“Welcome to the regional war.”
– Syrian Foreign Minister Walid Muallem – August 7th, 2006.
With Israel currently deploying 40,000 ground troops into Southern Lebanon — with goals to reach the Litani river and beyond — and with international diplomacy at a, seemingly, insurmountable impasse (with no help from American neoconism) — the flicker of light for a “sustainable peace” is about to be extinguished for a very long time.
And as we shake our collective heads in what most of us thought would be an inevitable conclusion to current American foreign policy in the Middle-East, the New York Times tries, in earnest, to paint Condoleezza Rice in a sympathetic light…
As Ms. Rice has struggled with the Middle East crisis over the last four weeks, she has found herself trying to be not only a peacemaker abroad but also a mediator among contending parties at home.
Forgive me, but sympathy is an emotion that is the furthest thing from my mind when I consider that for the past month, over 1000 deaths (many of them children) have provoked responses such as:
“birth pangs of a new Middle East”
from this “esteemed” professional.
Indeed, if one closely reviews the New York Times narrative, it is clear that this role of “mediator” within her own administration is quite simply a myth.
Oh, the New York Times may wax poetic about her entourage consisting of C. David Welsh — “career diplomat”. But when has she caressed her position with his tempered advice (if, in fact, he gave any at all — for which the New York Times does not provide evidence). Oh! That’s right! During the Qana massacre.
The tensions in the region and within the administration have left Ms. Rice visibly weary and she has at times spoken in unusually personal, emotional terms. After the meeting in her suite, Ms. Rice, Mr. Abrams, Mr. Welch and Richard Jones, the United States ambassador to Israel, had dinner with Prime Minister Ehud Olmert. There, Ms. Rice showed a rare flash of impatience with him. When Mr. Olmert responded to her request to suspend airstrikes for 48 hours by saying that Israel had warned residents to evacuate, Ms. Rice shook her head, according to two American officials.
“Look, we’ve had this experience, with Katrina, and we thought we were doing it right,” she reportedly said. “But we learned that many people who want to leave can’t leave.”
She then remarked on how nice the Italian leather gleemed in her presence. Can you believe this!!!
She’s evoking the Katrina response to end the hostilities!
If you are unclear as to why I exhibit such incredulousness to the Doctor’s response, I direct you to this article.
Apparently, Prime Minister Omer GOT the joke. As the New York Times mentions, Israel broke the “agreement” they made with her a couple of hours later.
And that’s all, folks.
That is the only evidence the New York Times provides the reader with in order to justify this idea that Condi is between a rock and a hard place.
Oh, and how is this perceived “balanced” struggle between diplomacy and the chickenhawks working out at the U.N.?
From the Chicago Tribune:
Although U.S. officials have generally avoided discussing the details of their negotiations, Rice said on July 31 that the ground was prepared for an “urgent and comprehensive” resolution to be passed by the end of last week. Then Sunday, National Security Adviser Stephen Hadley said that U.S. officials hoped for a vote by Tuesday morning.
By Wednesday, after Rice’s entourage canceled reservations for a block of rooms at a Manhattan hotel, the growing frustration was clear among top U.S. officials. Rice had expected to help wrap up negotiations on the resolution in New York.
First, the cancellation of her trip to Lebanon — which she insists was her decision.
Now, she cancels an extremely important visit to the U.N. on the eve of a regional war (if not, World War).
Rice struggling for diplomacy?
I call “bullshit”.
