Rice on Iran and Syria: Are they really this stupid??

[Sparkly]

WASHINGTON (Reuters) - U.S. Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice has rejected a bipartisan panel's recommendation that the Bush administration engage Syria and Iran in efforts to stabilize Iraq, The Washington Post reported on Friday.

The "compensation" required for any such deal might be too high, Rice told the paper in an interview.

Rice said she did not want to trade away Lebanese sovereignty to Syria or allow Iran to obtain a nuclear weapon as a price for peace in Iraq, the Post reported.

She also argued that neither Syria nor Iran should need incentives to help achieve stability in Iraq, the Post reported.

"If they have an interest in a stable Iraq, they will do it anyway," Rice said.

Why are they automatically assuming discussions would necessarily lead to "trading away Lebanese sovereignty" or allowing Iran to have nukes? Why can't they just take those off the table, and still give talks a try? Do they think we have NO other "carrots and sticks?"

Why do they think Syria and Iran "SHOULD" not need incentives, or that they "should" or do have an interest in a stable Iraq? Isn't it obvious they do not currently have an interest in a unified government in Iraq?!?

What kind of excuses are these?!? Are they honestly this stupid? Or are they making up excuses for staying away from discussions? If the latter, WHY are they REALLY so afraid of discussions??

(edited for link: http://news.yahoo.com/s/nm/20061215/pl_nm/iraq_usa_rice... )

[Jim__]

1. I don't think they're that stupid.

This is just fodder for the troops. Now when someone says we should negotiate with Iran, they can just reply that we can't have an Iran with nuclear weapons.

It's nonsense. But so far, this type of bullshit has worked for bush & co (e.g. the smoking gun could come inthe form of a mushroom cloud).

[LynnTheDem]

2. Yes.

rice & the rest of the insane Cabal truly are that stupid.

[acmejack]

3. I believe they are simply imperious assholes.

Just a personal opinion but it seems that humility is beyond them, I really think they hold about 99.98 of the World's population in utter contempt...

[BOSSHOG]

4. Based on her comments we don't need a Secretary of State

bush is afraid to chit chat with adversaries but has no qualms about getting thousands murdered so he can be a cowboy in the eyes of the ignorant trash in this country. I see no reason why he needs a secretary of state let alone the incompetent ass who has the job now.

[ClassWarrior]

5. It's more "Stall the Withdrawal."

And no, they're not stupid:

http://www.rockridgeinstitute.org/research/lakoff/incom...

NGU.

[Dhalgren]

6. I think that the REAL reasons that the Dictator and his henchwoman

won't speak to Iran and Syria may be very simple: the Saudis don't want the US speaking to Iran and the Israelis don't want the US speaking to Syria. The US, at this point, is just a hired thug...

[Sparkly]

8. That could be.

BushCo has certainly shown willingness to bend over backwards for the Saudis... What are they afraid will happen if they stand up to them? Are they thinking of "national interest," or is it about their own personal business dealings?

[Maggie_May]

7. Why wouldn't Iran want to obtain nukes?

We invaded Iraq illegally. We now have a occupying force in Iraq which at this point is a civil war. What the hell do you blame Iran for defending itself? At this point even if they did sit down and talk does the United States have any creditability?

[Sparkly]

9. It's clear they want nukes.

Are you saying the rest of the world should get out of their way and let them get nukes?

[Maggie_May]

12. No not at all

I am a person who believes in no nukes for anyone. I do not what see a all out middle east war. In wars the casualty count is the Innocent. What I am saying is that Iran sees no option. We have invaded Iraq on no cause why wouldn't we invade them. Does the United States have credibility?

[Sparkly]

13. Thanks for clarifying.

You're right -- no credibility, and the price of stupid sabre-rattling should be clear to would-be "cowboys" now, too.

However, we're draining our resources and military power much the same way the Soviet Union drained theirs. Attacking Iran would be disastrous for the US, and surely they know it.

[Maggie_May]

14. Yes you are right on attacking Iran

but what if and I don't like what ifs. Are you so sure or are you sure now because the Democrats have taken power back. I am not so sure if the tables were turned. I feel at this point Bush can never be trusted again with any decision and thats sad to go to bed at night and be reminded of that.

[leveymg]

10. Because they don't want to frontally defy the Saudis,but they'll do it anyway.

Just more stupid gamesmanship. Bush-Cheney and their dumb cop/bad cop game aren't fooling anyone other than a few idiots -- such as the Saudis -- who still want to believe there are options to a three-state solution for Iraq. Everyone else in the region is simply ignoring the White House's games, and getting on with the business of carving up Iraq.
___________________________________________________
http://www.dailykos.com/story/2006/12/12/124824/53
Saudi Ambassador's Abrupt Departure: Dangerous Signal?
by leveymg
Tue Dec 12, 2006 at 10:04:02 AM PST
There's an interesting, and possibly frightening, development in U.S.-Saudi relations. The Washington Post reports that Saudi Ambassador Prince Turki al-Faisal has suddenly, and unexpectedly quit his post in Washington.

This report may be alarming because of what happened shortly after Prince Turki's last unexpected resignation. The Prince had been head of Saudi external intelligence for 24 years when he suddenly left his post on September 4, 2001. The Times of London has reported that Prince Turki was the long-time Saudi intelligence contact with Osama bin Laden.

leveymg's diary :: Permalink :: There's more... (311 comments)

______________________________________________________________________
http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.ph...
State of denial. Outcome will be the same, whether Condi admits or not -
Edited on Thu Dec-14-06 11:44 PM by leveymg
we lost. It's their show now.

The process of breaking Iraq up will proceed, anyway, through back channel diplomacy. It's already happening:

Chalabi Emerges In Damascus On Peace Quest

WASHINGTON — A little-noticed visit by Ahmad Chalabi to Syria is igniting speculation that the former Iraqi exile leader is emerging as a key channel between Damascus and Washington.

After a weekend meeting with the Syrian foreign minister, Walid al-Moallem, Mr. Chalabi announced that Syria and Iraq would formally open their respective embassies in Damascus and Baghdad on Monday. An American diplomat said yesterday that Mr. Chalabi also was gauging the interest of the Assad regime in a limited rapprochement with America.

Mr. Chalabi regularly consults with the American ambassador to Baghdad, Zalmay Khalilzad. On Saturday, Mr. Chalabi told reporters that Syria and Iraq were considering joint patrols along the porous border they share.

While Mr. Chalabi's opposition organization had offices in Damascus throughout the 1990s, he had not visited Syria since before the war. Mr. Chalabi's weekend visit is also notable because Syria has helped fund and supply the Sunni insurgency in Iraq. In some ways, it also reflects new political realities following the Iraq war, including a military and intelligence alliance between Syria and Iran, whose ruling mullahs often consult Mr. Chalabi on Iraq.
http://www.nysun.com/article/45092?page_no=1


Mark

[Sparkly]

11. Makes sense.

But what do they hope to "win" in this game? Do they think they're incapable of effecting any influence through talks, so they're afraid to take responsibility for the failures they anticipate? Do they want the conflict to spread further through the region? What do you think?

[leveymg]

15. They know they've lost, already. Stall, delay, obfuscate. That's their options

Regional destabilization is the game. The Establishment won't let them bomb Iran, so they hope to lure the Saudis into a conflict. That's maybe the last trick up their sleaves, but I don't think even the Royals are going to fall for it. The prize, as always, is the upstream oil nationalized by Aramco in 1973.

Let's not forget who Bush and Cheney are really working for:

[Sparkly]

16. Good points.

Thanks.

[madrchsod]

17. condi`s diplomatic skill?

"the woman "condi", whose perversions and unreasoning hatred of all mankind has threated even the children of the planet "earth"....from superman 2, the description of "ursa"

they have no intention of doing anything because where ever they step is a pile of their own shit. they are playing a dangerous game of delaying the outcome until 2008, unfortunately for the united states and the rest of the world we cannot wait that long.

the boys in the middle east hold more of our money than the chinese, so it is no wonder the boys are getting a tad bit upset with this boy handling their money.