How could this woman have been Secretary of State? Madeleine Albright is no student of current events, however well-schooled she is in Realpolitik.

Albright opens her particularly myopic editorial in the LA Times with this gem on misdirection:

Three years after the invasion of Iraq and the invention of the phrase "axis of evil," the administration now highlights the threat posed by Iran — whose radical government has been vastly strengthened by the invasion of Iraq.

Look, I know she’s not alone. She’s got the brightest lights in the Democratic firmament twinkling in the same heavenly choir. If it weren’t for that Puritan George W. Bush, and his even more sinister Puppet Meister Dick Cheney, why those realists down at Foggy Bottom would have straightened out Iran long ago.

Their bottoms aren’t the only part of their anatomy that’s foggy.

Do you think I exaggerate? How’s this for a whopper from Ms. Albright:

When Al Qaeda struck the U.S. on 9/11, Iran condemned the attacks and later participated constructively in talks on Afghanistan.

Oh yeah, Iran was ready to play a lead role in the fight against terrorism, except Bush picked Pakistan for the team first. Right. According to Hans Blix and the other buffoons on the UN Weapons Inspections Team, Saddam Hussein “participated constructively” in ongoing WMD and weapons program verification. Regardless of how the “they smuggled WMD to Syria” question gets answered (was Saddam and/or his minions lying even about that), translated documents and interviews of ex-Government officials convincingly confirm Saddam was playing “rope a dope” with UN Inspectors.

Come to think on it, UN and EU apologists are making the same claims about a duplicitous Iran. (I guess we made them be that way.)

And News Flash to Ms. Albright: Palestinian leaders condemned the 9/11 attacks, while every last Palestinian (with the leaders looking out the window in triumph, no doubt) hit the streets for a week long block party to celebrate.

Why do only “Diplomats” still put any stock in these staged public expressions of condemnation? Have they learned nothing from 9/11, and the duplicitous actions of state sponsors of terror? (Sorry, I know that’s way too rhetorical, but I just couldn’t help it.)

One more odd conclusion from Albright, one that can only be sustained in the rarified atmosphere of the “never right” left:

…the Bush administration should disavow any plan for regime change in Iran — not because the regime should not be changed but because U.S. endorsement of that goal only makes it less likely. In today's warped political environment, nothing strengthens a radical government more than Washington's overt antagonism. It also is common sense to presume that Iran will be less willing to cooperate in Iraq and to compromise on nuclear issues if it is being threatened with destruction.

The regime in Iran is beleaguered on all sides. It is stepping up the proxy battle in Iraq and against US interests more broadly, due to the failure of the “insurgents.” A Democratic government in Iraq on the borders on Iran poses the gravest threat to Iran. The US, in confronting Al Qaeda and taking a stand against Iran’s nuclear belligerence has largely tilted the EU and the UN against Iran (at least with a show of those same “public expressions”).

Iran’s government is already on thin ice in many respects, I certainly can’t see how they can be described as stronger, greatly strengthened, or likely to strengthen in the areas that are their greatest vulnerability: they are detested by their own people, held responsible for much of the violence in Iraq by Iraqis themselves, and they have maintained a proxy war of terrorism against the US for decades, which now intensifies.

Getting the one man in the world most willing to use force against terrorism more angry at you would seem to be more dangerous than these mad mullahs might suppose. Are they perhaps making the same strategic miscalculation as Saddam back in early 2003?

(Via Real Clear Politics)