She was not being evasive. At all.
On normal speech, it would be. But the Congressional hearing is the baliwick of the Senator for rhetorical flourish. If it’s not an unqualified “no” full stop, he can spin however he likes.
His bullying, however, is blatant and recorded.
First, she thought she was at a hearing to examine a topic of concern, not serve as a political punching bag.
Second, she clearly does say no, and other statements are semantic equivalents, and in fact are more blanket in nature. She says she does not support terrorist organizations, and Senator Kennedy procedes to itemize organizations.
Third, she didn’t veer off to talk about Iran. He asked her about Iran.
She only sounds weasely to someone not giving her a chance to answer in her own terms. “Answer yes or no” is the refuge of someone who doesn’t understand nuance or wants to manipulate the response.
A less polite response might be, " No, do you support the Aryan Brotherhood, because you sound like a racist."
But I’m sure that would get her more criticism than him, too.
And she gave me the impression that she was trying to give complete answers as a guest, not a hostile witness, of that committee.
Fair enough. I don’t mind disagreeing about the absolute effectiveness of her responses, since I think we can all agree she came off better than Kennedy.
I had a thought: I wonder if there’s any chance that the majority of actual Hamas supporters (or at least those who think of them as a non-malignant organization) in this country are white…?
I know a LOT of Hamas supporters in America. None off them are white. Most of them are Muslims either from Pakistan or children of parents from Pakistan. They don’t rock their genocidal antisemitism on LinkedIn, but on WhatsApp.
I have attended a dinner of the Association of Pakistani-American Physicians and the table conversation was EXTREMELY antisemitic and dehumanizing.
She said no clearly, and unequivically. I don’t understand why you’re giving this prick any slack.
It’s a good thing that she did give a clear, unambiguous “no” to every question, then.
That’s very disappointing. Thanks for sharing (no snark intended).
So? His people won’t care and there will be no repercussions. He could have called her every slit in the book and it would not matter.
And don’t forget the quarterwit politician’s comment about “hide [her] head in a bag”. Yeah, that’s not a bigoted comment. Like Hell it’s not.
I’m still curious how the fuck the other poster gets the idea she’s been evasive. I find her answer to that bigot eighthwit to be clear and her denial of supporting terrorists came through bright and shining.
The answer given,
“You support Hamas, do you not?” Kennedy asked,
“Hamas is a foreign terrorist organization that I do not support …” Berry responded.
is a far stronger response than,
“You support Hamas, do you not?” Kennedy asked,
“No.” Berry responded.
could ever hope to be. Since, ya know, the answer given clearly states that Hamas is a terrorist organization while the simple ‘no’ does not.
I’m honestly surprised Kennedy didn’t accuse her of lying because her faith demands it.
Chairperson Dick Durbin apparently weaseled his way through this one.
From GOP Sen. John Kennedy To Arab American Witness: 'You Support Hamas, Don't You?’
Way to be a champion there, buddy boy.
Her very first response wasn’t “no,” it was (not going back to watch again) something like “I’m glad you asked that question …”
In my opinion (which is obviously a minority view) that came across as somewhat evasive and gave the prick the slack he needed to treat her subsequent answers as equivocal.
Not as clear and unambiguous as beginning each response with “no.”
We’ll just have to agree to disagree.
But that wasn’t her first answer (see above). And we may just have to disagree on whether saying “no” immediately would have been the best response.
Can I respectfully ask for a truce on this point? We all agree Kennedy is a monumentally stupid and bigoted asshole who should probably be censured for his behavior and comments. Louisiana should be ashamed for electing him.
My only argument is that in my opinion Berry could have been even more effective at highlighting his behavior by answering his questions more directly.
I’ll gladly concede that I’m in the minority on this, and urge everyone to move on to the myriad ways in which Republicans are evil.
Sadly and stunningly, there is no lack of such ways for them.
Up next from Senator Kennedy: ‘I know we’re here to talk about anti-Semitism but I’m more interested in you Jews explaining why you killed Christ?’
Late to the discussion, but I agree with @Akaj insofar as her response would have been unequivocal had she been responding to normal people, but she wasn’t. She was responding to nasty, evil, vile people who will find something to attack wherever they can, regardless of accuracy, logic, ethos, honesty or whatever.
That doesn’t make her wrong in how she responded, and in these vile times there are very few effective ways of responding to these people.
I understand getting the initial impression that the answers were weaselly, because it is in a political context and usually when people in a political context do not immediately answer the question as posed, they never actually get around to answering the question. So you’re primed to believe that she also never answered the question directly, even though she did. It’s less ambiguous than most answers are in a political context.
And in mine, it was her making the point in diplomatic language that what Kennedy was doing was exactly the problem she was there to address. It was intended as a shot across his bow. Nevertheless, he persisted in being an asshole.
Sadly, when testifying in front of Congress one is not allowed to openly call out the malign intentions of the committee members questioning you, no matter how obvious.