| FrontPageMag.com | By Robert Spencer | By Hugh Fitzgerald | Books | Jihad Watch | Robert Spencer | Islam 101 | Qur'an Blog |  |
|
|
||||||||||
|
|
So says Caroline Glick in "Column One: The fruits of Hizbullah's victory," from the Jerusalem Post, with thanks to all who sent this in:
US Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice strikes an eerie resemblance to her predecessor Madeleine Albright these days. Rice's visit to Egypt, where she jumped at the chance to meet with her Syrian counterpart and spoke dreamily of her desire to meet with an Iranian official with direct ties to Iran's dictator Ayatollah Ali Khamenei, called to mind Albright's boogie-woogie with North Korean dictator Kim Jong Il in the waning days of the Clinton administration.In Sharm e-Sheikh, Rice is clearly looking for a way to forge a US surrender of Iraq to its nemeses Iran and Syria. So it is that American commanders in Iraq are barred from noting publicly that the Iranian and Syrian governments are directing the war and killing their soldiers.
Rice's embrace of surrender extends to her position on Iran's nuclear weapons program. Rice and her State Department colleagues oppose both striking Iran's nuclear installations and providing assistance to regime opponents inside Iran who seek to overthrow the regime in order to prevent the mullahs from acquiring nuclear weapons. All they want to do is negotiate with the ayatollahs. They have no other policy.
So too, in recent months the US has embraced the Palestinians. Although the speaker of the Palestinian legislature Ahmad Bahar just made a televised appeal to Allah to kill every Jew and American on earth, Rice insists on transferring $59 million in US taxpayer money to the Palestinian security forces. So too, last week the State Department dictated a list of security concessions that Israel must make to the Palestinians over the next eight months regardless of whether the Palestinians themselves cease their attacks on Israel, or for that matter, regardless of whether the Palestinians maintain their commitment to annihilating the Israel and the US.
Read it all.
Posted by Robert at May 4, 2007 6:24 PM
Print this entry
| Email this entry
| Digg this
| del.icio.us
Wonder what Hugh has to say about this?
Posted by: Cornelius![[TypeKey Profile Page]](http://www.jihadwatch.org/dhimmiwatch/nav-commenters.gif)
at May 4, 2007 6:31 PM
Another wonderful Bush appointee. Is Bush really a conservative, or is he just:
an anti-abortion, islamic-loving, big-spending, illegal alien-sympathizing, Saudi-kissing, port security-selling, minority-appointing, global warming-enthusiast, hardcore liberal?
Rip the mask off of George Bush and you will see it is really Jimmy Carter underneath. As a matter of fact, has Jimmy Carter and George Bush ever appeared at the same place at the same time in the same photo?
at May 4, 2007 6:37 PM
Appearing mentally handicapped, Bush attacked the only Islamic country approved by Saudis. He wins the war, topples Saddam, then pursues his infantile concept of "democracy." Any lesser idiot would have been able to see that a shia majority would result in a shia-dominated government. This would open the door to Iranian influence.
Rice, on her own, is not a strategic thinker nor anything else of value to the United States. She follows the playbook of her mentally-handicapped boss. Arming the "Palestinian" security forces (for what purpose but to attack Israel) is following the Bush policy of Arab appeasement and seeking Saudi approval.
This game of fools would be humorous were it not for the lives and limbs of American service personnel sacrificed as it plays out.
The American people will have to rid itself of a governing elite that is turning the US over to those seeking to consume it, much as Israel will have to rid itself of subservience to a hostile US government to survive.
Posted by: unicorns62000 at May 4, 2007 7:13 PM
America will be posturing to end the "war". The Bush Administration has little choice. Watch for more policy flips.
Now that 5 years have passed trying to define "the mission" and "victory", without naming any clear ememy, the country will now have to come up with an appropriate new definition of "victory" under the weight of surrender.
Not easy, but it will be dhimmicratic.
Don't worry USA, you are not alone, more nations to follow.
Posted by: sounder at May 4, 2007 7:48 PM
Should we start sending "Chadors To Rice"?
Or "Burqas to Condoleeza"?
Or copies of the piano score "I'm The Guy That Guards The Harem and My Heart's In My Work" (Ziegfeld Follies 1919).
She'll need it if this keeps up.
Posted by: profitsbeard at May 4, 2007 7:48 PM
the State Department always has been at odds with the rest of the government when a republican government is in the White House it seems it is our own built-in reservoir of frustrated left-wing liberals in the government if we look at history over the past hundred years every time we have faced a major enemy the State Department and its minions have looked for the fastest way to kiss the enemies behind and surrender as fast as possible
Posted by: godisnotallha at May 4, 2007 9:14 PM
Judging by how useful Iraq has been to the US, it will not be a boon, but a curse to Iran and Syria. Let them choke on it.
One thing that IS true, and I have to grant the Bush administration is right about, is that the Jihadis were are facing in Iraq will pop up elsewhere once we leave. However, many will turn against their own governments, or even against whomever is nearby. Considering their tactics, they prefer to kill Muslims above all else, and we can expect this to continue or even intensify after we stop providing ~200,000 targets.
Posted by: Quijybo at May 4, 2007 10:46 PM
Proving once again, in the eyes of the world, that osama is right and we are wrong -- that we haven't got the stuff to fight a whole fight to the finish.
Our military people can do it, our generals can even do it, but the rest of the country??? Tap us twice and we go over like a house of cards.
What part of this is supposed to discourage them from kicking our butts?
Posted by: joeblough at May 4, 2007 11:25 PM
You're a wise man, beyond your years, unicorn.
"Appearing mentally handicapped, Bush attacked the only Islamic country approved by Saudis. He wins the war, topples Saddam, then pursues his infantile concept of "democracy." Any lesser idiot would have been able to see that a shia majority would result in a shia-dominated government. This would open the door to Iranian influence"
mentally handicapped....infantile....idiot....
Very succinctly sums up the whole sordid feck up really
Posted by: ewha1 at May 5, 2007 12:57 AM
Rice isn't too competent. Her remarks on Turkey were clear proof of that if such was needed.
But neither is her boss. Look if Bush had actually studied what McArthur did in Japan, he may have had something of a chance in Iraq to develop support. How did McArthur develop support? One way was land reform. In other words, McArthur bought support for his occupation government by giving away land. Now what does Bush do.
He decides on this free enterprise system and flat tax system for Iraq. So instead of controlling who gets the benefits of the system, its left up to the market. That's being a dumb ass. In a war, you have to control the resources and who gets the benefits. And Bush failed to do this.
Posted by: DavidE
at May 5, 2007 1:03 AM
For their forces !! What about OURS?!! NOT AGAIN!
Posted by: MZ at May 6, 2007 12:48 AM
HezbALLAH has to be loving this!! MTHR FCKER'S!
I told you!! She will stall and stall till they do the nukes thing and we will say, 'Well it looks like they have them, nothing we can do about it now!" Keep us in fear! We pay more money!
at May 6, 2007 12:53 AM
DAMN NOT TO MENTION ISRAEL! FK!!!!
Posted by: MZ at May 6, 2007 12:55 AM
TALK ABOUT PORK SPENDING!!! god somebody help me..
Posted by: MZ at May 6, 2007 12:58 AM
Comments are turned off and archived for this entry.
(Note: Comments on articles are unmoderated, and do not necessarily reflect the views of Dhimmi Watch or Robert Spencer. Comments that are off-topic, offensive, slanderous, or otherwise annoying may be summarily deleted. However, the fact that particular comments remain on the site IN NO WAY constitutes an endorsement by Robert Spencer of the views expressed therein.)