Heaven's Cloud

[QUOTE=FirePheonix727][COLOR=DarkOliveGreen] Heaven's Cloud, it would be appreciated that 1)If you're joking about something like that, tell us that you're joking and 2) Don't post just to joke around. [/COLOR][/QUOTE] [color=indigo]Wow FirePheonix727, congratulations on becoming a moderator! Now I can rest assured that people with witty posts will instantly be put in their place and all of the fun will be sucked out of this message board until it becomes a dry, humorless void. Allow me to elaborate on said topic. Discrimination towards a person due to there race or ethnicity is abhorrently wrong; no one should be castrated from society because of the color of their skin or the language they speak. To an extent I feel that no one should be discriminated against for their religion, however, I am going to make fun of Wiccans. That is because I find many of the traditional Wicca practices to be humorous and funny. It is also because I have yet to meet anyone on these boards that claims to be a Wiccan to actually have extensive knowledge on this archaic practice. Don't fret though, if I meet someone that worships Thor by bleeding a ram to death or pays homage to Anansi the spider by piercing their children's body parts at an early age I will poke fun at them as well. However, there is a difference between my playful jesting and discrimination, any idiot knows that. Homosexuals should not be discriminated against because I believe that they truly are just attracted to members of their own sex. That attraction is wholly natural. I do think that bisexuals are people that have to great of a sex drive and not enough self control. Bisexuals need to make up their minds and choose a team before they start screwing around. Do I discriminate against bisexuals? No. Do I find them to be selfish pathetic people? Well, that seems to sum up every bisexual I have ever met. Every bisexual that I have ever met, however, has also ended up being a homosexual. When they finally have that epiphany they usually become much better people. Then again, I am generalizing, I'd be happy to be proven wrong. The only group of people that I would ever honestly, totally, truly discriminate against is a seventh grader that claims to be a Witch and bisexual. First, a seventh grader may or may not know if he or she is gay, but my guess would be that a seventh grader claiming to be bisexual is really just pleading for help. Your hormones are just kicking in at that time and you don't really know up from down. Second, rarely would a true Wicca state "I'm a Witch", however, his or her parents could be practicing Wiccan?s and I could be mistaken. But, since I find Wicca ideology as archaic as episodes of Green Acre, I still find it laughable, Third and finally, I am nearly twenty-four and I don't know a damn thing about the world, I have never truly been discriminated against, but I also don't claim to know what it is like. A seventh grader that says he or she is discriminated against because he or she stated that they are a bisexual witch is lying. They are not discriminated against because of their faith or their sexual orientation, they are just generally disliked and teased by their peers. My guess would be that they have adopted bisexuality and claim to be a witch because it is easier to state that someone is teasing you because of your beliefs than that they are teasing you for the hell of it. I would guarentee that same oerson would be teased and humiliated to the same extent if they claimed to be a heterosexual catholic. On a side note, I just remembered another group of people that I think deserve being discriminated against: people that demand I justify my statements yet have neither the intelligence nor the authority to do so. Fortunately there is no one on this message board that moronic.[/color]

[COLOR=INDIGO][color=indigo]Horrible atrocities occur during war, especially to prisoners. Quite a bit of people are saying that what these soldiers did is no less humane then what was recently done to the security force agents that were captured, skinned, then hung from a bridge and lit on fire. However, no matter what our enemy does to us, we cannot allow out troops to stoop to similar levels. I have little doubt that the soldier?s responsible for these actions will not only be dishonorably discharged, but they will be subject to prosecution. Unfortunately, America is constantly attacked and battered with unfair, unjustified, and biased media throughout the world. Obviously the addition of an atrocious act by American soldiers is like pouring a tanker full of gasoline on an already fueled fire. Our government has to do its best to swiftly find out exactly what happened, who is responsible, and punish them accordingly. Our government is already walking on eggshells, it doesn?t need to shoulder the weight of bad press due to a couple of punks getting their jollies off humiliating prisoners. I do think that it is laughable at best when people condemn an entire country?s military for the actions of a few people. It just continuously reminds me how unwilling people are to hold a person responsible for their own actions.[/color] [/COLOR]

[color=indigo]I think Ms. Spears is a genius. She is such a successful marketing machine that even with the backing of a billion dollar media company she probably still works her tush off on a daily basis. Is she a slut? I don't know. I have never slept with her, nor have I witnessed her sleeping with other people. The tabloids that point to her promiscuity are slightly less than reliable. Sure she dresses in a sexually provocative manner on a daily basis, if I could make fifty million dollars a year by simply dressing in dental floss I would. As far as her talent, or lack thereof, I have no opinion. I wouldn't buy a Brittany Spears album nor would I attend one of her concerts. Actually, I would rather roll on shards of broken glass then be subjected to one of her albums in its entirety. However, she is doing exactly what her bosses and managers tell her to do and she is making a living doing it. Most grownups go to work every day and do a job that they really inspire them to use all of their talent, do you really think Brittney Spears is any different?[/color]

[color=indigo]I am an equal opportunity discriminator, I equally hate people of all races and religions. However, I make an exception for seventh grade bisexual witches...I really hate them. Really, how can a seventh grader be a bisexual witch? Isn't that a biblical sign of the pending apocalypse? [i]And when the sky grows dark and rains the blood of a hundred fallen angels a lone child of the seventh grade shall declare to be both a bisexual and a witch. The sea will swallow the earth, Drums of thunder will echo throughout the air, and man will fall...[/i][/color]

[color=indigo]I enjoyed the first two Blade movies, and I am sure I will enjoy this one as well. The only bit of information I can add to what has already been stated is that HHH from the WWE is playing one of the baddies. Obviously, being the wrestling fanboy I am, I'll go and see the movie. Hopefully the producers will do the same bang up job choosing music for this movie. The last two movies' soundracks fit the movies perfectly.[/color]

[quote name='Serraph-Angel][size=1']Chibi, I am 15, but I mean I dont just wanna give up on her. Only because we do keep in touch, and when Im with her I just feel like Im a different person. But I do understand how you think that I should give up. Well thank you all for your advice, and if I need more, Ill let you all know[/size][/quote] [color=indigo]You are fifteen, do whatever you feel like doing. I really doubt that it will effect you either way. More than likely the relationship won't amount to much anyhow. My advice would be, keep dating the girl until you find another girl you would like to go out with more. Then break up with her. Simple enough.[/color]

[QUOTE=Charles] Or Dupree vs. Cena when I'm not completely convinced he can put on a quality singles match? [/QUOTE] [COLOR=INDIGO]That will be the only worthwhile match on the Smackdown! Judgement Day card. Dupree has all the makings of becoming a great heal, people love to hate him and he is pretty good on the mic. I didn't think much of his wrestling skill until I saw him wrestle a dark match in Cleveland. He can take a mean bump and is pretty sound on the mat. He and Cena are pretty evenly matched in strength and in ring ability so the makings for a good match are there. The rest of the card stinks, actually Smackdown! stinks, period. The only plus of watching Smackdown! is that Rico gets some air time. Judgement Day is not going to be worthwhile. Gurrero vs. Bradshaw, nah. Bradshaw was too likeable as a midcard face to turn into a first rate heel. If they wanted to turn him appropriatly, Smackdown! should have started a feud between himself and the Deadman, after all, Bradshaw was an Acolyte. He doesn't have the ability to shine in a match against Gurrerro. Also, neither of the contenders are good enough mic men to handle promoting a headlining match. Eddie is a phenomenal wrestler but he is very average on the mic. Booker T vs. Taker is a joke. I really think that Booker T has been the most misused wrestler in the WWE. He was a five time heavyweight champ in the WCW and he hasn't even held one major since the brand merge. Booker is great on the mic, can play heel and face, and is an incredible athlete. Obviously it is a fantastic idea to put him in a squash match against Taker even though they have no reason to feud. Anyway, there is no way I would purchase this event. Right now the WWE needs to quit dragging its feet and improve because the brand quality has gone straight down the toilet.[/color]

[QUOTE=Bio][color=Sienna][font=Tahoma]*facepalm* This is rediculous. If this forum were mine, I'd ban the people that blatantly told other people to 'sit down and shut up' because of what they do or don't believe in. Saying that America was created 'under God' is another arguable topic. The US is supposed to be the [b]land of the free[/b], not the land of the Christians. [/font][/color][/QUOTE] [color=indigo]The ironing is delicious. I know this is probably bordering on spam, but I couldn't resist. Hypocritical, I think so. To paraphrase "The US is supposed to be the [b]LAND OF THE FREE[/b] and if you disagree I will [b]BAN YOU[/b]". [i]by the way I know that isn't what you meant but it is sure how your paragraph reads :p...[/i][/color]

[color=indigo]?His Royal Badness?, ?His Purple Highness?, however you choose to refer to him, Prince is an undeniable music icon. His lyrics ooze with sexuality. His voice is screechingly sensual. And his instrumentals are so complex, so profound that I can only classify them as spiritual. Prince is a prodigy, and the record industry recognized immediately. His conception into Rock and Roll began with an unprecedented recording contract. Warner Brothers not only immediately gave Prince a huge contract; they gave him an incredible amount of artistic freedom and control. Their gamble paid off. Prince?s first album, [b]For You[/b] boasted a broad, eclectic array of styles incorporating everything from acoustic ballads to fast paced funk. [b]For You[/b] also showcased Prince?s musical ability, he apparently played twenty three different instruments on the record and produced the entire album himself. Although Prince may have been struggling to find his instrumental voice on [b]For You[/b] his lyrical style was instantly defined in the song [i]Soft and Wet[/i]. Critics toted Prince as an over the top virtuoso that was unable to define his musical voice. On his first solo tour Prince proved them partially right, he was over the top. Prince took the stage sporting nothing but an ascot, a pair of skin tight pants, and high heeled boots, sometimes he actually skipped the pants and wore nothing but leopard print briefs. Women went wild. His next album, simply titled [i]Prince[/i] rocketed him to super-stardom. Songs like [i]I Wanna Be Your Lover[/i], [i]Sexy Dancer[/i], and [i]With You[/i] silenced critics earlier quibbs and quips. In 1982 Prince released his most ambitious, and, arguably, most remarkable album, [i]1999[/i]. This album propelled Prince to icon status, soon he was plastered on MTV and booking huge stadium venues. Despite his meteoric rise to stardom Prince has remained a quiet celebrity, rarely granting interviews or making television rounds. He has remained an enigma nestled amongst a sea of all too vocal, camera crazed musicians. I remember the first time I heard Prince, it the first and only time I was allowed to watch Arsenio Hall. He was amazing, so cool and so poised on the stage. He could dance, he could sing, and boy could he ever play the guitar (in retrospect Prince is probably why I wanted to play the guitar). I didn?t think of Prince again until I was fifteen or so. I was dating a girl who loved the [i]Purple Rain[/i] album, ever since then I have been hooked. Unfortunately, Prince got wrapped up in several derogatory stereotypes (mainly due to the whole ?Artist Formerly Known As? phase) and I find that my Prince CD collection is often subject to ridicule by the uncultured and unenlightened. Anyway, I will move onto the principle discussion. Are there other Prince fans out there? Do you have favorite albums or tracks? Does Prince?s slightly outlandish character affect your opinion of his music in any odd way? If you enjoy Prince, do you plan on buying Musicology? If you have bought Musicology, is it good? Have I asked enough questions to spurn a decent amount of conversation? [/color]

[QUOTE=Dan L]By no means does this mean you should instantly get rid of the phrase on the coins, and nor does it mean that that is the conclusion that should be come to in the end. What it means is that you should pay attention to what others have to say a little more often. In fact, if Christians did this as a whole, then maybe the 14% wouldn't have that much of an issue with Trusting in God, because hey, the guys who follow him aren't that bad. [/QUOTE] [color=indigo]At one point in time you said that you would be my "nemesis". I never replied, mainly because even though our belief structure is different we both seem to have this common stance of understanding and respecting other people's opinions. The statement you just made rings true to my ears. There is a minority of Christians that make Christianity look bad, just like there is a minority of Jews, of Muslims and of Buddhists that make there religions look bad. Unfortunately this minority tends too often to be mistaken for the majority. Religion doesn't pervert people, people pervert religion. On to the whole "In God We Trust" issue. Personally I don't care if it is erased from American culture because I feel that if you truly trust in God or a god then a reminder on a coin is not necessary.[/color]

[quote name='ScirosDarkblade']Hugh Jackman IS the star of Swordfish, and if you ask me he was the only reason the movie was good (err, watchable rather; not good). Halle Berry was annoying as usual (boobs, who cares honestly) and Travolta was mediocre at best.[/quote] [color=indigo]I know that I care about Halle Berry's boobs, they are incredible :p. I want to see VanHellsing because I enjoy cheesy, kitchy action films and I am not really expecting the movie to be much more than that. The plot may be rushed, Kate Beckinsale may or may not have a pathetic accent, but at least the movie will be action packed and chalk full of special effects. On a side note, I was hoping that Hugh Jackman would take over Brosnon's role as James Bond. He has that arrogant swagger that would make him a fitting 007.[/color]

[QUOTE=Petey] Concerning the prequel Kill Bill anime, I'm certainly interested. I notice that Tarantino is very thorough in his execution of any film he does. He really loves expanding upon his stories, giving us different angles to familiar material. I think that thoroughness is evident in the Kill Bill franchise. A few months ago, I had heard rumors of a KILL BOOK, written by Tarantino. He wants to do an anime prequel, Vol III might be in the works. It's really quite remarkable. [/QUOTE] [color=indigo]One of the aspects that I always liked about Tarentino was that he left so many possibilities open to speculation in his films. He never tells the watcher why Vincent Vega had to go to Amsterdam or how Jules became a hit man. The viewer never finds out why Marsell chucked the notorious foot massuse out of the window. And there is no real reasoning behind why the various "Mister 'Colors'" were chosen for the heist, or who was responsible for doing what. I like that about Tarentino films. I enjoy plots and charecters that are a bit more open yet at the same time implement very detailed and unique dialogue. Therefore, even though I am a maniac when it comes to the Kill Bill movies, I doubt I would want to watch a prequel or a volume three, nor would I want to delve deeper into aspects of the various charecters. No, I think the movies alone suit me just fine...[/color]

[color=indigo]all your dirty secret secrets and your sweet little lies let?s wrap them up in a present let?s wrap them up in disguise and all your blatant preconceptions and your concept connections let?s tie them up with some ribbon let?s tie them up with misdirection it will be a bomb, baby an epic explicit explosion it will be a bomb, baby it will blast them away all your coordinated complications and your fixated adoration let?s put it in a letter let?s send an invitation it will be a bomb, baby an infinite implosion it will be a bomb, baby it will blast them away let?s wrap it up like a present let?s wrap it up in bows let?s sign a nice hallmark card and wrap it up in shards of pieces of our oblivion and it will be a bomb, baby an infinite implosion it will be a bomb, baby it will blast them away [/color]

[color=indigo] [b]Quote The Raven[/b] pick the bones pick them clean pick all the flesh until the ivory?s pristine and gouge the eyes gouge them out feast on the cheeks the mouth, the snout for one crow may mean sorrow but a murder is always nice it wets my appetite rip the fingers rip them off little lady fingers are tender and soft and pull at the flesh pull it free gorge yourself to obesity for one crow may mean sorrow but a murder is always nice it wets my appetite[/color]

[QUOTE=Semjaza Azazel]This person makes me so miserable that I cannot stand it. He is pretty much the sole source of stress in my life. I'm an overly patient person, but I want to hurt this guy so much I can taste it. I wouldn't, but I want to heh. [/QUOTE] [color=indigo]C'mon Semjaza, a little violence never hurt anyone...oh wait, thats not true is it... I don't think that there is one pivotal, life altering moment that I would change. I would much rather just go back to being thirteen and start things over from there... [/color]

[color=indigo]With the exception of Goldeneye (on of the best multi-player games ever!), I would have to say that Contra is my favorite cooperative war game. Some of my fondest memories include me and my buddy trying over and over again to beat the game with only three lives...I think we did it once. Man was that a hard game...[/color]

[color=indigo][center]The streams of color in blue and grey fade away as the dizziness expels itself as I swell and grow to reality a uniform consciousness a point without stress without mass or weight a circumference I cannot demonstrate without a protractor or a prolonged longing for life so I hold my breath seeking resolve but not death and grow dizzy until I fade away amongst streams of blue and grey[/color][/center]

[color=indigo]I think that I may "gasp" skip Backlash. The WWE has really been horrible as of late. They have tons of talent but no idea what to do with it. The story lines have been horrible and the matches haven't been all that interesting as of late (with the exception of RAW trying to push Shelton Benjamen). Anyway here are my picks. Orton over Foley: This will be Orton's final push Edge vs. Kane: Edge is going to take a victory...obviously. Maybe some interference by Taker Jerhico over Christian, unless Jerhico is DQ'ed after using a hammer or a chair... I am not sure about the triple threat match. I think Benoit will either remain champion or HBK will grab it. I think HHH is going away very shortly...[/color]

[QUOTE=Luminaire][color=crimson]In a literal sense, we did not walk out. We never went in. O_o 600 kids didn't show up to homeroom, first, second, and most of thrid period. The parents have been working at this since the incident occured, but no one asked the students' opinion, so we showed them instead. Besides, the principal couldn't do a thing. We sat there peacefully with our picket signs until we got some attention. We have the right to assemble peacefully. So we did, and the law says there was nothing he could do. The cops couldn't make us leave, or the BOE. He did send out the vice principal to make sure that things were under control. Actually, for the past few weeks, students have been attending board meetings and speaking with the BOE about the situation. They have made a little more progress than the parents. I realize we are fighting an uphill battle on a hill that is almost vertical. But that doesn't mean we are just going to let Dr. O and the issue go. ~Lumi ^_^[/color][/QUOTE] [color=indigo]I disagree. Your principal should have told all of the students to return to class or they would face a discilinary[color=indigo]I disagree. Your principal could have done something, and as the authoritative figure of the school he should have. His job is to oversee your education, and since there was a massive walk out (or "never show up", if you will) not only were the 600 students that attended missing out on Education but the remaining students probably also were distracted from there classes. Being the principal, he should have announced to the students protesting that if they did not get back to class they would be subject to some sort of disciplinary action (even if it was an idle threat). As students, you could have protested in numerous other ways. You could have protested after school camping out on the lawn, you could have had rallys during lunch and between classes, or you could have littered the school with "pro Dr. O" propaganda. Instead you chose to protest during class time, which, in my opinion wasn't the most appropriate action to take. Don't get me wrong, I think it is really cool that you guys care about an administrator so much. I just think that you didn't think your actions through.[/color]

[quote name='ScirosDarkblade']That's because you try to connect the two logically but backwards. I don't plan on seeing a film that is anti-Semitic. There's the logic. How did I decide it's anti-Semitic? Because the people that told me it is are people I trust, and the people that said it isn't were total morons.[/quote] [color=indigo]Well, I know that I am not a moron and I also know that I didn't find [i]The Passion[/i] the least bit anti-Semitic. Did the movie portray a group of Jewish people condemning Jesus? Yes. Does the bible a group of Jewish people condemning Jesus? Yes. So I guess if you consider the New Testament to be an anti-Semitic piece of literature than you could consider [i]The Passion[/i] anti-Semitic. In the New Testament Pilate is given a choice on whether or not to kill Jesus, and is so afraid of the possibility of a revolt that he allows the masses at his doorstep to decide Jesus' fate. Now since, according to the Bible, it was a group of Jewish people that captured Jesus and turned him over to the Romans, wouldn't one guess that those same Jewish people were among those masses? I think that connection is one that Mel Gibson made logically. But, while in [i]The Passion[/i] a group of Jews are portrayed influencing Pilate, it is the Romans that torture and degrade him. [i]The Passion[/i] also includes a poignant scene where the man(a Jewish man) that aides Jesus in bearing his cross is obviously sympathetic to Jesus' plight but is powerless to stop the Romans. I truly believe that people that find this movie derogatory toward Jewish people really didn't grasp the movie's purpose. Using their faulty logic I could easily derive that [i]Malcolm X[/i] slandered caucasions, [i]Gandhi[/i] was made to depict British people as imperialistic, and a grave insult was slung at Egyptians in [i]The Ten Commandments[/i]. People tend to be too sensitive about religious and racial depictions these days. This movie didn't inspire hate, it just gave twisted, hateful people a vehicle. Now, onto the movie's purpose. What was it? I guess it was just to show Jesus getting the crap beaten out of him for an hour and a half. Anyone that hasn't seen [i]The Passion[/i] shouldn't. The only thing worthwhile about the movie is the cinematography. It's message was lost beneath eight and a half gallons of blood and gore...[/color]

[color=indigo]Although I have never been in a protest, I can see how it could be an effective way of voicing your opinion while at the same time informing the masses of a pending situation (especially if you can get media coverage). However, it seems as though your protest could prove to be a bit counter productive. The first thing you have to take into account is why your principal is being fired. Is he making too much money? Does the faculty see eye to eye with him? Is he overpaying the teachers (I know, I know, it is impossible to overpay a teacher, but the board of education may not think so)? Did he commit an immoral act that could get him fired (ie: sexual harassment)? I am sure there is reasoning behind his pending termination. The second thing you have to realize is that by walking out of class to protest you could by hurting him more than you are helping him. I understand that the gesture was meant to be kind, supportive and sympathetic but it is the principals job to act as the authoritative role within the school. By walking out during class time you have either [b]A)[/b] undermined that authority and shown how little control your principal has over students or [b]B)[/b] shown that your principal is willing to allow students to waste valuable class time so that he can further his own agenda. I understand that your principal is probably an awesome person, but that is how I would view the situation as an outsider looking in, and that is probably how the board of education will try and spin the story.[/color]

[quote name='ChibiHorsewoman][color=darkviolet'] Well, on the news tonight they said that in the past 20 Security Advisors have testified in hearings and only 5 haven't. Jimmy Carter even testified about his deferment (is that the right word?) of Nixon back in the 70's[/color][/quote] [color=indigo] Sorry about my initial post, I was trying to aim for irony with my last line and I failed miserably, heh. My point was supposed to suggest the same reasoning that Death Bug pointed out, a National Security Advisor should not have to testify at a [b]public[/b] hearing because of the sensitive information he or she is privy to. Afterall, the National Security Advisor is a beuracratic assistant to President, therefore it would seem more beneficial for the Congressional hearing to request GW's presence. I also think that your figures are off. There have ony been 18 "Assistants to the President for National Security Affairs" (or National Security Advisors as they are more commonly known), I believe the first was Robert Cutler in '52 or '53. Perhaps you mean fifteen of the last twenty members of the National Security Council? Although that still seems like an odd figure. A National Security Advisor has never testified in a public Congressional hearing. I also do not understand why you bring up Jimmy Carter. Many Presidents have gone before congressional hearings, Clinton testified in several, as did Regan and Bush Sr. [/color] EDIT: It turns out that not only is Condeleezza Rice now going to [b]publicly[/b] testify under oath, but both George Bush and Dick Cheney are going to appear before the panel in a private inquery. I guess the Bush White House decided that breaking precedence was a risk worth taking if it would cushion possible damage that this hearing could cause them on the upcoming election. I am not sure with I agree with their motives, why does the President need Rice to testify if he is also going to testify? It seems like it would be redundant. It seems as though Bush is just doing this to placate the media and halt potential rumors.

[color=indigo]Maybe if I post some subtle aspects of the movie that disturbed me Yisan will be inspired to do the same. Although I thought Bruce Willis did a great job playing a subdued, shy man, I thought that he didn't do quite an adequete job coveying the sadness that should have engulfed his charecter. I wouldn't have even realized that was the emotion he was going for if he didn't outright say so during the film. It is easy to see how broken his relationship with his wife and son had become, but I really never got the feeling that he had alienated them until he was speaking with Mr. Glass. [spoiler]I also thought the captions at the end of the movie were a waste. It would have been much better if they just ended the film with Samuel L. Jackson's little line about how he should have known that he was destined to become an arch villian. The look of conflict in Bruce Willis' face spoke volumes and even a half wit could have figured out what would of happened. Then again, I never find those captions fulfilling.[/spoiler][/color]

[quote name='Yisan']I hated this movie. Sub-par plot and sub-par acting. The only thing that saved this movie from being total crap was Samuel L. Jackson. That man can save any movie[/quote] [color=indigo]The only thing that is saving your post from beeing utter garbage is the fact that you mentioned Samuel L. Jackson. C'mon Yisan, put just a wee bit of effort into your post. I am not going to argue with your opinion, lots of people thought it was a lousy movie. Why did you find the acting and the plot "sub-par"? Why did you hate the movie? I honestly want to know why people disliked this movie just as much as why they liked it, that is why I created the thread. :)[/color]

[color=indigo]Heh, pretty deffensive right off the bat, aren't we? I don't think Condelezza Rice, the Bush White House, or any other politician had prior knowledge, nor suspected that the US would suffer such a vicious attack at the hands of terrorists. If they had known, any polotician would have done their darndest to stop the incident...afterall, it would make them a national hero, one that could push any agenda he or she wanted. Did the Bush White House neglect the former administration's advice regarding Al-Queda and slacked off gathering intel on this group? Maybe. It seems as though this hearing has unearthed information time and time again that points towards opposite directions. I honestly don't think there is any reason for Condelezza Rice to appear before the congressional hearing unless she is subpeonaed. I think that I read that there is a particular reason while the national security advisor is not supposed to speak at a congressional hearing unless they are subpeonaed, but I can't remeber why. Probably because she [i]is[/i] the national security advisor and knows things others shouldn't.[/color]