| FrontPageMag.com | By Robert Spencer | By Hugh Fitzgerald | Books | Jihad Watch | Islam 101 | Qur'an Blog | Raymond Ibrahim | Robert Spencer |  |
|
|
|||||||||||
|
|
Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice does not understand Islam. At this point she apparently still must watch football games (we are always told that she is a fan of football -- it's designed to soften, to popularize, her image, one presumes), or practice the piano, or do those other things that the "multi-talented" "scholar of Russia" who "knows Russian" does. In fact, her Russian is halting, as her one disastrous attempt to conduct an interview in Russian proved to Russian television viewers. Her specialty was not "Russia" but the Russian military. That made her, just like Paul Wolfowitz, someone untrained in, and unaware of, the influence of history, of culture, of their own particular culture and history, on people who, strange to say, do not all want to become little Americans and wouldn't know how to do so if one presented them with the possibility.
She has been foolish on Iraq, suggesting that the Sunnis and Shi'a will just have to "get over it" because -- well, because that is the only way the Bush Administration's grand plans for Iraq could ever conceivably be successful. But Sunnis and Shi'a will not "get over it." And what's more, the Muslim Arabs will not "get over it" when it comes to their absolute refusal to consider Israel as a permanent presence. An Infidel nation-state in the middle of Dar al-Islam? Impossible. If there is a chance to destroy Israel militarily, it will be acted on. And the likelihood of the Muslim Arabs thinking that such a chance will arise again will be much greater if that so-called "Palestinian" state comes into being, with all the control over invasion routes and West Bank aquifers. Why not just cause a famine in Israel by polluting or destroying or diverting those aquifers?
Demands will soon be made, perhaps even within a year of any signing, for more more more. And the West, and America, having pressured Israel so much, having thrown it to the wolves but convinced itself, as Rice has, that it is not a throwing to the wolves, but making the very "best deal" that can be made, will pressure it yet more. In reality, the "best deal" for Israel is never again to be suckered into, pressured into, any conceivable "deal" with Muslims who are firmly fixed on the basic principle of Muslim treaty-making with Infidel states, the principle that such treaties are to be broken, and such breaking of them is not merely allowed but encouraged by the example of Muhammad in the first Muslim "peace treaty" -- that of 628 A.D., which he made with the Meccans at Al-Hudaibiyyah. That treaty stands for all time as the model of Muslim treaty-making with Infidels, including those who now live and attempt to stay alive in the Infidel nation-state of Israel.
Does Rice know this? Of course not. She has never read, and not a single person who advises her has read, the texts of Islam on such treaty-making. But why can't they simply get hold of the most standard and obvious works? Why can't they get a copy? Fouad Ajami, the Majid Khadduri Professor at the Johns Hopkins School of Advanced International Studies, should be able to get his hands on a copy, and the Library of Congress is said to be well-stocked as well, of Majid Khadduri's War and Peace in the Law of Islam. In that book, if they look, they will find set out the Islamic doctrine as to treaty-making.
But she doesn't have time. And besides, it would raise so many disturbing questions. It would imply that all that effort, over so many years, by assorted dennis-rosses and richard-haasses and henry-kissingers and bill-clintons and william-rogers and tutti quanti, to use shuttle diplomacy, and negotiations, and handshakes on the goddam lawn, and smiles for the photographers, has been fruitless. And it has. All of it has ended, always, with some kind of further Israeli concession, and a further legitimizing, before the world's public, of the Arab Muslim Jihad. This has proceeded not least by legitimizing the very idea of a "Palestinian" people with its own history and own claims, when that people are merely local Muslim Arabs, identical in language, religion, and every other way to those on the other side of the Jordan, and to many other Arabs as well, for the "national" identity of Muslim Arabs is not important to them in the way national identity is to people in the Western world.
She's not able to learn beyond what she learned long ago. She seems intelligent by comparison with her boss. She's elegantly turned out. She's self-assured, because people defer to her, and those who don't defer to her are usually unwilling to demonstrate that they find her pretensions ridiculous. However, the nuclear-arms expert, David Kay, who had many dealings with her, described her as the "worst national security adviser" in the history of the country. And given that among the rivals for that crown are Brzezinski and Scowcroft, that is saying something.
Posted by Hugh at October 21, 2007 7:47 AM
Print this entry
| Email this entry
| Digg this
| del.icio.us
Ms Rice used to be one of my favorite people as she was proof that the American dream was still alive. However, I am currently aware that she is either a sellout or less intelligent than it would appear. Perhaps "intellectual" refers to people who can pretzelize a lie into being a convincing truth. Israel is our staunch ally, Saudi Arabia is NOT. Condi, THE TRUTH WILL SET YOU FREE!
Posted by: scooter![[TypeKey Profile Page]](http://www.jihadwatch.org/dhimmiwatch/nav-commenters.gif)
at October 21, 2007 9:56 AM
Despite my high hopes when Rice was appointed as Secretary of State, I must admit to agreeing that Rice is a great disappointment--a pretty but empty suit as it were--as are all the people at the top of the Bush administration starting with Bush. From their pronouncements and actions they obviously have no clue and, despite events and the easy availability of texts that would, hopefully, open their eyes, they obviously interpret events in a way the reaffirms their mistaken conception of the situation and obviously haven’t and won’t read the texts.
I would love to believe that they were, most of them, playing some sort of really deep game here, but, I don’t. Which means that the U.S. and Israel are really screwed until we get leaders who know what is going on and who are willing to face head on the challenges that that knowledge reveals to them.
at October 21, 2007 9:56 AM
"I know that sometimes a Palestinian state living side by side in peace with Israel must seem like a very distant dream. But I know too, as a student of international history, that there are so many things that once seemed impossible that, after they happened, simply seemed inevitable. I’ve read over the last summer the biographies of America’s Founding Fathers. By all rights, America, the United States of America, should never have come into being."
--Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice, 11OCT06
And my corollary:
"I know that sometimes the thought of losing things we used to cherish and now take for granted must seem like a very distant dream. But I know too, as a student of international history, that there are so many things that once seemed impossible that, after they happened, simply seemed inevitable. I’ve been studying our fiscal situation and the thought processes of those who hold positions of leadership in modern day America. By all rights, America, the United States of America, is facing historic times."
Here’s a good write-up on non-entitlement debt (excluding Social Security, Medicaid, government pensions, etc.). It’s written by Michael Hodges and endorsed by Milton Friedman.
http://mwhodges.home.att.net/nat-debt/debt-nat-a.htm
The Provost of Stanford turned National Security Adviser turned Secretary of State hadn’t read the biographies of the Founding Fathers?
at October 21, 2007 10:23 AM
Does Rice know the mohammedans call her abd? Does she know what abd or abed means? Does she know it means both slave and black (as in African)?
Intelligence is way over-rated. Adherence to belief systems/ideologies, coupled with denial from fear, will trump the highest IQ. For example, Ms. Rice.
Posted by: the poetess at October 21, 2007 11:42 AM
Condi must have been one of those students whose singular ability is that they are very good at taking tests.
Posted by: Pelayo at October 21, 2007 1:18 PM
While Condi has an education, she is not actually educated in any meaningful way. She is certainly not smart, as some here have said. She is neither smart in the ways of the world, nor is she even smart the other way - book smart. Condi has not read the books that matter and therefore is not even educated on the matters over which she presides.
Condi got to where she is for no better reason than she is an educated black woman who graduated from school just as affirmative action came into vogue, and for whom people in her past, academic and professional, have put in a good word. And, just as George Bush, 41, used Powell, a mediocre Secretary of State, to tap into the wellspring of feel-good socially progressive appointments, so his son was a natural to tap Rice for the same reason to fill the same position. It runs in the family.
Posted by: jihadwatcher at October 21, 2007 5:23 PM
Several times I have George Will differentiate between "well schooled" and "well educated." Now I know exactly what he means.
Posted by: Pelayo at October 21, 2007 5:56 PM
Ms Rice is a great disappointment for all of us who hoped she had attained the position of Secretary of State on her own merits-not just as Poster Gal for Bush Administration-as a 'Black Woman' battling poverty & prejudice to reach a top job in U.S. Guess we should have been warned
by Ms Rice's connections to Oil Companies,eh.
As for her much touted 'Éxpertise' upon Russian
Affairs-we can see what a hollow claim this is-
just part of Political Spin Doctoring Campaign
to package & present Ms Rice to the World as an
'EXPERT' at something...Unhappy truth is she is a
mediocre person of limited intellectual capabilties. But then, guess they had
instructions NOT to recruit anyone who was clever
for fear of making august President Bush appear
even more stupid than he is...
at October 21, 2007 5:59 PM
Hugh said
Demands will soon be made, perhaps even within a year of any signing, for more more more.
The next 16 months will be a perilous time for Israel (and the U.S.) Alot of things can happen, be forced to happen, in that time. If the Administration gets a whiff of the coming change in the air, and comes to believe it is a case of now or never, watch out.
Posted by: special_guest at October 21, 2007 7:47 PM
Maybe things will be better once Rudy is president (Allah willing).
Posted by: Wimbledon Womble at October 21, 2007 9:46 PM
Sorry, guys, but American foreign policy is always ad hoc and reactive, muddling along with what it is given. Deep down inside, it understands that we live in an imperfect world, and is grateful to get a few years' peace out of the darulislam.
Posted by: Kepha at October 21, 2007 9:57 PM
Ms. Rice is not only a lousy Secretary of State, she is the wrong secretary of state for today's issues, most of which involve muslim countries. I'm sure I'll be cursed for saying this but I believe that a male would be far more effective in dealing with muslims than a female. Either way, it would certainly help if the Secretary of State understood the religion, culture, and history of the people she/he negotiates with. Condi is clueless but she's certainly not alone; the entire administration is clueless. I once believed they were all playing dumb because of Iraq and Afghanistan but that was wishful thinking. They are dumb.
Not only are they dumb, most members of the Senate and House are equally dumb and except for two or three outspoken realists in Congress, the rest either don't know or pretend that islam and muslims present no insidious threat to this country. It's amazing to me that these people, who have the inside scoop on worldwide current events, see no connection between islam, muslims, and incessant terrorism. They act like islamic terrorism is a distant, foreign threat that involves "radicals" but never seem to ask themselves why "radicals" pop up all over the world every day and commit heinous acts of terrorism. Obviously the radicals aren't concentrated in any one area; they belong to every sect of islam; they come from a wide variety of geographical areas and cultures. Why doesn't this register with the geniuses in our government? Why are they so certain that muslims in America are "moderates", when intelligence agencies report that there are many terror cells here, just waiting to strike? Why do they want our borders open when said intelligence agencies admit that islamic terrorists are coming into the country from Mexico?
To me, the most important issues facing this country are the islamic and Mexican invasions and the associated nightmares they create, especially islamic terrorism. Yet not one Democratic candidate for president even mentions the most important and deadly threats we face as a nation other than to imply that we should grant amnesty to all Mexicans and throw open the borders. There is nary a word about the killers of cultures, societies, countries, governments, and people---muslims. It is incredibly frustrating to see and understand the deadly threat of islam so clearly while knowing that those responsible for the security of this country and most of the current presidential candidates don't even consider it an issue. The Democrat candidates are more interested in multiculturalism, diversity, universal healthcare, higher taxes, special interest minority groups, and shutting up Rush Limbaugh than in protecting America from its enemies. It's so depressing.
at October 21, 2007 11:34 PM
The Muslims universally call her abd - which is slave but even really worse than slave and basically 'nigger'.
She is indeed , to use gangsta talk their 'nigger'.
Posted by: poetcomic1 at October 22, 2007 12:02 AM
Has she at least read the Koran in Cyrillic yet?
(Sura 9:5 sounds even creepier in Russian.)
Posted by: profitsbeard at October 22, 2007 1:03 AM
Yeah, but she looks good in a green suit...
Posted by: duh_swami at October 22, 2007 1:09 AM
I believe the Administration has been and still is using the WWII model of America "making the world safe for democracy", as Roosevelt said. This implied dealing in the West with a European problem where Western Civilization was founded, with all that implies, and there was a popular yearning for democracy of one form or another among most all Europeans. Our major allies as well as the European enemy states were all grounded in this same commonality.
The Administration refuses to listen to the Muslims themselves saying that democracy is incompatible with Islam. They refuse to accept that Islam is not a "religion of peace" in the Western sense of the word "peace", nor in the western sense of the word religion.
The word "peace" in Islam really means submission to Islam according to Sharia laws on dhimmitude. When the Muslims say they want "peace", they really mean that they will be peaceful if we comply with their dictates and become dhimmis or converts.
Besides this mindless confusion on the nature of the enemy, they do not recognize the Muslim tradition that treaties mean nothing other than gaining time to re-arm. They do not understand, nor does Olmert understand, that present day Islam regards Mohammed's 629 AD treaty of Hudaibiya as the Islamic model for treaty treachery.
As Susamp pointed out above, none of the main presidential contenders on either side have weighed in on this matter, although some Republicans have made a few baby steps. All of the Democrats seem clueless on the Islamic threat.
Posted by: Jimmy Bones at October 22, 2007 1:40 AM
Someone tell me if I am wrong here, but it seems to me that after years of holding the P.L.O. at arms length due to its terrorist underpinnings and its refusal to recognize the right of Israel to exist, the U.S. first started talking about the need to support the formation of an independent Palestinian state within days of the 9/11 attacks, and while we were all wondering what other Islamic horrors might be in store for us.
It smacked of pandering and appeasement, but I do not recall anyone in the MSM picking up on the timing of this major policy shift, perhaps because we were all trying to unite behind our leadership during a difficult time, and to survive another day.
This about-face in foreign policy, coming so shortly after a major terrorist attack on our country, was a major mistake of the Bush administration in my opinion. I have always felt that Rice, although only national security advisor at the time, probably was and is in the faction of the Bush administration pushing this sort of appeasement diplomacy.
I guess we were to believe that the timing of the Palestinian statehood initiative was a mere coincidence. However, the fact remains that our first foreign policy response to the 9/11 attack was to get behind Palestinian statehood, despite the PLO's continuing terrorist agenda. This probably did not go unnoticed on the Muslim street (including the Palestinian street where large crowds celebrated the 9/11 attacks), and ran counter to the lofty goals announced in the war on terror.
And now, when democratic elections in the Palestinian population brought Hamas to power, the Rice faction of the Bush administration is holding the PLO out as a hope for peace, freedom and democracy in the middle east, and a bulwark against Hamas-style extremism, none of which is close to true.
Rice seems incapable of understanding that the problem with Islamic efforts to dominate the infidel West cannot be solved through efforts to win hearts and minds by giving away our blood and treasure in a battle we are not trying to win and for which we have no strategic vision. (Nor can peace be won by pressuring Israel to give away its blood and security). If we are going to fight, we should employ a strategy which will reduce our enemy's capability to wage war against us, just as Sherman did in the Civil War and the Allies did in the WW II, because this is the only strategy which has ever succeeded in war.
Rice also seems incapable of understanding that the Islamic problem cannot be solved simply by advocating more democracy and self-determination in the middle east. At least not so long as the Islamic population continues to be indoctrinated from childhood with the core message of fundamental Islam, a message which, because it is final and perfect, no person can attempt to moderate or amend without being killed for apostasy.
The conditions for peace and democracy do not exist when someone would be certain to get assassinated if they were to exhort the Muslim community to condemn all portions of the Koran advocating Islamic domination, or if they were to to condemn the example of Muhammed insofar as he committed and condoned highway robbery, slave-taking, rape, and murder. If a moderate were advocate that such violent Islamic precepts be condemned and replaced with a policy of live and let live, or that the Koran be "amended", I think we all know what his or her fate would be. Democracy is not democracy, and free speech is not free if Sharia law prevails and if extremists within the polity are capable of stifling all efforts to moderate the extreme Islamic point of view, and are incapable of protecting minority rights.
Posted by: Karl at October 22, 2007 3:07 AM
From the moment Rice declared the answer to world conflicts is "Diplomacy, diplomacy, diplomacy...." http://www.state.gov/secretary/ , I knew disaster was awaiting America.
Posted by: Alert at October 22, 2007 8:08 AM
It's good to see a new post by Susanp. Her thoughts mirror my own exactly. Jimmy Bones and Karl - same.
Posted by: commonsense at October 22, 2007 12:39 PM
Good to see that some of the inhabitants of Jonestown might not drink the Kool-Aid served up by Ms. Rice at her Maryland soiree.
http://abcnews.go.com/International/wireStory?id=3760661
Posted by: Infidel33 at October 22, 2007 2:43 PM
SusanP
The government no doubt knows that a male representative would be more popular in muslim countries. Not necessarily more 'effective' though - how could anyone be effective against determined islamism?
Hey, perhaps a muslim Secretary of State would be more effective - at least more popular??
Giving in to such demands, stated or not, is sheer dhimmitude. I commend the administration for keeping on with a black woman, effectively telling these countries "join this century, start seeing people as equal, whatever their colour and gender."
Posted by: Lili at October 23, 2007 12:14 AM
Does Rice know the mohammedans call her abd? Does she know what abd or abed means? Does she know it means both slave and black (as in African)?Intelligence is way over-rated. Adherence to belief systems/ideologies, coupled with denial from fear, will trump the highest IQ. For example, Ms. Rice.
Posted by: the poetess October 21, 2007 11:42 AM
Posted by: Jauhara Al-Kafirah at October 23, 2007 1:33 AM
Does Rice know the mohammedans call her abd? Does she know what abd or abed means? Does she know it means both slave and black (as in African)?Intelligence is way over-rated. Adherence to belief systems/ideologies, coupled with denial from fear, will trump the highest IQ. For example, Ms. Rice.
Posted by: the poetess October 21, 2007 11:42 AM
It is the Liberal black elites in this country who have called her the House Niggah.
I used to admire her, and now I feel like we are seeing empty people in empty suits with emptier heads.
Posted by: Jauhara Al-Kafirah at October 23, 2007 1:35 AM
I continue to be dismayed that the Federal Govt is still mired in its ignorance.
I mean for the love of Pete.. How can I , a normal person, know more about Islam than I even thought I wanted to or ever would, and these IDIOTS know nothing!
It's friggin criminal. And the sad thing is, the Republicans are actually the "informed" ones. The Democrats.... my God.. may as well just blow off our own nukes on our cities.
I'm convinced we're living in an Age of Spiritual Delusion, just like the Bible said the End Times would be. I can't come up with any other rational explanation for the gross stupidity.
Posted by: Vince at October 23, 2007 12:47 PM
Kepha wrote, "Sorry, guys, but American foreign policy is always ad hoc and reactive, muddling along with what it is given."
Boy, did you hit that on the head!!! American history studies are a joke (the only things about American history is the sanitized, PC version), therefore studying other cultures must be a joke, too.
I grew up in a small town in the Midwest, where many people cannot imagine living in another country let alone visiting anothe country. Many people there just assume that everyone else thinks like they do. Nothing could be farther from the truth.
I had the good fortune of spending three years in Europe, learning the languages and cultures of the host countries where I was at... it was an incredible experience. Since then, I've had a voracious apetite for history and other cultures.
Dr. Rice is from the Ivory Tower, as was the other academician Henry Kissinger, another foreign policy failure.
What little dealings I had with the State Department overseas showed me many DoS personnel live in a world all their own. It's pathetic and disgusting at the same time.
Until Americans get a good teaching of history and culture in schools, our foreign policy will continue to be a mess. I went to a Big Ten school and the Foreign Studies Department there was nothing more than a platform for liberal claptrap and PC BS.
Posted by: Thomas Carney at October 23, 2007 3:06 PM
Comments are turned off and archived for this entry.
(Note: The Comments section is provided in the interests of free speech only. It is mostly unmoderated, but comments that are off-topic, offensive, slanderous, or otherwise annoying stand a chance of being deleted. The fact that any comment remains on the site IN NO WAY constitutes an endorsement by Jihad Watch or Dhimmi Watch, or by Robert Spencer or any other Jihad Watch or Dhimmi Watch writer, of any view expressed, fact alleged, or link provided in that comment.)