Dismiss Notice
Join Physics Forums Today!
The friendliest, high quality science and math community on the planet! Everyone who loves science is here!

News When Condi testifies she will

  1. She purjurs herself

    2 vote(s)
  2. She lies and gets away with it

    3 vote(s)
  3. She tells the truth, the whole truth, and nothing but the truth, so help her God.

    5 vote(s)
  1. Apr 6, 2004 #1
    I want to hear predictions from the world physics community. When Condi speaks she will have to reconcile her story with the facts to some degree. According to the Waxman database, an exhaustive collection of the lies and misleading statements of the President's cabinet, Condi has publically said more things that are patently false than any other cabinet member. What is to be the result of this?
  2. jcsd
  3. Apr 6, 2004 #2
    She's a cabinet member so she'll get away with it. She's not elected, she has no liability. They will make up some story that has the least number of obvious holes, everyone will tilt their heads back and moan, print it up, and America will ignore it because they're sick of hearing about it. Just like every other issue that comes up, including Iraq which most of America has already forgotten (we're still over there you know!). 2 years from now no one will know who Condi is. Conservatives are experts at shuffling things to the bottom of the deck.
  4. Apr 6, 2004 #3
    You might be right Pergatory, but then again you can count on the Democrats to make a huge deal of it, if she did clearly lie, which might counter the Republican lie-burying ;)

    I also think the important thing is that the right questions are asked. Condi Might not even half to lie, if they dont ask the tuff questions, and if she has expertly planned how to avoid the most obvious questions. There is an inbetween lying and not lying, where you techincally tell the truth, but you are leaving out and distorting information to the point where someone listening gets the same impression as if they lied. Condi probably has lot of questions answerable using this method.
  5. Apr 7, 2004 #4


    User Avatar

    Actually, I think they are setting Condi up to be the scapegoat. If that happens, watch how fast certain people distance themselves from her. Of course she'll be forced to resign to make millions in the 'private sector'.
  6. Apr 7, 2004 #5
    Liberals wouldn't know what to do with a case for impeachment if it fell into their money-clenching hands. I think the conservatives are going to slowly start winning over the offices because they are banding together where the liberals are not just fighting the conservatives but also each other. To put it this way, and this is my unsubstantiated personal opinion, liberals seek more money/power for themselves. Conservatives seek to prevent the masses from obtaining money/power, hence keeping those who've already obtained it in power even if it means helping the liberals in the short run. This difference in mindset, while not affecting the principal of their operations (which is why both parties seem to be so similar these days) it is quite different in practice.

    I think you hit the nail on the head here. It's quite easy to change the meaning of a fact, that's why I don't like statistics. It's all relative to your point of view. Politicians are experts at saying things in such a way that people interpret them to be in agreement with their own view. This is the source for buzzwords like "Weapons of Mass Destruction" and "Human Rights." Niether of those two things can be pursued by a subset of population, and anyone trying to convince you so has a hidden agenda. Next time you listen to a politician giving a speech, listen very carefully to the words they are saying. In fact, find a transcript if you can. It's quite surprising how few commitments they actually make compared to how many they appear to make.
  7. Apr 9, 2004 #6
    Who's seen the testimony? It was both ridiculous and self-defeating. One one hand, she often offered praise to Mr. Clarke, not refuting him. On the other hand she makes comments that the President's Daily Briefing on August 6, entitled "Bin Laden Determined to Strike in U.S" did not warn of attacks in the country: "It did not warn of attacks inside the United States," Rice said. "It was historical information based on old reporting."


    You have to love Jon Stewart's comment: "You're ****ing kidding me! Pleeease tell me that you're ****ing kidding me."
  8. Apr 9, 2004 #7
    She ducked and dodged and looked rather foolish.
  9. Apr 9, 2004 #8


    User Avatar

    Ya know Dan those reports couldn't carry current info or pending intelligence... Bush needs people to explain things to him.
  10. Apr 9, 2004 #9


    User Avatar

    Ohhh By the way...

    Those of us who voted she would perjury herself were right. Now what sort of poll can be designed for what the Bush-Cheney team will do.
    here: http://www.americanprogress.org/site/pp.asp?c=biJRJ8OVF&b=44918 [Broken]
    here: http://www.fromthewilderness.com/free/ww3/040804_condi_rice.html

    P.S. Though it remains to be seen if she gets away with it.
    Last edited by a moderator: May 1, 2017
  11. Apr 9, 2004 #10
    I thought she might have, although it'd be hard to prove, with the "did you know that 4 inch knives were permitted on commercial flights" question, I mean, I knew that when I was 8 years old.
Share this great discussion with others via Reddit, Google+, Twitter, or Facebook