« What's Your Idea Of Doom? | Main | A New Low For The Academy (And That's Saying Something) »
February 20, 2007
Whither Condi, Part III
Paul Mirengoff at Power Line comments on a WaPo report that details Condi Rice's continuing effort to bring back that old Kissinger shuttle diplomacy magic. Paul:
Secretary Rice is shuttling back and forth between Israeli Prime Minister Olmert and Palestinian Authority President Abbas trying to bring about a "peace" arrangement between the two parties that will also include their Arab neighbors.This is a fool's errand. Olmert is too weak politically to lead Israel into any kind of deal with Abbas, whose Fatah party is now participating in a government with Hamas, an organization committed to Israel's destruction. Even Olmert apparently has enough sense to insist that Israel cannot be a peace partner with the new Palestinian government. And if, somehow, Rice managed to broker a deal, it would not bring peace anymore than the Oslo deal did.
I've lost all faith in Secretary of State Rice--she is the lamest of lame ducks. Remember her decisive pronouncement on the disarming of Hizbollah?
If Hezbollah resists international demands to disarm, Rice said, "one would have to assume that there will be others who are willing to call Hezbollah what we are willing to call it, which is a terrorist organization."
What, exactly, does Condi hope to accomplish? As Paul observes, bending heaven and earth to accomplish a deal--when there are no good alternatives to choose from--is absurd:
And that's one answer to the Democrats when they ask what the harm is in talking with Iran. The last thing we need is for a Condi Rice or a Madeleine Albright to become obsessed with getting Iran's signature on a piece of paper, any piece of paper.
Now, just imagine John Bolton as Secretary of State.
I can dream, can't I?
Trackback Pings
TrackBack URL for this entry:
http://www.thebernoullieffect.com/cgi-bin/mt/mt-tb.cgi/743
Comments
I think Michael Bolton would be another good choice. Sometimes in a tense negotiation all you need is a little time, love and tenderness.
But seriously, what happened to the day when we were allowed to look at an organization that beheads and terrorizes in order to win influence and simply call them "the bad guy"? Why do we have to be open-minded about what they are demanding? Doesn't it matter the WAY in which they make their demands? "Bend or we will kill your innocent civilians." No. If that is your stance then you are a bad guy, you are a threat, and we kill you first.
Why is that so controversial?
Posted by: Jim Voigt at February 26, 2007 01:59 PM
Why is that so controversial?
Shouldn't be. One shouldn't have to submit--to any coercive force--to be free. The Englightenment vs. Islam, part ______.
Posted by: Jeff at February 26, 2007 11:57 PM
