Realists don't live in reality
It's been spoken about earlier, and still deserves considerable attention, on how Condi Rice, for example, is a "realist" who refuses to accept reality. She's one of four examples cited in Mark Steyn's recent column in the Chicago Sun-Times, in an interview originally published by Cal Thomas, and it sounds as though she does not even want to accept reality:
Tammy Bruce (via Hot Air) shows what reality is really like out there.
Also, as Melanie Phillips (who points to two columns by Khaled Abu Toameh and Caroline Glick) notes:
Update: David Bedein asks in The Evening Bulletin: "Did Condoleezza Rice Commit A Felony By Offering Weapons To A Terror Organization?" Worth reading in full.
"The great majority of Palestinian people," said the secretary of state to Cal Thomas the other day, "they just want a better life. This is an educated population. I mean, they have a kind of culture of education and a culture of civil society. I just don't believe mothers want their children to grow up to be suicide bombers. I think the mothers want their children to grow up to go to university. And if you can create the right conditions, that's what people are going to do."As far as I can tell, part of the problem is that Condi sounds as though she's made up her mind, and doesn't want to talk about it any further. And that's exactly the problem with such people: they don't want to discuss the issues.
Cal Thomas asked a sharp follow-up: "Do you think this or do you know this?"
"Well, I think I know it," said Dr. Rice.
"You think you know it?"
"I think I know it."
Tammy Bruce (via Hot Air) shows what reality is really like out there.
Also, as Melanie Phillips (who points to two columns by Khaled Abu Toameh and Caroline Glick) notes:
Those who know President Bush say that alarm over Baker and Gates should not be overdone, since Bush is a man who means what he says and is unlikely to retreat from his stated positions over seeing it through in Iraq and not tolerating Iranian nuclear weapons. Against that, however, is the fact that he does rely on Condoleezza Rice; and no less disturbingly, that he requires his people to present him with a consensus for action. This means he does not hear rival proposals, and instead gets served with proposals which are forced to embody the lowest common denominator. This is not the leadership required for the defence of the free world.Absolutely correct. Perhaps it's time to replace some of the current staff choices?
Update: David Bedein asks in The Evening Bulletin: "Did Condoleezza Rice Commit A Felony By Offering Weapons To A Terror Organization?" Worth reading in full.