

[Sandy73]

I absolutly loved how she put Sen. Bob Kerrey in his place !!
Quoting him about going after Huessin ..
That demoncrap asshole was shaking in his boots !

I think she did a great job !! RICE '08

 

[Palestinian Jew]

I've been working hard all day and haven't got the chance to dig into the rice testimony, but from the snippets I've read here, it doesn't look nearly as "exciting" as one of the commissioners put it.

 

[phadras]

You are NOT a truthseeker,,, you are part of what the problem is on the left.... ie: Find a way to blame the world's problems on the United States. We placed and supported the shah.. Supported some dictators So what? Fact is these people are not far enough along on the road of social evolution to handle democracy.. Is Iran better off now under the mullah-maniacs.. Bullshit... If our aim during the cold war was to stiffle Soviet expansion and influence in the near east . Good, it was a noble and successfull policy.. What you are attempting to do is justify the stinking bastards hatred of the US... Go ahead jump on their bandwagon... This is the problem with liberalism and why we should not allow liberals to run American foreign policy and national security; you all join the enemy and point the finger at the United States FIRST!!!!! Your attitude "We have to understand them and what we have done wrong that makes them hate us"... Bullshit!!! Paralysis by analysis. Do you really believe we can somehow reason with these moronic ragheads?
Just think what the present would look like if we had not opposed the Soviets... More than likely dictators of a sort that the Sovs could control would be in power and we would be on our collective knees begging for oil.. I doubt the Sovs would have created some Islamic paradise... The US has not always made the best decisions but that's 20/20 hindsight...

 

[krisy]

Originally posted by jimnyc
Her testimony has been superb so far. Anyone else watching? There's a link to an AP feed off Yahoo's main page if anyone is interested.

I think she was superb as usual. She is a classy,intelligent woman. That Ben Vineste or whoever he was pissed me off! I bet anyone that he wasn't that rude to her off camera-behind the scenes. I guess he is just a Kerry supporter. He made a jack ass of himself. What a show off for the camera!!!

 

[krisy]

Lord,their playing some of this again on Fox right now,they really TRIED to rake her over the coals. As I'm sure someone mentioned,members of this commision have turned this into slam the Bush adm. Total a-holes! I can't help it. This isn't supposed to be a freakin blame game!! My 9 year old son doesn't interupt as much as these people.

 

[Aquarian]

just to clarify, phadras, is your comment directed at me or DK? you refer to 'truth seeker' which is my tag, but talk about cold war issues which were posted by DK...