![[personal profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/user.png){kind=small}
Is it just me, or do others find it very disturbing that our national security advisor mispronounces the word "allies" every time she says it?
And that she publicly describes elements of foreign policy as a "carrot and stick" approach, rather than using the more diplomatic turn of phrase "a combination of incentives and sanctions"? What if the leaders of the country she is talking about are watching the news, or are told of that statement? Won't that characterization, as if their nation were a stubborn and slow-witted mule in need of simple carrot and stick goading by the US, offend both them and their populace?
She also stressed that the Bush Administration did not respond with military action to the US Cole attack because they believed that Osama bin Laden was planning to be able to say that he had survived their retaliation again, and they feared that would embolden him and his organization. Yet, is that not the exact situation we find ourselves in now, after the United States military action in Afghanistan? Osama bin Laden has not been captured or killed. He has survived our retaliation, and is presently at large. What provision did our military action make to prevent this outcome, and why did it fail, if this possibility was seen by our leaders and intelligence community as the key reason not to take military action previously?
This entire testimony has disturbed me greatly. Dr. Rice's tendency to give that type of lengthy answer even when asked to give a brief answer and accused of filibustering, combined with the limited time each person had to ask questions and receive her answers, also disturbs me. And those are just my immediate thoughts, without having a written transcript in front of me with which to better make sense of some of her longer, less-clear statements and evaluate them in context alongside previous testimony.
And that she publicly describes elements of foreign policy as a "carrot and stick" approach, rather than using the more diplomatic turn of phrase "a combination of incentives and sanctions"? What if the leaders of the country she is talking about are watching the news, or are told of that statement? Won't that characterization, as if their nation were a stubborn and slow-witted mule in need of simple carrot and stick goading by the US, offend both them and their populace?
She also stressed that the Bush Administration did not respond with military action to the US Cole attack because they believed that Osama bin Laden was planning to be able to say that he had survived their retaliation again, and they feared that would embolden him and his organization. Yet, is that not the exact situation we find ourselves in now, after the United States military action in Afghanistan? Osama bin Laden has not been captured or killed. He has survived our retaliation, and is presently at large. What provision did our military action make to prevent this outcome, and why did it fail, if this possibility was seen by our leaders and intelligence community as the key reason not to take military action previously?
This entire testimony has disturbed me greatly. Dr. Rice's tendency to give that type of lengthy answer even when asked to give a brief answer and accused of filibustering, combined with the limited time each person had to ask questions and receive her answers, also disturbs me. And those are just my immediate thoughts, without having a written transcript in front of me with which to better make sense of some of her longer, less-clear statements and evaluate them in context alongside previous testimony.