What's going on in Condoleeza Rice's head? It seems that in the past couple of weeks she disagrees with seemingly everybody else in the higher echelons of the government. First Dick Cheney and George Bush say that under no circumstances should Iran get a nuclear weapon. Since the attack on Syria they have very good reason to be even more suspicious of Iran and its nuclear program, but Rice disagrees. She thinks that the government needs to take a soft approach on Iran, and ask the U.N for sanctions. If it was April i would check to see if its April Fools Day, but since its October i don't know what to think. I'm sure she's privy to lots of information that would make her want to take a tough line on Iran, but instead she wants to commit to the weaker agenda.
Not to mention that she's pushing for a new peace deal between the Palestinians and the Israelis at the Annapolis peace conference. She wants to push for final-status agreements between Abbas and Olmert, though even a toddler could see that this is one of the most idiotic plans concocted in the last few years. Not only does it go against Bush's road map proposal, and many other words he has said in public, it seems to serve no American interests. How does Condy see a weaker Israel and a win for terrorism as good for U.S interests. Abbas doesn't even own half of the country, and probably in 5 years Hamas will take over the West Bank and then they'll have the state???
It looks like Condy is trying to pull a Bill Clinton, meaning that you try to save your legacy by making peace between the Palestinians and the Israelis. Just because you have done a bad job in your position Condy, it doesn't mean you should screw up a whole country, and your own country's interests. The Palestinians are not Blacks in the South during the Civil Rights movement, so stop making that comparison. I would suggest holding a conference on Iran's genocidal leader instead of holding one that serves nobody's interest, except for Islamo-Fascists.
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
4 comments:
Interesting- Ms. Rice is relatively new to Mideast politics, and doesn't have a deep understanding of it. She wants Israel to take risks, not realizing it is not her children's lives at stake.
I really dislike when someone accuses a politician who wants to see peace resolution as naive, because peace resolutions are possible, and should be fought for. The fact that Hamas is willing to sit down again is a good sign and Rice should not be chastized for it, she should be comended. Just because you are angry with the Palistinians, or you are afraid does not give you the right to neglect the fact that only a peace resolution will stop the fighting.
On your first point on how she wants a weaker Iran agenda, I tell you again, Peace is not weak. I applaud her and everyone from the states else who is trying to find peace before making thoughtles remarks on Iran because they are the only ones who have a chance to make a definite solution in a dangerous world.
http://aviewc.blogspot.com/
i think its naive to put faith in a abbas when he has no control over his people, and in the arab media says how much he ahtes israel. Should we really put faith in a man who wrote his phd on holocaust denial. It's silly to put faith in a people who try to kill your leader, while saying they want peace. Rice's peace iniative would be the end of Israel. If she promoted a realistic peace i would be al for it, but she hasnt. As for Iran, you cant make peace with a country who wants to create a genocide. Coddling Iran will embolden them , and allow them to froce thier fascist agenda on the world. In this situtation peace is weak.
Not with that attitude
Post a Comment