I remarked to my husband today after the hearing that there is a bizarre sort of positive aspect to Condoleezza Rice and her role in this debacle.
Equality on two fronts: She's a woman and she's an African American. And, with a few notable exceptions, she is viewed and treated as neither a woman nor as an African American -- but as the National Security Advisor.
The politesse offered to her during the hearing was, I think, indistinguishable from that practiced for every person testifying.televised. I really didn't see the "kid gloves" as having anything to do with her sex or her race -- it was more a matter of overdoing the protocol bullshit ( a la "my distinguished colleague blah blah blah").
I'm not saying there weren't kid gloves and that it wasn't objectionable -- nay, disgusting. I'm saying it wasn't because she was female or black.
At last, equality at the Executive level. Not exactly the form one might want it to take -- but it's there.
Now... I've posted this as a reply to a few threads, but it bears repeating, even though I'm sure we all can guess at the answer. Rice's justification for Bush Admin.'s lack of response to the Cole Incident was that they felt that an "inadequate response would embolden them."
SINCE WHEN IS "NO RESPONSE" NOT SYNONYMOUS WITH "INADEQUATE RESPONSE?" They thought an "inadequate" response would embolden the terrorists -- but that NO response would, what, BECALM the terrorists?
And why did no one on the Commission follow up with this logical query?
How, exactly, did she think that one would play? Or did she count on it being lost in the cloud of stale smoke she was trying to blow up our asses -- as, indeed, it seems to have been?