Having a Kremlinologist like Condi handle the problem of Jihad is like going deer hunting with an accordion instead of a gun.

Posted by: Infidel Pride at February 4, 2007 4:06 AM

Here is a Memo to Ms Rice.

"Palestinian W. Bank residents: 'We don't deserve a state'"

Posted by: pr126 at February 4, 2007 5:26 AM

Posted by: pr126

"Palestinian W. Bank residents: 'We don't deserve a state'"

Yes,
I saw that also! For once they are talking truthfully.

I say to them in the "disputed territories":
Keep it up!! Don't negotiate with hamas,even though you voted for them.
As for Condi: speechless!

Posted by: Gramfan at February 4, 2007 7:01 AM

Infidel Pride is exactly right.
One of the tenets of Cold War thinkers of Secretary Rice's era was the theory that Democrocracies Do Not Go to War With Other Democracies. Therefore, by supporting democracy around the world against Communism we helped secure our own national interest.
It's an interesting theory, having classical overtones ("Look at Sparta and Athens! They couldn't get along either!"), but it does not take into account all the facts. Surely when the Palestinians voted for Hamas it indicated some of the limitations of democracy alone.
Or as the Mom in me is wont to say, "If everyone voted to jump off a bridge would that make it smart?"

Posted by: AnneCrockett at February 4, 2007 7:19 AM

Condi needs to fly into Tel Aviv with the Reverend Jesse Jackson (extortionist) and the Reverend Al Sharpton (extortionist). The three of them together can extort an honest peace from the Moslems there.

Good luck in extorting peace from the religion of extortion.

Posted by: Alarmed Pig Farmer at February 4, 2007 10:16 AM

I've always felt that the State Department was not the right venue For Condi Rice from the beginning. She see's more, and Knows and understands more about the Palestinians' then she is letting on. But she is towing the usual status-quo line of the State Department that Newt Gingrich has warned about many times over the past few years. Even when Powell was the Secretary of State his demeanor changed to being similarly that of Condi when it comes to peaceful diplomacy with countries that our still trying to undermine the western world at every turn like Syria.

Posted by: Mackie at February 4, 2007 11:04 AM

Notwithstanding the State Department's long and sorry history of Israel-bashing, Rice serves at the pleasure of our Commander in Chief -- the man who made a Palestinian state the cornerstone of his foreign policy and crows constantly about being the first president to do so.

If Bush wanted to upend this sick obssession, her could do so with one phone call to Rice's extension.

Posted by: Charles Martel at February 4, 2007 11:19 AM

"Obviously innocent people are being caught up in this violence and it needs to stop,” she said.

That's it, Condi, scold them good.

Those naughty boys, killing innocent people.

How about a f@#*ing government that defends its own citizens first, defends it own borders first, and upholds its constitution?

Too much to ask for?

Posted by: LoneRanger at February 4, 2007 2:02 PM

Anne

The Sharansky theory, which you cite, that states that democracies don't go to war against other democracies, would indeed work well for countries like Myanmar, Zimbabwe, Rwanda, et al where once governments were accountable to their people, they'd avoid unnecessary wars. However, as Ali Sina points out here, no real democracy can be established while Islam is a factor. Which is why it's doomed in Iraq, and would be in Syria, Saudi Arabia, Egypt, et al. It may succeed in Iran if a majority of the populace there abandon Islam in droves. As Ali Sina states:

Was Sharansky wrong? In theory, no! There is nothing wrong with the concept of democracy. Democracy is better than dictatorship. One profound truth is the fact that no two democracies have gone to war against each other since the early Greek states. It seems that for war to happen, at least one side must be dictatorial.

So, why has real democracy in these countries not worked? The answer can be summarized in one word: ISLAM. Islam is the reason no true and long lasting democracy can be established or has taken root in any Islamic country. Islam is also the reason why these countries have remained poor, underdeveloped and backward.

The reality is that democracy cannot be imposed from above. To construct a democracy, you must first provide the right foundation. The prerequisite of democracy is freedom.

In Islamic countries, people do not have an understanding of freedom. They confuse freedom with anarchy. They fear freedom. Freedom, as defined in the context of democracy, means freedom of thought, freedom of expression and freedom of action, as long as your freedom does not limit the freedom of others. This understanding is as frightening to Muslims as it is alien, because such freedom is not rooted in Islam and cannot be a part of Islamic society.

It is not their own, personal freedom that is frightening to them. Muslims living in non-Muslim nations, know how to take full advantage of their freedom in their host, democratic countries to promote their faith. They often demand even greater freedom, insisting upon freedoms not accorded even to the native, non-Muslim citizens.

What they most fear is the fact that within democracies, those perceived to be their natural opponents - the infidels, or non-Muslims - are likewise free and granted equal opportunity. For Muslims, who seek to establish their dominance over all others through coercion, having instead to compete on a level playing field with people of other beliefs, sets up a challenging and frightening prospect. Allowing equal advantage to those who otherwise exist in natural opposition to Islam, and according them the ability to promote their ideas, or worse, permitting them to influence those Muslims who might be “lured away” to new ways of thinking outside of Islam, is intolerable to Muslim sensitivity. They regard such freedom as a direct threat to Islam.

Muslims cannot tolerate views resistant or in opposition to their own. This became clear to the non-Muslim world with the recent cartoon row that through the encouragement of mullahs, managed to become a full conflagration. Almost overnight, millions of Muslims worldwide rioted in Islamic as well as Western countries. They burned embassies, desecrated and destroyed churches, killed innocent people, all because a Danish newspaper published a few cartoons depicting their prophet Muhammad.

Before any serious attempt to bring democracy to the Islamic countries can begin, we must first lay the foundation of democracy. For Islamic societies to be able to make this transition, they would have to become tolerant and learn to respect people with differing views, while their governments would have to ensure that all freedoms are safeguarded for all citizens, regardless of their faith or gender.

Posted by: Infidel Pride at February 4, 2007 2:33 PM

A far better question is "How can we possibly welcome a "Palestinian" state into the community of nations, when the "Palestinians" enter drenched in blood and gore?"

The only way that we can "get" to a "two-state solution" is by putting aside any moral concern.

Once we put aside moral issues, then sure, we can find a way to reward the "Palestinian" death cult.

Remember all those Conservatives who said that Condi Rice was our saviour, that she would stand in the way of Hillary.

I remember that I pointed out to them that she was notoriously wishy-washy. But they wouldn't hear any of that.

Well, notice that we don't hear anymore of that
"Condi for President" crap.

It's a silence that speaks volumes.

Posted by: Dan at February 4, 2007 4:00 PM

The Palestinains can change but it will take 3 generations to do so that is like 36 years for them probably.

At the end of the day Islam is like Chalk and Cheese to anything it can not mix with. It just does not and will work, moderates are said to fit in the West i wonder why? They must stop reading a certain book. So the same situation is on a grand scale of populations and territory of nations.

Actually here is another notion, Muslims seperate for the sake of seperating be it needing a pray room at an airport, Hospital(has some symthy their) schools, prisons. It's about them wanting to seperate from the rest of the people. Oh and Veils too seperate from vision.
What do people expect Muslims ever giving into democracy if it's a shared system, it can not be done Islam is meant to rule to world?

Posted by: jesusisthelamb at February 4, 2007 4:37 PM

Although I am tempted to hold Rice in contempt, I remember that she is but a mouthpiece for Bush and his globalist CFR puppetmasters.

Posted by: US_infidel at February 4, 2007 5:28 PM

"he Palestinains can change but it will take 3 generations to do so that is like 36 years for them..."
-- from a posting above

The local Arabs, a/k/a "the Palestinian people," will not change and neither Israel nor any other Infidel state or group should be expected to act as if such a change can occur.

The Qur'an is immutable.
The Hadith were fixed in amber a thousand years go by the most authoritative muhaddithin.

The biography of Muhammad, the Sira of Ibn Ishaq and the other early biographers who followed him, cannot be tampered with, cannot be changed.

Here and there, the duty of Jihad may not be observed if the Muslims feel themselves too weak and the Infidels too strong. But the duty will remain, and the goal of spreading Islam everywhere so that everywhere Islam dominates, and Muslims everywhere rule, cannot possibly change.

Unless, of course, you are privy to some hieratic mystery, some magic way not only to re-write or re-interpret, the texts - Qur'an, Hdith, and Sira of Islam, but still more impportant, have figured out a way to persuade a billion quite primitive people to accept this re-write or this amazing new interpretation, undercutting 1350 years of history.

Can't be done. Why hold out false hopes, or ask others to bet their lives and fortunes (skip the sacred honor, most of us lost that a long time ago) on something so unlikely, so fantastic?

Posted by: Hugh at February 4, 2007 7:04 PM

Condoleeza Rice--and G. W. Bush--stuck on stupid. Have they no eyes? No ears? Can they not comprehend what is plain to everybody with a modicum of sense?

Apparently not. As did Clinton and Carter before him, G. W. Bush and his Secy of State Rice are trying to please the Saudis--who are the engine that drives the Sunni side of the jihad against us.

Posted by: unicorns62000 at February 4, 2007 8:33 PM

Although I am tempted to hold Rice in contempt, I remember that she is but a mouthpiece for Bush and his globalist CFR puppetmasters.

Posted by: US_infidel at February 4, 2007 05:28 PM

And the stupidity of Iraqian democracy and the point of view that the Saudis are our "friends" or the knee jerking notion that Islamic theocracy is compatable with American democracy. All of this dogma eaten by Bush and the Clintons at the Council on Foreign Affairs bistro.

Posted by: Briars at February 4, 2007 10:56 PM

"The Palestinian people have waited a long time for a state, and the Israeli people have waited a long time for the peace and security that will come from having a democratic neighbor."

-Rice from article

Have I missed something, or did we not already try that side by side statehood idea say around 1948? And just who exactly, is this "democratic neighbor" who shall bring "peace and security" to the Jews? I sincerly wonder if this woman even bothers to proofread what is initially handed to her. Democratic neighbor? This administration seems to think we're dealing with Socrates. Follow the globalist money trail, that's the only answer that makes any sense!

Posted by: We need G.C. Scott at February 4, 2007 11:58 PM

Negotiating with Muslims has not worked in 1400 years....why should anyone expect it to deserve mention in the turbulent times of today?

Posted by: exsgtbrown at February 5, 2007 8:38 AM

We do need G.C. Scott!

Posted by: A_Plague_on_Both_Houses at February 5, 2007 3:09 PM

the State Dept has been anti-Israel from the beginning, even before Israel's declaration of independence on 15 May 1948. Miss Riso Amaro is just doing what almost all secretaries of state before her since 1948 have done.

Posted by: Eliyahu at February 6, 2007 9:13 AM