Posted on 02/02/2006 6:22:22 AM PST by Wuli
In reaction to the victory of Hamas in the Palestinian elections, Condoleeza Rice's response was:
"She's [Condi] asked her staff to look into that. Why is it that we didn't see this coming?"
I am sorry all you Condi supporters, but this is extremely disconcerting.
It is completely indicative of someone living in the policy wonk world of the State Department, getting 99.99% of their news and "analysis" from that world and clueless as to what is actually going on. 9/11 was the result of 40 years of that kind of myopic foreign policy thinking.
"Didn't see it coming?? Let's see -
(A)the Palestinians more than anyone saw the years of constant corruption and corrupt cronyism of Arafat and his lackeys; so we can conclude that the state department simply ignored how deep that corruption was and they ignored how well it was known and resented by the average Palestinian; they accepted the Arafat/PA media presentation of who and what Arafat and the PA were (NOT);
(B)without their public figurehead, Arafat's lackeys were more concerned about divying up the spoils and the perks of the PA, and the Palestinian people knew that as well; if how the PA managed the "takeover" of Gaza did not bring that to light at foggy bottom, then nothing would have;
(C)for all its moral and political corruption, Hamas:
(1)was not associated organizationally with Arafat or the PA,
(2)spent millions every year on Palestinian welfare and charity institutions, buying the support of millions of poor Palestinians and
(3)never adopted the "we will recognize Israel" position that Arafat and the PA adopted in the Oslo accords;
and finally -
(D) the "street" in the Palestinian territories credited Hamas and its terrorism as having secured Gaza from Israel.
And Condi, in what I can only look at as ignorance, says : "how did this [Hamas wins election] happen?".
It is apparent that you could not learn these things working at the State Department.
I am no more fond of "the media" than the next Freeper, but there is a difference between not being fond of the media and not believing all the media says versus being totally uninformed and clueless.
To recognize the biases in the media is one thing, but to turn all outside, independent information off; to not be informed beyond what only your staff and your bureaucrats tell you; to not seek information and analysis beyond the confines of those who are trying to shape your opinions, and still make public policy is the equivalent of having your head buried in bureaucratic quicksand. It's dangerous.
I would put Bolton in charge of the entire State Department; he would clean house, he would not simply accept what the Diva's at the State Department tell him and, I believe he would not have been, as Condi was, surprised by the Hamas victory.
Maybe you missed an answer to one of the queries on this thread. Who is one of Condi's top advisors? Answer: Her Under Secretary for Political Affairs. And who is that? Answer: Nicholas Burns. And who is/was he? Answer: formerly one of the top foreign policy advisors to presidential candidate......................John Kerry.
Condi is being managed by the same people who managed Colin Powell.
Welcome? He's been here over a year.
Very cogent analysis. I am all for Hamas' victory because it finally unveiled the Palestinian terrorist enterprise. Yet I don't believe that this is what Dr. Rice and her acolytes were attempting to do by mercilessly pushing Israel to march further into its death march.
In fact, I believe (without the evidence to support it) that if Dr. Rice and her team had not pushed Prime Minister Sharon as hard as they did, he never would have surrendered Gaza to Hamas.
Dr. Rice's blind eye toward Israel and the problems that it is facing will do more to screw up our war on terror than anything since Colin Powell's insistence that we peg the invasion of Iraq on the WMD.
I am sorry, but if you ask Don Rumsfield what he thinks are the critical military considerations in a situation, you can bet he does not have to check with his advisors.
We need a Secretary of State that runs the State Department, not one that is run by the State Department.
Condi should not have needed one single advisor to see, and know, for herself just how strong Hamas was. She has allowed the State Department process and its bureaucrats and divas to filter and "explain" too much for her.
I know... and welcome to you, too...
???
Actually, it would entertaining. Kind of like her taking those silly senators to task during the hearings for Secretary of State.
That pic is enough to make Tom Cruise stay in the closet.
Did you see George Bush kiss her on the lips the night of the State of the Union?
WOW...I need to get a makeover so I can look JUST LIKE THAT!
I did not. Was working. I did try to follow along with the thread on FR, but it was moving much to fast. Any screenshots?
For a couple of weeks before the election I expounded a belief that there would be no election.
Certain that Hamas would win big, and mistakenly believing that the State Dept was at least awake, I believed Abbas, Israel and the US would use the pretense of Israel not allowing voting in Jerusalem to postpone the election.
Instead in a act of remarkable incompetence Rice pressured Israel to allow Arabs to vote in Jerusalem- damaging Israel's sovereignty there- and allowing the election to proceed.
I then thought that the plan must be to rig the election.
So when the initial vote came that Fatah had won, I was convinced that had occurred. It wasn't possible for me to imagine the US- Rice- would allow an honest election where Hamas was sure to win big.
I turned out to be wrong. Rice and State and Israel too, are incompetent and foolish to the point of tragedy.
If she is wrong about something so easily understood and so damaging to American interests, how wrong is she about the difficult stuff?
The concept does not elude me.
You first have to have a question, you first have to question, you first have to NOT simply accept what is put in front of you, you first have to come in with knowledge and curiosity about knowledge that your advisors are not putting in front of you.
If you don't do that, their "advice" manages you, you do not manage them. That is the difference between Rumsfield and Condi.
I am with you.
As I have said in more than one answer to questions on this thread - John Kerry = Nicholas Burns = top advisor to Condi at State. You can see his appeasing thread running through State Department actions everywhere he goes for Condi.
Dr. Rice can do more as President of the United States to bring our country together than any other human being on Earth.
All Americans should be rooting for her to run.
Just a single sentence taken out of context. There are different styles of leadership at work here, Rumsfield is different then Condi's, not wrong just different, The President decided that her style would be better put to use in The State Department. Are you prepared to prove he is wrong about his most trusted advisor.
The title of this thread should be that she is not ready to be SOS.
Unless of course, as some here seem to believe, the job description simply consists of wearing nice cloths and black boots and smiling for the camera.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.