Here-s one that may seem a little prophetic...
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.
Secretary Rice has a lot more clues than you seem to display!
http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/1569660/posts
How to post a thread and other interesting facts. (Welcome Newbies)
Admin Lecture Series ^ | February 1, 2006 | Olive
snip
Vanities and General Interest.
General/Chat
All non-sourced non-news threads are posted here. All fluff stories are posted here. We are a political forum, not a pit bull, SUV or porno site. Keep your threads to a political nature. There are of course exceptions, but post those to the General/Chat forum. This doesn’t mean your one thought is a thread by itself, and your vanities should be substantial to be considered a news forum thread. Others will be moved to the various forums. Lately, we have been seeing articles posted that should be comments made on the main article. Your comment/vanity article will be pulled or moved to General/Chat. Vanities should be limited to the mission of Free Republic.
snip
The biggest problem with Condi, as I see it, she has no political organization to run a campaign, nor does she appear to have any interest in forming one.
I'm curious, who do you support for the republican candidate for president in 2008?
Secretary Rice is the only qualified person that I will vote for. I sure will not vote for those so called Republicans who support the left-wing democrats at every opportunity and NEVER say one word of protest when they spew forth their anti-American bile.
Where in the Einstein is Sam Hill when you need him?
I would say that Wuli has raised a solid argument backed by some solid points.
Do you have a reasonable counter-argument backed by reasonable counter-points, or are you going to play the blind faith role of my President (and his administation) right or wrong?
She obviously doesn't have a clue or she would not have asked "how did this happen".
Millions of us watching the Palestinian territories devolve into anarchy under Arafat and his political descendents, knew - not wondered but knew - that Hamas was better organized, better funded (Iran) and better appreciated by millions of Palestinians. If Condi was clueless about those conditions in the Palestinian territories, it is not the fault of the equally clueless bureaucrats at the State Department. She has a public obligation to reach outside of her bureaucracy for news, opinion, analysis and "intelligence". Its clear she did not.
Here-s one that may seem a little prophetic...
George Allen
Well, he's been here a year.
Why would Condi admit to an interest in running for President now? Why give the MSM & Dems an extra year or two to bash you? Her ability to raise money is not in question. If and when she does run those WHITE Republicans will shower the campaign with money and will rise up in support in an effort to drive a stake through the heart of the Democrat Racial Lies.
Wuli didn't make a good point.
A single quote, taken out of context, used to draw conclusions about the preparedness and ability of a woman who has done a pretty good job of taking control of a run away State Department.
It isn't her competence that makes Condi Rice a questionable Presidential candidate. She's very competent. It is her lack of experience in running a campaign. She has so far gained all of her positions through her competence and ability. Election campaigns are a different beast entirely, where ability and competence is secondary to showmanship and charisma.
First, if you know my record, I am not a Bushbot. I am one of his strongest critics on many different policies (immigration, tax, drugs for seniors, and too many more to list). But, all of Wuli's posits are based on ASSUMPTIONS, not facts. He only uses facts to lay his foundation, and then straw-mans her into them.
Ms. Rice is the former security advisor to the Prez. She has facts and theories available to her on a daily basis, and has had them for a number of years, now. Some things are said in public to give an impression. It is called propaganda.
If you look at the overall responses, and read between the lines, I believe you will see her as anything but ignorant. Instead, I think you may think of a fox and a hen, with the roles reversed.
I would sure vote for her, before I would vote for McCain or other pseudo-pubbies...
"A single quote, taken out of context, used to draw conclusions about the preparedness and ability of a woman who has done a pretty good job of taking control of a run away State Department."
(1)The quote is not out of context. Check it out. Try Lexis-Nexis.
(2)Who is Condoleeza Rice's Under Secretary for Political Affairs? Answer: Nicholas Burns. Who is/was Nicholas Burns? He was formerly one of the lead foreign policy advisors to presidential candidate......................John Kerry.
Condi has not tamed foggy bottom, it has tamed her.
I think you made some good observations about Hamas, and pointed out some very plausible explanations that at least desrve debate. I think it's vital to consider all of the "Connections" so to speak, that surround large world events like the election of Hamas, in order to understand them fully.
That said, your entire message is lost by trying to tie this all to Secretary Rice. I'm being charitable by merely calling it a stretch...
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.