Rice: Iran should play a role in Iraq

And if Iran does that well, the US can have talks with Iran re: their nuclear weapons program.

Hate to say it, but what's it about the GOP and Iran? In the 80's, it was Ollie North and Arms for Hostages. Now it's Rice and Iran in Iraq.

Maybe the GOP deserves to lose this November

as i have said in the past.mahmoud has been put alot of miles on his jet.the world is gona see the fruit of his friendships very soon...this is gona be a very bad war.

This is like believing Hannibal Lechter could be a good neighbor, should we bring the chianti?

Rice makes no sense. Fantasy talk from a fantasy lady.

Rice has to be one of the most, if not the most, naive secretary of state the US has ever had. But let's face it. She was a politically correct appointee from day one. Bush knows how to play that game well.

So we can all vote democratic in 08, right?. The choice will be Hilliary Clinton with Pelosi as Secretary of State. With Michael Moore as secretary of defense. It just gets worse.

That's the problem with modern America. The choice is always between bad and worse. Why? Because conservatives, true conservatives, like Patton, could never be successful in politics. Look at the trouble he got in just for opening his mouth. Guys like that are kept out of the political process. Liberal democracy has no place for them. Look at Curtis Lemay and his vice-presidential bid. There was a fighter. But politically he was a dead duck. Never had a chance.

Thus the phenonomenom of naive, or downright leftist liberals, running the show, whether they be DEM or GOP.

"Rice has to be one of the most, if not the most, naive secretary of state the US has ever had."

In the shortest time ever, she has had probably the most outrageous comments of any Secretary of State that I can recall. Most Secretaries of State stay low-key - but Rice seems to keep going for high-profile, foot-in-mouth comments. You would think she is taking lessons from Howard Dean.

If we fail to warn people of the coming war with Islam, their blood will be on our hands (Ezekiel 33:1-6). In order to convince people that Islam constitutes a clear and present danger to the peace of the world, we must first demonstrate that Islam has the will and the desire to destroy us and, second, that they now have the means to do so.

I. The Muslims Have The Will And Desire To Destroy Us.

The Qur'an commands its followers to launch jihads or holy wars of conquest to force conversions to Islam.

Fight and slay the unbelievers wherever you find them, and seize them, beleaguer them, and lie in wait for them in every stratagem of war. (Surah IX:5)
http://focusonjerusalem.com/willislamcausewwiii.html

LIKE ISLAM.....IRAN MEANS PEACE...YOU JUST HAVE TO SPEAK ARABIC!.......Any doubt about the need to struggle against the U.S. means being enslaved by the Great Satan, and losing the honor and the life the Islamic Revolution has brought to this country and the whole Islamic Ummah." - Ali Akbar Mohtashemi

"It is a matter of time... In 10 years you will have quite a number of countries united under the banner of Islamic fundamentalism." - Hassan al-Turabi

"There is fury, fury everywhere ... Islam is escalating and cannot be resisted. I pray that Allah may tear apart America just as the Soviet Union was torn apart ..." - Sheik al-Tamimi

"[I] wanted to topple one [tower] into the other and kill thousands to send a message to American that they were at war." - Ramzi Yousef, the mastermind of the blowing up of the World Trade Center

hate opens the koran....love opens the bible

Rice is a fool, because she's suggesting that Iran might be capable of "setting a positive example"....HA! Is she kidding!

Well supplying weapons, explosives and suicide bombers to iraq is very nieghbourly.

Don't be too hard on Mz. Rice... after all it's good for Iraq to have such a neighbor... Who better to count on for that cup of anthrax, or those 10 kilos of plutonium you forgot to pick up when you last went shopping in Pakistan...

Two Muslim Shiite holes which seem to be made for each other...

Makes me nostalgic for the 1980's Iran-Iraq War.

Maybe that's what Rice is thinking of, as far as "neighborly" relations?

While the mad dogs were at one another's throats, we could do the work of Civilization with less interruption from these anhedonic psychopathic numbskulls of Allah.

But, somehow, I think she is still mumbling "Holy Koran" to herself through all of this ineffectual b.s.

Maybe Hirsi Ali will dope slap her one of these days.

This is EXACTLY as I predicted.

Iran will take control of Iraq after the US pulls out and create an Islamic atomic powered superstate that will menace the free world - the new and improved Axis of Evil!

The US will respond with a major weapon and defence retooling of it's Gulf State allies (Saudi Arabia et al) that will repatriate all those trillions of US fossil fuel dollars.

The next step is the removal of US & British troops (and the handfull of dupes.... I mean, War on Terror allies). They will leave before they are kicked out by the newly constituted Iraqi government.

To all those that like to write off my theory as crap, how is it I keep getting the scenario right and you guys doen't seem to have a clue what will happen next.

Best regards,

Bar

Rice -- the question you should be asking isn't whether or not "Iran will be a good role model"....excuse me for laughing....but rather, ask yourself if you're right for this job?!?

Does Rice think she can play political games
with the self proclaimed muslim mythmaker

who follows no rules but those from mohammed
and his moon god allah the ancient baal,
lover of blood and a fiery hell,

who thinks he's special and hates the Jews,
Christians, Buddhists, and Hindus,
who calls her abed behind her back,

a little man and not just in stature,
an evil man who sees her as a whore,
a perversion of her sex, filthy and more . . .

Do you really think you can control
this devout slave of allah, dedicated
to the return of his spiritual leader?
If you do, I have only one word
for him and you.
Hubris.

I would like to ask Condoleeza Rice how she squares her current statements about Iran with what she said back in March, when she said Iran is the biggest challenge we face, and is a "central banker" of terrorism. How did Iran get from that to "playing a role" in Iraq, in the space of two months?

Condi Rice knows absolutely nothing about Islamic culture, Islamic society, Islamic anything. Her main area of expertise was always Soviet studies (a "Sovietologist"). And after the Cold War ended and Soviet communism collapsed, being an expert in Soviet studies isn't a marketable skill anymore. Therefore, I wouldn't have suggested her for SecState in our current situation, any more than I would have suggested someone who's an expert on the Holy Roman Empire.

With all his faults, Bernard Lewis has forgotten more about Islam than Condi Rice ever knew.

dont worry cair ..we didnt forget about the little boy your islamic monsters murdered;.....The family of Daniel Wultz, the American teenager killed in the Pessah terror attack in Tel Aviv, will attend Prime Minister Ehud Olmert's speech before a joint session of the US Congress on Wednesday. The Prime Minister's Office invited the Wultz family from Florida to be Olmert's guests to honor Daniel's memory.

Daniel Wultz, 16, died last Sunday from wounds he suffered from the suicide bombing at Tel Aviv's old central bus station. Friends of the family said Monday that Daniel Wultz's father Tuly, who was also wounded in the attack, his mother Sheryl and sister Amanda were on their way to Washington, as well as Daniel's grandparents. Sheryl is a relative of Congressman Eric Cantor (R-Virginia), a member of the House leadership.

Do you ever feel like you've woken up in a parallel universe? Everything is topsy turvy.

Helloooo!!! Iran would love to take over Iraq and the world! How can Iran stabilize the region if they aren't stable themselves???

What are they thinking??

Ms. Rice hasn't specified WHEN Iran is going to play this stabilizing role in Iraq she speaks of. Why she has left this information out, God only knows, since that would be the only thing that might make sense out of what she is saying. At least she (apparently) has avoided mentioning Ahmadinejad in this interview. With this bastard out of the picture, and with the mullahocracy gone, it MIGHT BE POSSIBLE THAT IRAN could and would be a much more positive influence in Iraq. But the trouble is, she doesn't seem to be saying that. I am not sure WHAT she's saying. I also think Jihad Watch could have given more of the interview to work with than it has here.

I thought Iran was ALREADY playing a major role in Iraq as well as in many other Asian and African nations through its terrorist brain child Hizbollah, the world's largest and deadliest terrorism organization. Presumably, Hizbollah has been involved in many killings in post-Saddam Iraq. So what IS new about Iran playing a role in Iraq?

There is one possibility. And that after the USA helps depose Mahmoud "A Mighty Nut Job" Ahmadinejad (through an armed conflict) and the Iranian Revolutionary Guard and the mad mullahs Iran will (as I say) be defanged, possibly democratic and ready to take on a more benign role in the affairs of Southwest Asia and the Middle East. We can hope, can't we?

"any more than an expert on the Holy Roman Empire"

Good one!!!

There is a difference between softball and hardball. Bush and Condi chose hardball with Iraq... Now it seems softball is in order with Iran.
Hmmm. Does Iran take a mile when given an inch? Seems they tested a long range missile today.
Now let's let them play a role in Iraq, okay, and what about that statement that Israel should be wiped off the map? Oh of course that was just rhetoric... what about their nuclear intentions, just rhetoric?
They deserve no say at the table! I hate to say it but the Bush admin is tired and looking for the softball approach to terror... thereby securing terror ideals for many years to come in these fanatical terror havens.
We have not learned!

What???? Did I miss something? Since when did Iran replace State Farm Insurance Co. as my "good neighbor"?

The statements and policies of this White House have been so inexplicable, that all of us seriously need to ponder the strong possibility that the mullahs ALREADY HAVE THE ATOMIC BOMB, in which case, the White House policy of walking on egg shells around the iranians begins to make sense.

This was the kind of behavior we became accustomed to prior to the Presidency of Ronald W. Reagan.

What accounts for such delicacy in word and deed?

Another thing.

I want all of you to spend some time thinking about our nation's policies since 9/11, BUT THIS TIME, try to see them through the prism of Iran ALREADY HAVING THE BOMB. Assume they have the bomb, then conduct a full review of our policies. Review it all.

I'm beginning to suspect they have the bomb.

l dont think Condi Rice is as dumb as some people think she maybe. she is prol trying to disarm Iranians with these statements. And at the same time trying to be PC for those stupid EU,Russia and Chinese diplomats. l mean if regular joe on the street can learn the real islam from this website, common sense, l am sure Condi can read as well as any of us.

when goergie-boy go's to meet his maker,he gunna have to go through all of the founders,and the millions of people that gave their life to make this country.They are gunna beat him like a red-headed step-child.(sorry to any red-headed step-children,that might affend).

And I concur about most of the comments about Rice.

And what's more. Her predecessor was out of his depth as well.

Both of 'em, out of their depth.

It was Powell who made sure our IMMEDIATE response to 9/11 focused on Afghanistan, instead of targeting for destruction the foremost terror sponsor on earth, Tehran.

And that's a mistake, that has travelled, and will travel far with us along our path.

The case for responding to Afghanistan was lock solid, but moving on Tehran, seemingly not involved, would have been possible because of the fury of the American people, which should have been used, for a final settlement of all outstanding accounts with the mullahs in Tehran.

But though I consider that failure a huge mistake, the situation is not out of hand, and we can deal with it, so long as see the genuine threat, which is jihadist islam. Of course if we lose cities, if we lose London that failure to immediately move on Tehran will probably be THE mistake in American history. And I don't know if that's the type of thing this nation will be able to live with afterwards.

Say London gets pulverized, because we had the means, the anger, and the opportunity to move on the mullahs, but we didn't. So the mullahs had the time, and they pulled a big one off, destroying London, "mother of all the satans."

I wonder if GW has the MORAL imagination necessary to perceive the future, a future defined by the mullah bomb.

Well, time will tell, won't it....

Hugh uses the word bromide as in worthless bromide. This word fits Condi and W well. Lightweights. Iran can play a usefull role in Iraq. Islam means peace. Islam is the religion of peace. Two states, side by side, Israel and Palestine. Free people, democracy's don't make war. Or, how about that favorite W chimp statement(my personal favorite): "Mexicans will do work that we aren't willing to do or we won't do." I'm sick of this whole crew with the notable exceptions of Rumsfeld(he was wrong on Iraq, but at least he's not an idiot)and Bolton. But Condi and Bush belong together. Innocents abroad! Smiley faced fools.

Lulu, that makes sense, except that I think that people at the top live in a bubble. They don't see the real world. They see the inside of private jets, cordial ambassadors, pomp and circumstance, champagne, caviar, tuxedos, everbody's polite and friendly and it seems as if the other guy is really just like you. You are not witness to the hatred, the filth, the violence, the blood, the cries, the demonic nature of everyday life in these countries. It's not real. You know it's there, intellectually, but, emotionally, you don't feel it. There's a disconnect.

I think this is the kind of mindset that being in politics gives one. A disconnect. And being at the top would definately create that disconnect from the gruesome everyday reality. So it's almost impossible for presidents and secretaries to feel passion about the enemy as we do. They don't see the enemy. They just see more politicians like themselves. I doubt that Rice has bothered ever to watch a stoning or beheading video. It's probably below her.

They know the terrorists are out there, they know islam is a cult, they know the populations are unfriendly, but when you shake hands with the top figures in these countries, you can't help but to feel that you're shaking hands with someone not much different than yourself.

I didn't like Clinton, but I'm sure if he came up to me and smiled and put out his hand, put his other hand on my shoulder and said in his Arkansas drawl, "Good to meet you!" I'd shake his hand and probably leave thinking he wasn't such a bad guy. Human nature.

When you are a president or secretary, the world is not a scary place. You don't encounter scary people. You are insulated from the scary people. All the people you interact with are cordial and well dressed. It gives you a false sense of a civilized world. Bush, Rice, all the jokers at the UN, they all have that disconnect. That false sense of a civilized world.

Iran "will play a role"? Iran has been playing a role ever since the American forces did both the Islamic Republic of Iran, and the House of Al-Saud, a favor by removing their most feared enemy, Saddam Hussein. And once Saddam Hussein was gone, his sons killed, the game of Fifty-Two Pick-Up played successfully, power inexorably passed from the 19% of the populaton that was Sunni Arab, to the 60-65% that is Shhi'a Arab. Nothing else could possibly have happened.

The "democracy" of which Bush is so proud is nothing more than the working-out, at the ballot box, or otherwise if need be, of that inevitable transferral of power. Bush never quite focussed on, never took seriously, the Sunni-Shi'a split. Neither he, nor those in the Pentagon who had such naive notions (one thinks especially of Wolfowitz, a weapons systems analyst whose slim knowledge of Islam was acquired through his years as the American ambassador in Jakarta, where flattered and feted and told everything his interlocutors thought he might like to hear ("yes, I am hoping we will be able to recognize Israel"), he gained the little he knew about Islam. Whether he has, out of decent embarrassment, taken it upon himself to learn more than he knew in 2002 and early 2003, when Bernard Lewis ("the liberation of Baghdad will make the liberation of Kabul look like a funeral procession") was all the rage, and Chalabi and other westernized, secularized, plausible, amiable, clever inveiglers offered such a prospect of such fantastic success (Sunni-Shi'a split? What Sunni-Shi'a split?) that not only Wolfowitz's head was turned. \

Of course "Iran will play a role." Of course the Islamic Republic of Iran will play as vicious a role, toward the Americans, as it possibly can. What does one expect? What one hopes, however, that just as Iranian agents can infiltrate with agents into Iraq, or smuggling weapons in, in order to further Iranian aims, and harm America, so the Americans can send military equipment and other kinds of support to Kurds, Baluchis, Azeris, and Arabs in Iran, to keep several local revolts going or threatening to go off, and inflict as much damage as possible, the kind that appeals by the Islamic Republic rulers cannot diminish by appeals to Islam. Ethnic tensions, hostility, warfare can be encouraged; Iran is only 50% Persian, and the regime can be made to feel that grim statistic more keenly, more painfully. Let it.

But if the end result is the destruction of Iran as it is currently constituted, that would leave, as the winner from the removal of Saddam Hussein, and of the Shi'a rivals, Saudi Arabia. And so it becomes, at that point, even more important to bring Saudi Arabia to heel.

And that is where nuclear, solar, and wind energy come in. That is where the Sierra Club becomes the natural ally of Jihad Watch. That is where the cause of the environment and the defense against the Jihad meet, overlap, become if not one movement, then two movements working for exactly the same ends -- the smallest possible use of fossil fuels -- which will save both Infidels and, at no additional cost (this century only, so hurry!), the planet as well.

Not a bad result.

Hugh, I agree about the need to starve the Saudis. But you know, that is where we come to the biggest stumbling block of all - changing our society from a fossil fuel society, to alternative energy. Our whole economy is based on the fossil fuel nexus. Cars, trucks, trains, airplanes, buses, ships, everything that uses an internal combustion engine, your lawnmower, weedwacker, your power washer. And your plastics, rubbers, synthetic materials, tires, asphalt, including the keyboard your hands are on now. All made with oil.

The money involved is so huge, that it controls the world. And those interests are not going to allow us to switch. Money is power, and whoever has money controls the machinations of liberal democracy. Defeating islam is a cake walk next to shifting the power base that rules the world. Eventually, oil will run out and that paradigm shift will take place. But not until the oil is truly gone. That could take another 100 years. Until then we are stuck with saudia Arabia, and by extension, islam, terrorism, smog, and high priced propulsion sources.

The other day, I saw a headline in The Globe news rag - to the effect that President Bush was drinking again. If it were true, it would better explain his inexplicable decisions than anything else. I confess, he baffles me.

And, yes, the Condoleeza Rice appointment was just another in a litany of highly questionable appointments. Rice is a feathermerchant.

It is my impression that President Bush surrounds himself with female lieutenants. In the corporate world, this is a telltale of a weak executive.

Yankee Infidel--

'What???? Did I miss something? Since when did Iran replace State Farm Insurance Co. as my "good neighbor"?'

Since State Farm already got slammed in California for cheating and defrauding thousands (or more) of the insured...now Condoleezza Rice on Iran is stepping up to the plate.

It's not naivete, it's not ignorance, and it's not even stupidity. If she ever had an edge, she lost it when she became Secretary of State and got boxed in to Colin Powell's form-fitting garment tailored by the State Department. The enormous pressures, incredible power battles, constant lying and misinformation, long-memory vengeful entities, and predatory special interests that characterize Washington call for much more than academic smarts or even good connections. In fact, sometimes academic smarts work against one. So she's fizzling out. It takes gut-level street-smarts, very nimble footwork, and a lot of mazel to make an actual dent in Washington. My hat's off to Tom Lantos, a rep who survived the Holocaust, survived Washington, cares about animals, and engineered the "cut off PA funding" bill. Yippee!!

That is like inviting the fox into the hen house to watch the chickens.

somethingaboutislam--

"I think that people at the top live in a bubble."

I respectfully disagree deeply with you. My experience living and working in Washington brought me up close with a level of powerhungry ugliness that would make your hair curl. What goes on there is unfortunately much more like the movies and novels than anyone would care to realize, and certainly more than I ever thought before I was actually there and saw it for myself.

So, I can't cite chapter and verse on it, but 1)many in Washington know about a lot of bad things that go on in the world and 2) make their decisions based on political or financial pressure or ambition plus 3) the amount of disinformation, surveillance, endless record-keeping, and serious arm-twisting (and of course worse) etc that go on there is almost beyond description.

As I indicated above, those who manage to get decent legislation or other actions through are diamonds in the great swamp. I am sorry to mention this downside to our great country, but lots of great people have had big trouble there--Abraham Lincoln to name one.

Rice -- the question you should be asking isn't whether or not "Iran will be a good role model"....excuse me for laughing....but rather, ask yourself if you're right for this job?!?

Posted by: champ at May 23, 2006 09:26 PM

Good point, Champ! These (yes, these) politicians are nothing but self-serving sell-outs masquarading as statesmen (and women). Republican or Democrats, Americans will soon realize that none of these politicians are looking out for them, their children or their country (even while they blow away billions of hard-working American's tax dollars, at will).

Americans will pay dearly for blind loyalty to party (Republican or Democratic) rather than to their values, but excellent point, nonetheless.

No, I disagree with some of the things that Hugh has written.

If GW has made too little of the Sunni/Shiite divide, has Hugh made too much?

Recently Iraq has fielded a team in international soccer competitions. From what we've heard, the entire country was euphoric about their success. What are we to make of that, because it seems the iraqis came out to cheer, whether they were Kurd, Sunni or Shiite. Could it be that there is something "iraqi, perhaps not as strong as we in the West experience such things, but nonetheless a real, palpable nationalist emotion within the country.

Hugh said the removal of Saddam meant inexorable transferrence of power over to the Shiites. Does he imply by that that the Shiites in iraq will not be loyal to the new government, but to the mullahs in Tehran? Does he imply by that a majority of the Shiites desire to be ruled by a theocracy, not by a secular government? What specifically are we to be worried about that the Shiites are the majority in that country? Look at the recent election results, the Shiites didn't gain sufficient power to form a government on their own, and thus we've seen months of horse wrangling going on, and the Sunnis and the Kurds were able to threaten a bloc formation on their own, and thus have forced out the last Prime Minister. If we're to be worried about Shiite domination, we certainly don't see signs of that domination in the formation of their new government. I think that Hugh is getting ahead of himself, in damning the new government, before the thing has has a REAL, SIGNIFICANT, SUBSTANTIAL chance to either prove its merits, or demonstrate its inability to govern.

Give 'em a chance Hugh, before so sweeping a judgement.

Hugh wants to support ethnic groups within iran, and pay them back in kind for the trouble they've sowed in iraq, and probably, the trouble they've sowed in lebanon as well. As you know, I'm all for paying the mullahs back. But there are problems with Hugh's approach.

We entered a military phase in this war after 9/11. Notice I said "we entered a military phase," I didn't say the war started on that date, for it started earlier, {the exact date of which I'll leave to others to define}. But the American military response started in response to a TERRORIST attack. We know the war is beyond mere terrorism, it really involves jihadist islam. Modern terror is but a modern variant of razzia. Nonetheless, the public and the world still see the thing as one of terrorism.

And here is the problem with Hugh's proposals. Ultimately "support" for various ethnicities in iran must mean MILITARY support. The word "support" alone is a euphemism, and it allows vagueness to creep in, when we need greater clarity in our response. Empty platitudes of support, empty statements of help won't cut. If you say "support" it means arms, it means training, it means ultimately the exact kind of warfare that we ourselves are experiencing in iraq. Thus you would see a situation where we denounce roadside bombings in iraq, while we create and support groups that perform the exact same attacks in iran.

For a cynic, that presents no problem. But for the American people, who are not as cynical as Hugh, how are we going to reconcile that, and explain that.

I don't want to go after the mullahs in that matter.

I have a better idea, far more ruthless, far more instructive, and in the aftermath, the leadership will be gone, and iran will be thrown into the throes of a power struggle. And the differences that Hugh desires to see iran racked by, would come to pass.

How?

We get intelligence when Iran's mullahs and leadership are gathered for a ceremony, a speech, whatever, but we find out when they are gathered within a single spot, or even within several blocks of one another.

And then we hit that location with neutron bombs, which will kill every single thing within a narrow, targeted blast radius. It would be 500 to about 900 meters in diameter. That would be the killing zone. We hit them, using stealth technology. After of course, we give them one more chance to truly alter their behavior.

Of course they won't take it.

Besides the mullahs, we target every single location of the Revolutionary Guards. They are the sword of the mullahs, and so we try to get them too.

As for the military, we leave them be, FOR WE WANT THEM TO STEP INTO THE VACUM WE'VE CREATED.

And we inform them, that if they behave as the mullahs, they will end up vaporized as the mullahs.

The remnants of the regime will battle for control. And then I see the youth supporting whichever group is the most secular. And I think we might see some secular inclinations within the military. THAT MIGHT NOT BE THE CASE.

But it's the type of thing that we can try.

Many have said that if we go after the Manhattan Project, the iranian people will rally to the leadership, the mullahs.

My idea removes from that response from play. THERE WON'T BE A LEADERSHIP to rally to. They'll be dead.

This suggestion is not without risk, nor without global consequence.

The neutron IS a nuclear device, it is a nuclear bomb, IT DOESN'T HAVE THE PROPERTY destructive power of what we think when we ponder nuclear weaponry. NONETHELESS, it is a nuclear device.

Which means that we will have reached for the bomb once more.

But these suggestions I put forth for your consideration and criticism.

Good grief, she never stops with comments like this. Helloo Condi, do you know what Islam is about?

But I have a plan to deal with the Saudis, which would forestall them stepping into any breach created in the region by the removal of Saddam and the mullahs.

It might do to ponder what the frightened reaction in Riyadh would be to the neutron obliteration of the ENTIRE ruling council of iran.

War has a way of changing attitudes.

Especially war waged in the historic American fashion.

We shouldn't underestimate our ability to frighten the hell out of muslim lunatic on the planet.

Do you ever feel like you've woken up in a parallel universe? Everything is topsy turvy.

Helloooo!!! Iran would love to take over Iraq and the world! How can Iran stabilize the region if they aren't stable themselves???

What are they thinking??

Posted by: freewoman at May 23, 2006 09:46 PM

Good question! With all due respect, Condi is nothing but a blooming idiot. And see.. this is a symptom of a disease 'these politicians' suffer from. But then, fear can do this to people.. fear can drive away the balance, common sense and all can see that Rice is devoid of common sense. And, in addition to Condi herfself, Dubya is responsible for this blunder.

Condi has a track record of misleading and out right lying to the American public. Her testimony at the 9/11 Commission established that. For her to get away with such dishonesty just shows what a sorry nation we have become.

The main stream media has it wrong about Islam and is skewed in favor of that intolerant , biggoted, hate-filled dogma. The deceptive tone about this dogma can be traced right back to the White House. The major media , as it usually does, is taking it's cue from the White House.

And the pathetic leadership coming from such characters as George W. Bush & Condelissa Rice is not putting us in a position to confront the threat of Islam. Just the opposite, they are paving the way for the Islamification of America.

----Nossy

And another thing. Have all of you noticed that we haven't discussed nuclear war in this manner since the deployment of the Pershing IIs during the Reagan Administration?

What we thought we left behind us when the Iron Curtain was torn asunder, what we thought we left behind us with the collapse of the Soviet Union, what we thought we left behind us during the flowering of pro-market democracies springing up across the world, .........WE ARE NOW looking dead in the eye, and that is atomic warfare, thermonuclear exchanges.

How did we ever allow it to come to this...........

Good grief, she never stops with comments like this. Helloo Condi, do you know what Islam is about?

Posted by: WildThing at May 24, 2006 01:04 AM

This is the same fool who, after having asked 'Huh? Al-Quida? What is Al-Quida?', said .. get this.. said: "We (White House) know the benevolence that is in the heart of Islam." What idiot (other than Dubya), would see benevolence in the cold, dark & heartless Islam?

Along the same lines: Does Condoleeza Rice Really Believe a Word She Says?

And the pathetic leadership coming from such characters as George W. Bush & Condelissa Rice is not putting us in a position to confront the threat of Islam. Just the opposite, they are paving the way for the Islamification of America.

----Nossy

Good observation! Condi is good news for Dubya (who, cares less about US than his dog), but bad news for American citizens!

I am beginning to think that stupidity and moronity are contagious.

What we're seeing in Washington and elsewhere, is the slow process whereby the policies that were altered on September 12th, due to the events of September 11th, and in answer to the challenges thereof, devolve back towards the policies that prevailed on September 10th.

George Walker Bush ran in '04 saying there were two Americas, one lived in the world of September 12th, the other desires a world of September 10th.

But we're seeing GW's administration slowly adopt the policies and attitudes of September 10th. It's almost as if he were turning his back on the bold policies that his administration devised.

None of us should overlook the ENORMOUS, UNGODLY pressure that he's under from Western European countries, and from the Saudis. Not to mention Russia and China.

AND ALL OF THAT PRESSURE IS TO STOP ROCKING THE BOAT.

Not to mention the pressure from the establishment left within our own State Department and Central Intelligence.

The pressure is overwhelming.

So while we all go off and bash Bush repeatedly, it might do well to recall the amount of pressure he's under.

Dan

He is the Chief Executive - if he wants to, he can carry out a large scale purge of both the CIA and State Department.

And his fear of being unilateral is what is undoing him. If he were to just take out the sites in Iran instead of talking to the EU and the UN, we'd be past this mess.

The buck stops at his desk. The problem with him is that he sees Islam as a force for good. A sufficient condition to be in the mess we're in.

"I am beginning to think that stupidity and moronity are contagious."

That's exactly what I thought.
Has she been in Europe or met some European politicians recently? Isn't there a vaccine against the Eurabia-disease?

I was so shocked. Not at all about the statement itself. I'm used to statements like that of course. I hear such crap twice a day from our politicians and I can read a hundreds of them ( and much worse ones) when I go to German internet forums. Contradicting them means to be called a weak-minded naive little girl (in the best case) or an islamophobe and racist ass-kisser of the evil USA (in the worst).

Human nature is astonishing: you get used to that. Used to the offences and used to live in a madhouse called Eurabia. You are searching for other sane people in this madhouse and you find them, talk with them ( our discussions are much more depressive and sarcastic than this here of course) but that's not enough to maintain hope.

There is as well the certainty that there exists a world outside the Eurabia-madhouse: America, the beutiful, America the free. And that is so good :)

And then this! What's happenend? The birth of Amerabia? Do the Mullahs already HAVE nukes?

1. From a posting above:

"Recently Iraq has fielded a team in international soccer competitions. From what we've heard, the entire country was euphoric about their success. What are we to make of that, because it seems the iraqis came out to "

Making too much about this or that sports event, team, or player reflects sentimentality. A few years ago a great hoo-ha was made in France about Zinedine Zidane ("Zizu"), the Algerian-born Muslim soccer player, whose exploits on the French World Cup team (2 out of the 3 goals scored against Brazil) made him not merely a sports hero, but some kind of absurd symbol, for some hopeful French, of just how splendid a contribution the Algerians were making to France, how wonderfully everyone was getting along, etc. etc. The usual nonsense. It means nothing. If the evidence adduced to support the idea of a widely shared "Iraqness" that transcends mere sectarian and ethnic identities, is a sports team, surely that is telling.

2.

"Hugh said the removal of Saddam meant inexorable transferrence of power over to the Shiites. Does he imply by that that the Shiites in iraq will not be loyal to the new government, but to the mullahs in Tehran? Does he imply by that a majority of the Shiites desire to be ruled by a theocracy, not by a secular government? What specifically are we to be worried about that the Shiites are the majority in that country?"

You've missed not merely one, but several points. In pointing out that once the Sunni despot was removed, it was inevitable that the Shi'a would take power, either purple-thumbedly or otherwise (they were not going to accept things as before), the notion that somehow this implies that "the Shiites in Iraq iwll not be loayl to the new government, but to the mullahs of Tehran?" What nonsense. Why do you write that? Why do you think that? The Shi'a in Iraq are the government, more or less, in Iraq. Why would they be disloyal to themselves? My point was exactly as stated: that the removal of Saddam Hussein made the transfer of power to the Shi'a inevitable, and similarlly inevitable was the refusal of the Sunni Arabs to acquiesce in such transfer. They continue to believe a mixture of nonsense ("we are a majority of the population" when they constitute 19%), and some kind of Sunni Divine Right to Rule ("we are the real Muslims" and the proper heirs of the Land of the Two Rivers, where the Abbasid Caliphate made so much of Arab and Islamic history." You do not read what I wrote but rather miss the point, then attribute a meaning to it of your own concoction (I neither said nor implied anything about the support by some Shi'a in Iraq for the current Iranian regime -- not a word. When I said that the removal of Saddam Hussein, benefited the Islamic Republic of Iran, I was merely stating the obvious: Saddam Hussein had attacked Iran and conducted an 8-year war against it, and he regarded Iran as his most threatening foreign enemy, and the local Shi'a as his most dangerous domestic one.

You then write "does he [Hugh] imply by that a majority of the Shiites desire to be ruled by a theocracy, not by a secular government?" Why do you even write such a thing? Of course I implied no such thing. I was writing only about one thing: the Sunni-Shi'a divide which has existed for 1350 years, to a greater or lesser degree, and which is not a product of American bungling (as Bernard Lewis, now going around telling one and all that the American effort in Iraq could "have worked" if the Administration had not bungled things -- a claim I find both unconvincing, and coming from someone now trying to distance himself from a fiasco for which he was such an enthusiast, unappealing).

Finally, you write "what specifically are we to be worried about that the Shiites are the majority in that country?" Again missing the point. Who's worried? What worry was expressed? I'm delighted that there are so many ethnic and sectarian fissures within Islam. I'm glad that they are to be found in Iraq, in Pakistan, in Bahrain, in Yemen, in the Eastern Province of Saudi Arabia, in Lebanon. I simply want to make clear that this was all inevitable, and that the Bush-Rice-Rumsfeld-Wolfowitz ignoring or minimizing of such divisions, and the inability of so many of those making policy to view thesee fissures as something not to be deplored but to be exploited, infuriates.

I was making a point about the inevitability, the sheer naturalness, of this Sunni-Shi'a split, which will not go away under al-Maliki and will not diminish, as the Administration seems to hope (it can't because the Shi'a will not return, meek and mild, to the mixture as before, and the Sunnis will not accept the status that in Muslim societies, where power is not shared, and compromise is alien, would doom them to loss of political, economic, and every other kind of power that they so richly deserve to lose).

Kindly read what I wrote and do not impose all kinds of non-existent "implications" teased out of it because you so misread in the first place.

Eisvogel,
I believe they have nukes. iran has sufficient to make several dirty bombs at least. Maybe a fully functional warhead, too. That is why thug in chief is so confident. He would not be so had he been months, or years away. And pakistan has already proliferated. To whom other than iran ? We shall know too late. Yes, they have nukes.

l do not think there is anything that can be said to prevent the Iranians from working on their nuclear weapons. Iranians mullahs are crazed enough to want to bring on war(chaos) and their so called prophet.
so targetted bombings will need to be made sooner than later. Many complain rightly so about Condi Rice, and the rest of the GOP, but you work with what you have. l am sure it would be much worse with Clinton/Gore. It will take another Rep. president to clean up, and hoping it would be Guiliani at the helm, someone not afraid of offending the Saudis.

Dan asks, "What accounts for such delicacy in word and deed?" And speculates that perhaps the Bush Administration secretly knows Iran has nuclear weapons already and so is afraid to provoke Iran.

Sorry, it doesn't fit the facts. The Bush Administration doesn't "know" anything about Iran that we ourselves don't know. After the WMD in Iraq debacle, the reform commission concluded it would take at least FIVE YEARS to fix the CIA. Right now, we've still got the same intelligence community that guessed wrong on the USSR, al-Qaeda and Saddam's WMD program. Rep. Jane Harman admitted recently that our intelligence community's knowledge of Iranian nuclear weapons programs is poor. If anyone would know what Iran's got, it would be the Israeli intelligence service and they haven't said Iran has the bomb either.

What accounts for the "delicacy" by our elected officials is IGNORANCE, pure and simple. They don't know a damn thing about the Muslim world. Hence they can't have a consistent world-view about it and how to deal with it.

During the Cold War with Soviet Communism, we would never have had a Secretary of State who didn't know who Lenin was or what Mao Zedong advocated or what Che Guevara was doing in Latin America. In both the intelligence community and in the State Department, we had zillions of Soviet experts who constantly analyzed who was a rising star in the Politburo and who was not; which Communist nations were closely aligned with Moscow and which might be persuaded to pull away; etc. All this eventually led to the U.S. under Nixon creating the Sino-Soviet split that fundamentally altered the world balance of power.

Yet we don't have the equivalent of that for the Muslim world today. We don't have a Henry Kissinger for the Muslim world who could play off one nation against another, exploit regional and cultural differences, etc.--because we don't understand any of that. Perhaps because we're dealing with a religious doctrine (Islam) rather than a purely political one (Marxism-Leninism), the U.S. government is afraid to get too deeply into such doctrinal disputes.

Hugh and "somethingaboutIslam" again discuss the need for the U.S. to stop depending on Muslim oil. And "somethingaboutIslam" is right; it's going to take a long time to convert the economy. I don't think it will take as long as he does, but it won't happen overnight. We have a benchmark. Brazil has finally converted all its vehicles to use ethanol. But that program was started 25 years ago. And we don't have 25 years. We cannot tolerate another 25 years of jihad and terrorism while we're going through the process of converting to alternative energies. We need a quick fix NOW.

And I have one, a straightforward one: Strong anti-inflation policies. In the early 1990's, gasoline prices were falling sharply (under $1.00 a gallon here in the Northeast). Because the inflation of the 1970's was finally, totally over. When inflation rises, the prices of all commodities go skyrocketing, empowering our Third World enemies who make their living selling those commodities to the West. When inflation ebbs, the prices of commodities don't just stabilize, they fall. Often sharply. Which is what happened.

Right now, inflationary pressures are building up in America, thanks to a combination of war (always inflationary), Bush's tax cuts (cutting taxes in the middle of a major war is economic lunacy), and easy-money policies by the Federal Reserve. You can see this in the rising price of gold. And once again, the beneficiaries are the oil kingdoms of the Middle East, plus the socialist Chavez in Venezuela.

All of this would be easy to fix. If the Government boosted the value of the dollar and drove the U.S. into a recession, the demand for all commodities (oil included) would go down, their prices would go down. If even that weren't enough, the Government could institute gasoline rationing, steeply raise fuel economy requirements on new cars, and other measures to drastically cut demand for gasoline.

If GW has made too little of the Sunni/Shiite divide, has Hugh made too much?
Posted by: Dan at May 24, 2006 12:58 AM
+++++++++++++++++

And a 1000 sunni brigade formed by the new iraq government has executed shia and government officials. See today's 10/24 posting by Jihad Watch.

Peace will not be possible in iraq and nothing will change in iraq until the shia totally subjugate the sunni.

Oh my that woman is a freakin idiot. Does anyone else notice that she looks like like Darth Vader?

the American establishment has been pro Iranian for 26 years. It may seem incredible, but please keep it in mind as you read about Rice's "naive" comments

Thus the phenonomenom of naive, or downright leftist liberals, running the show, whether they be DEM or GOP. Posted by: somethingaboutislam

A simple world for the simple minded, affix the appropriate label and conscious perceptive thought is not required.

Were it really so simple as leftist liberals v rightist conservatives.

But it is not.

Your mentality is a reflection of the "your team" v "my team" mindset, Zoroastrian,Manichean (gratis Augustine), a consequence of the bicameral mind of man which limits itself, in the main, to dichotomous, mutually exclusive thinking.

If this type of thinking doesn't change, the west is most surely lost to the barbaric hordes of Islam.