Big Lizards:Blog:Entry “A Tale of Two Madams and One Mister”

« Who Pays For That Ticket to Ride Out of Lebanon? | Main | Bolton For the Aisles »

July 21, 2006

A Tale of Two Madams and One Mister

Hatched by Dafydd

No, not that kind of madam! I mean a pair of "Madam Secretaries of State," Madeleine Albright and Condoleezza Rice.

The first Madam Secretary, appointed by Bill Clinton for no reason other than to be the first president to appoint a woman as secretary of state, was an unmitigated disaster. Albright embraced Yassir Arafat, was bamboozled by Kim Jong-Il, tricked by Iran, cozened by Saddam, and turned a blind eye to Osama bin Laden while he and al-Qaeda prepared the most massive terrorist attack ever to occur on American soil. A magnificent and enviable record of failure and disachievement!

But let's contrast "Madam," as she insisted upon being called, with the other Madam Secretary, Condoleezza Rice. Here is Secretary Rice today, discussing her upcoming trip to the Middle East:

In her briefing for reporters on her trip, Rice said the United States was committed to ending the bloodshed, but didn't want to do it before certain conditions were met.

The United States has said all along that Hezbollah must first turn over the two Israeli soldiers and stop firing missiles into Israel.

"We do seek an end to the current violence, we seek it urgently. We also seek to address the root causes of that violence," she said. "A cease-fire would be a false promise if it simply returns us to the status quo."

Rice said that it was important to deal with the "root cause" of the violence, echoing what has been the U.S. position since last week.

And what is that "root cause?" Everybody uses the phrase, but each means a different thing. Most people in Europe and most Democrats in D.C., when they say "root cause of Mid-East violence," mean the presence of Jews in the ummah... which could easily be corrected.

If Israel would just do the manly thing and commit national suicide, then the world would think well of the Jews... briefly. But what does Condi mean by "root cause?"

Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice ruled out a quick "false promise" cease-fire in the Middle East Friday and defended her decision not to meet with either Syrian or Hezbollah leaders in her upcoming visit to the region.

"Syria knows what it needs to do and Hezbollah is the source of the problem," Rice said at the State Department as she previewed her trip, which begins on Sunday with a first stop in Israel.

What a rare moment of truth and candor from the Department of State! Of course, with John Bolton at the U.N., such moments are starting to come as thick and as fast as oysters. How I'm going to miss this president when his term expires.

(Oh, and notice where her Mid-East trip begins: Israel. In the previous administration, it would have begun with a quick obeisance in Ramallah, some backhanding in Damascus, and an apology-trip to Sabra and Shatila, where Madam would have laid a wreath and danced a foxtrot with Sheikh Nasrallah.)

But here is my favorite statement, and why I still hope that someday, Dr. Condoleezza Rice changes her mind and decides to run for public office:

Resisting calls from the United Nations, Europe and the Arab world, she said an immediate ceasefire would produce a "false promise" that would allow Hizbollah to re-emerge in the future to attack Israel, the top U.S. ally in the region.

"An immediate ceasefire without political conditions does not make sense," she said.

"If you simply look for a ceasefire... we will be back here in six months again," she added. "What I won't do is go to some place and try to get a ceasefire that I know isn't going to last."

I've been scratching my brains for days now, wondering exactly what a "ceasefire" means when one party is a terrorist group. And for more clarity on that point, listen to Ambassador Bolton (it's from an press conference outside the UN Security Council in Foggy Bottom, New York City; I have paragraphed it, so I can refer to Bolton's specific points; via Power Line):

Well look, I think we could have a cessation of hostilities immediately if Hezbollah would stop terrorizing innocent civilians and give up the kidnapped Israeli soldiers. So that to the extent this crisis continues, the cause is Hezbollah.

How you get a ceasefire between one entity, which is a government of a democratically elected state on the one hand, and another entity on the other which is a terrorist gang, no one has yet explained.

The government of Israel, everybody says, has the right to exercise the right of self-defense, which even if there are criticisms of Israeli actions by some, they recognize the fundamental right to self-defense. That’s a legitimate right.

Are there any activities that Hezbollah engages in, militarily that are legitimate? I don’t think so. All of its activities are terrorist and all of them are illegitimate, so I don’t see the balance or the parallelism between the two sides and therefore I think it’s a very fundamental question: how a terrorist group agrees to a ceasefire.

This is like demanding a "ceasefire" between the United States government on the one hand -- and the Salvadoran drug gang Mara Salvatrucha. What the heck is that supposed to mean? Do they negotiate exactly how many kilos of cocaine MS-13 is allowed to smuggle into the country?

You know in a democratically elected government, the theory is that the people ultimately can hold the government accountable when it [agrees to] something and doesn’t live up to it.

How do you hold a terrorist group accountable? Who runs the terrorist group? Who makes the commitment that a terrorist group will abide by a ceasefire?

Say, that is a good question, isn't it? So how come nobody else seems to be asking it besides John and Condi? And here's another good question:

What does a terrorist group think a "ceasefire" is?

Does it really understand a ceasefire as a cessation of hostilities, to be followed by honest negotiation to settle the differences that led to the war in the first place? I think it more likely Hezbollah's understanding of ceasefire is "a pause to reload;" and the ceasefire will last as long as it takes for them to obtain replacements from Iran, through Syria, for all the missiles that Israel destroyed... maybe "six months," as Secretary Rice suggested.

Finally, Bolton finishes his answer with a nice summation of the main point:

These are - you can use the words “cessation of hostilities” or “truce” or "ceasefire.” Nobody has yet explained how a terrorist group and a democratic state come to a mutual ceasefire.

Those are all good questions, and here's another: if Israel were to ink such a ceasefire with Hezbollah... wouldn't that elevate the terrorist group to the level of a sovereign nation? What would be the next demand -- that Israel negotiate a trade agreement with Hezbollah? Perhaps an agreed-upon procedure for releasing Hezbollah killers promptly upon the kidnapping of future IDF soldiers, to avoid all the brouhaha in the future?

Or would Hezbollah be admitted to the United Nations (and probably invited to join the new UN Human Rights Council)?

Israelis should get on their knees and thank the God of Abraham, Isaac, and Jacob that at this critical turning point in their existence, their greatest ally has such clear-sighted and morally decent appointees running the United States Department of State. And Americans should thank whatever God we hold dear that we have an Israel that is finally willing to stand up to Hezbollah and Hamas: maybe President Bush can start listening to Israel, Condi, and John; then he himself can begin treating those Iranian-controlled terrorists the way he treats terrorists in al-Qaeda.

Hatched by Dafydd on this day, July 21, 2006, at the time of 1:45 PM

Trackback Pings

TrackBack URL for this hissing: http://biglizards.net/mt3.36/earendiltrack.cgi/1011

Comments

The following hissed in response by: KarmiCommunist

Dafydd,

EXCELLENT Job!!!

Madeleine Albright was on the 'Sunday Talk Shows' this past weekend, clearly attempting to cover her record of failure and disachievement!, whilst attempting to bash Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice.

The Democrat Party and its Leftist/Socialist/Fascist supporters had eight years to do something...anything, but chose to do nothing other than to weaken America, whilst at the same time helping America's enemies.

Madeleine Albright, this past weekend, was questioning why, why wasn't Condi rushing to the Middle East. Dafydd's NYT link provides the answer...from Madam Secretary Condi:

"I could have gotten on a plane and rushed over and started shuttling and it wouldn't have been clear what I was shuttling to do."

Compared to 'Da *REAL* "Madam Secretary", Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice...Madeleine Albright looks like/looked like a "chicken with its head cut off"...so to speak of a chicken without a head rushing frenetically/shuttling about.

One last Condi quote:

Hezbollah "extremists are trying to strangle it in its crib," Rice said of the Lebanese government...

The W Middle East policy is, and has been working...Madeleine Albright and the entire Middle East knows it!!! However, Madeleine Albright fails to see it...so to speak of no surprise there (as in a chicken without an eyes containing head).

Karmi

The above hissed in response by: KarmiCommunist at July 21, 2006 3:23 PM

The following hissed in response by: FredTownWard

Monkyboy wrote "I thought Clinton and Albright's biggest failure was they didn't capture or kill Osama bin Laden."

No, their biggest failure was that outside of a single half-assed cruise missile attack they didn't even TRY to kill or capture him. You can never ensure success in this kind of military operation, but you can ensure failure, by giving up or by never seriously trying. Unless we make the mistake of electing a Democrat, OBL WILL be killed or captured or die of natural causes while on the run from being killed or captured.

Monkyboy wrote "Not sure the 3000 civilians who died in Iraq last month would consider The W Middle East policy a success, Karmi...the might even be so confused as to consider it a failure."

Not likely, Monkyboy, because unlike you they remember what the alternative was: the tender mercies of life under the murderous Hussein dynasty.

The above hissed in response by: FredTownWard at July 21, 2006 3:51 PM

The following hissed in response by: KarmiCommunist

monkyboy,

Dafydd ab-“Ayatollah” Hugh has placed you under his protective ‘Wing’ here, and after this, i shall reply to you no longer...until released from such restraints.

However, a word of advice to One such as you at this point, whilst quoting Lady Sachi:

...stop poking it with a stick.

KårmiÇømmünîs†

The above hissed in response by: KarmiCommunist at July 21, 2006 3:59 PM

The following hissed in response by: KarmiCommunist

FredTownWard,

Clinton had several chances to just take Osama. No "capture" or "killing" involved...just take him.

i think this is free...

'No Thanks, he hasn't broken the Law'

Clinton refused Sudan at least 3 times to take Osama off their hands...at least *THREE* Times!!!

i have the audio of Clinton admitting to such mistakes, but pay-sites are involved usually.

Here is a free text site...

Clinton Let Bin Laden Slip Away and Metastasize

Karmi

The above hissed in response by: KarmiCommunist at July 21, 2006 4:21 PM

The following hissed in response by: FredTownWard

Monkyboy wrote:

"The Taliban offered to turn Osama over to Bushie after 9/11, Karmi....but he turned them down.

Why would he do that, I wonder?"

They didn't, and he didn't. This is one of the dumbest conspiracy theories out there...

which is saying a LOT.

Can't say I'm surprised that Monkyboy believes it though.

ROTFLMAO!

The above hissed in response by: FredTownWard at July 21, 2006 4:47 PM

The following hissed in response by: KarmiCommunist

ROTFLMAO!

i dare you to ask for a link. ;-)

The above hissed in response by: KarmiCommunist at July 21, 2006 4:51 PM

The following hissed in response by: KarmiCommunist

i may be being a tad to brutal here...sorry. However:

How Bush Plans to Build an Arab "Umbrella" Against Hizballah

The above hissed in response by: KarmiCommunist at July 21, 2006 5:22 PM

The following hissed in response by: KarmiCommunist

FredTownWard,

You still around? If so, have you seen this:

The White House on Sunday rejected an offer from Afghanistan's ruling Taliban to try suspected terrorist leader Osama bin Laden in Afghanistan under Islamic law.

The Taliban did at least make an offer to try Osama in Afghanistan...

*SNICKER*

The above hissed in response by: KarmiCommunist at July 21, 2006 5:35 PM

The following hissed in response by: Dafydd ab Hugh

KarmiCommunist, FredTownWard:

I hope the both of you appreciated the irony that this statement:

The Taliban offered to turn Osama over to Bushie after 9/11, Karmi....but he turned them down.

...was "backed up," upon demand, by a link that said this:

The Taliban's ambassador to Pakistan, Abdul Salam Zaeef, made the offer at a news conference in Islamabad. Zaeef said the Taliban would detain bin Laden and try him under Islamic law if the United States makes a formal request and presents them with evidence.

So at least one person commenting in this thread has just lied in his teeth about the president, thinking the others here were too stupid to notice the difference.

Dafydd

The above hissed in response by: Dafydd ab Hugh at July 21, 2006 6:05 PM

The following hissed in response by: KarmiCommunist

...: maybe President Bush can start listening to Israel, Condi, and John; then he himself can begin treating those Iranian-controlled terrorists the way he treats terrorists in al-Qaeda.

Dafydd ab Hugh,

On that point, we disagree. W is the one who recognized/declared War Against Terrorism, and Supporters of Terrorists and Terrorism. He started with Afghanistan's Taliban first; then moved to the infamous UN Resolutions Breaker, and Terrorist/Terrorism supporter Saddam next. Iran, Syria, and even their Hezbollah missed what came next...along with many others, huh. ;-)

Fact is, Iran and Iranian-controlled terrorists saw what was coming next, panicked, and then jumped-the-gun...jumped-the-gun, as in bringing Israel into this War, and with Arab World support for Israel. Quite interesting, in my humble opinion. Add to that and those, that it was W who appointed both Condi and John, and you can now see why you are wrong for the first time ever. ;-)

KårmiÇømmünîs†
Karmic SLAUGHTERER

The above hissed in response by: KarmiCommunist at July 21, 2006 6:19 PM

The following hissed in response by: KarmiCommunist

So at least one person commenting in this thread has just lied in his teeth about the president, thinking the others here were too stupid to notice the difference.

Am i unleashed?!?

;-)

The above hissed in response by: KarmiCommunist at July 21, 2006 6:25 PM

The following hissed in response by: KarmiCommunist

Bin Laden: Yes, I did it

Osama admits role in September 11 attacks: Report

Links...

The above hissed in response by: KarmiCommunist at July 21, 2006 6:56 PM

The following hissed in response by: KarmiCommunist

Condi "44"

Madeleine Albright,

Put that in yore pipe, and show the world how to smoke without a mouth containing head.

KårmiÇømmünîs†

The above hissed in response by: KarmiCommunist at July 21, 2006 7:17 PM

The following hissed in response by: Dafydd ab Hugh

KårmiÇømmünîs†:

Am i unleashed?!?

You can say anything you want, so long as it doesn't violate the Reptillian Comment Policy! In the particular case you mean, you threatened Monkeyboy with death, albeit very indirectly.

It makes no difference whether he deserves it or not, whether he's a girly-man or not, or whether he's a liar or not. I have to keep certain legalities in mind, so if someone sues me, I have a sufficiently good case to countersue; therefore, certain things cannot be written here.

But other than threats or direct personal attacks, you can say whatever you like about his ideas. Or lack of ideas, so to speak.

Dafydd

The above hissed in response by: Dafydd ab Hugh at July 21, 2006 8:59 PM

The following hissed in response by: Davod

Silly, silly boys (Simian and Welsh boy):

Typical of leftist propagandists your words betray your ignorance of anything but the great ones pablum.

If the Taliban had submitted Osama to a Sharia Court he would have been found not guilty. Fighting the infidel is not a sin especially in the eyes of a Taliban Sharia Court.

The above hissed in response by: Davod at July 21, 2006 11:40 PM

The following hissed in response by: FredTownWard

Monkyboy wrote:

"If we had managed to prove Osama's guilt, the Taliban would have turned him over to Bushie dead or alive...his choice."

"I'd say Bushie should have taken the Taliban's offer..."

Just out of curiosity, Monkyboy, how many times have you purchased the Brooklyn Bridge from someone who offered to sell it to you?

Obviously, it was more than once, but have you made it into double digits yet?

ROTFLMAO!

The above hissed in response by: FredTownWard at July 22, 2006 12:16 AM

The following hissed in response by: MTF

The fevered ravings of the town drunk, Monkyboy, aside, I compliment Dafydd for yet another cogent statement of the problem. Syria may "know what to do", as Sec. Rice is quoted above as saying, but they won't do it until they face defeat if they don't do it. Syria and Iran aren't interested in "land-for-peace", or "cease fires" or "brokered settlements" or any other such nonsense-- they're interested in the destruction of Jews. Never once has a peace deal with terrorist organizations worked, though Israel has done it's agreed share every single time. Dafydd linked to Treppenwitz in another thread, and he posted a description of this view in another post, called A Depressing Epiphany.

The above hissed in response by: MTF at July 22, 2006 8:03 AM

The following hissed in response by: MTF

The views of some of the left in our country are pro-fascist, pro-terror and anti-semitic. Of course views like these may look absurd, but sometimes they also are treasonously ugly.

The above hissed in response by: MTF at July 22, 2006 8:20 AM