Israeli Prime Minister repeatedly embarrasses Bush & Condi

Post Reply
User avatar
Guysanto
Site Admin
Posts: 1289
Joined: Fri Mar 07, 2003 6:32 pm

Israeli Prime Minister repeatedly embarrasses Bush & Condi

Post by Guysanto » Wed Jan 14, 2009 7:52 am

'PM stands by his version in diplo spat'
Jan. 14, 2009
herb keinon, allison hoffman and ap , THE JERUSALEM POST

Aides of Prime Minister Ehud Olmert on Wednesday said that Olmert stands by his claim that he caused the US to abstain from a UN resolution calling for a halt in Gaza fighting.

The aides said the prime minister told the story as it happened. Olmert has also claimed that Bush broke off a speech he was giving in Philadelphia to take his call, and that the abstention embarrassed Rice.

The aides spoke on condition of anonymity because the diplomatic matter is sensitive.

Israel and the US engaged in a rare and uncharacteristic public spat Tuesday over events leading to the US abstention in last Thursday's UN Security Council resolution vote on the Gaza crisis.

Both the State Department and White House spokesmen said that Olmert's claim that he had essentially gotten US President George W. Bush to twist Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice's arm and abstain on the measure was simply untrue.

State Department spokesman Sean McCormack said Olmert's story of what happened in his conversation with Bush was "just 100 percent, totally, completely not true," while White House deputy press secretary Tony Fratto said "there are inaccuracies."

During a speech to local authority heads in Ashkelon on Monday, Olmert said that Rice had been embarrassed when she was ordered to back down from supporting the resolution she had prepared, after Olmert intervened with Bush.

Olmert said he had called Bush and interrupted a lecture he was giving in Philadelphia to ensure that the US not vote for the resolution.

"I said: 'Get me President Bush on the phone,'" Olmert said. "They said he was in the middle of giving a speech in Philadelphia. I said I didn't care: 'I need to talk to him now.' He got off the podium and spoke to me."

According to Olmert, he told Bush that the US should not vote for the resolution, and Bush then directed Rice to abstain.

"She was left pretty embarrassed," Olmert said.

McCormack said that Rice had decided as early as Wednesday that she would not veto a resolution, after Arab ministers rejected an initial effort by the US to push for a weaker presidential statement from the Security Council. That left her with the option of either voting for the final text or abstaining.

"So you have two possibilities left: voting for it, or abstaining, and she decided, given where the state of the negotiations were in terms of the Mubarak initiative, that abstaining would give the best possibility for those negotiations to move forward and actually resolve the situation on the ground," McCormack said.

He said Rice had spoken with Bush both before and after his conversation with Olmert, but insisted "with 100% assurance that her intention, again, going into the conversation with the president was that she was going to abstain."

An official in the Prime Minister's Office tersely responded to the comments from Washington, saying "the Prime Minister's comments on Monday were a correct account of what took place."

The official downplayed the incident, saying it was "over" and would have no lasting impact.

The official said he was not aware of any conversation Olmert had had with Rice on Tuesday to clarify the matter, or that any messages had been relayed from Jerusalem to Washington.

Washington's account of the events, however, seemed to have been indirectly confirmed by Foreign Minister Tzipi Livni, who was quoted as saying earlier in the week that she had held seven "difficult" phone conversations with Rice on the day of the vote, and Rice had told her that while the US would not veto the resolution, it would abstain.

Rice spent three days in New York shuttling between conference rooms at United Nations headquarters, meeting with Arab ministers and her British and French counterparts. She said after Thursday's vote that she had abstained because she felt a resolution "might have been a little premature."

Israeli officials said it was unlikely that the spat would have any lasting impact, primarily because Rice would be leaving office in less than a week.

Olmert's comment, said in an off-the-cuff manner and not read from a text, is widely believed to reflect the degree of Israeli disappointment at Rice's handling of the Security Council resolution.

Middle East expert Steven Spiegel described the episode as "the worst faux pas by an Israeli prime minister in history."

"You really do wonder what the prime minister was thinking - if it's true, you'd really want to keep it as quiet as possible, and if it's not true, why would you want to make up a story that would embarrass both the Bush administration and the Israeli government and draw criticism from those who are antagonistic to Israel?" asked Spiegel, director of the Center for Middle East Development at UCLA.

"No matter how you play it, exaggeration, falsehood, whole truth, the whole thing makes them all look bad," Spiegel told The Jerusalem Post.

User avatar
Guysanto
Site Admin
Posts: 1289
Joined: Fri Mar 07, 2003 6:32 pm

Post by Guysanto » Wed Jan 14, 2009 8:46 am

Besides being a War Criminal of the first degree and an allegedly corrupt government official, is Prime Minister Ehud Olmert also certifiably crazy or just unbelievably arrogant ? ? ?

If he made up the story, then he is nuts!

If the story is true, it would be a very, very sad reality that a Prime Minister of Israel can practically order around the President of the United States and his Secretary of State. And boast about it afterwards. And gloat for having embarrassed the Secretary of State.

[quote]"I said: 'Get me President Bush on the phone,'" Olmert said. "They said he was in the middle of giving a speech in Philadelphia. I said I didn't care: 'I need to talk to him now.' He got off the podium and spoke to me."[/quote]

From the U.S. point of view, is the Israeli lobby so powerful that Olmert could actually boss around George Bush, interrupting his delivery of a speech, and telling him what he should do and how to handle his Secretary of State? Oh Lord, has it come to that point?

Who the hell do we pay our taxes to: the U.S. government or the government of Israel?

Though the U.S. is using hundreds of billions of dollars to supporting the Israeli death machine, I never thought that the Israelis owned the U.S. government, as despicable as it may be. Oh, say, Olmert must be lying!

If he is, then Bush and Rice should have enough balls to say so in a forthright manner, even if it is their last week of holding the reins of power, in a period during which they unleashed the dogs of war.

Some of those dogs are now biting the hands that feed them.

Barb
Posts: 140
Joined: Fri Dec 29, 2006 1:36 pm

Post by Barb » Thu Jan 15, 2009 1:51 am

I compare this to the shoe lobbing incident. This one seems a lot more disrespectful.

Leoneljb
Posts: 222
Joined: Fri Dec 29, 2006 10:29 pm

Post by Leoneljb » Thu Jan 15, 2009 8:01 am

I am not Surprised at all!!!!
For over Sixty Years, Israel Had been calling the shot in the Middle East.
The First Counrtry which started with Saddam having WMD and recently with Iran...
I am outraged with the way the US is dealing with Israel!
I know that some People would use the "A CARD" (anti-semitism)!!!
And, I won't see any change soon... It's a Shame!
Leonel

User avatar
Guysanto
Site Admin
Posts: 1289
Joined: Fri Mar 07, 2003 6:32 pm

Post by Guysanto » Thu Jan 15, 2009 8:27 am

Curiously enough, this incident has not captured the attention of Americans at large. The shoe throwing incident, they made fun of it at least. Here, there is nothing funny at all. The implications of Olmert dictating U.S. policy are frightening. Will he be able to direct the Obama administration just as much?

Unfortunately, there is not much indication for change with this upcoming administration. On the Middle East front, Barack Obama and Hillary Clinton have been eager to portray themselves as being more servile to the interests of the pro-Israeli lobby than previous administrations.

It's a damn shame!

I still support Obama overall, but I do hope that there will be a pro-Palestinian demonstration during the inaugural celebrations.

Obama has indicated his support for a Palestinian State, but that is not enough! President Bush did that also. We have to move beyond the rhetoric. We should not continue to support Israel's policy of killing 500 Palestinians for every Israeli. That is simply insane. As long as Israel pursues that policy, it earns no respect in my book. The victims of the Holocaust should not be given free rein to perpetrate wholesale massacres of their own.

Prime Minister Ehud Olmert is no improvement from his predecessor, Ariel Sharon, who has been in a coma for the past three years. In fact, all U.S. political leaders, other than Jimmy Carter, appear to have been induced in a coma of political stupor when it comes to Israel's "occupied lands" policies.

User avatar
Guysanto
Site Admin
Posts: 1289
Joined: Fri Mar 07, 2003 6:32 pm

Post by Guysanto » Sat Jan 24, 2009 11:08 am

The article below goes to the core of the debate. "Who runs America" is a crucial question that newer generations of Americans, who have chosen to break with the past in electing a different kind of leader, ought now to answer instead of wallowing in complete ignorance of the suffering we repeatedly cause to men, women, and children in some parts of the world due to our blind loyalty to well-endowed political lobbies.

Guy

[quote]The power of AIPAC: Who runs America?
By Brian Cloughley

Winston Churchill and Franklin Roosevelt were pretty close, politically and personally. They led the fight against fascism in the early 1940s, and although they had their disagreements they got on very well. They were both blunt in expressing their views, but there was no doubt who was the more powerful : Roosevelt called the shots, although Churchill had a lot of influence on him. But it would have been unthinkable for Churchill to have behaved in the way that the present (though not for long) prime minister of Israel did with the present (though not for long) president of the United States.

Prime minister Olmert of Israel, who has been forced to stand down because of allegations of corruption, telephoned President Bush to make the latter alter his orders to his Secretary of State to support a mild resolution in the UN Security Council that called for a ceasefire in Gaza. The barely believable transcript of Olmert's boasting of his success is on public record. He said:

"I [Olmert] spoke with him [Bush]; I told him: You can't vote for this proposal. He said: listen, I don't know, I didn't see, don't know what it says. I told him: I know, and you can't vote for it! He then instructed the secretary of state, and she did not vote for it."

There is no other head of government in the entire world who could say such words to the president of the United States. And will Olmert's successor be able to speak with Bush's successor in the same way and with a similar result?

We know the name of the next U.S. president, but we don't know who the next Israeli prime minister will be. It looks as if it might be a choice between two steel-minded sadists, Tzipi Livni or Binyamin Netanyahu, both dedicated haters of Palestine, Palestinians and Arabs in general. So what might they be able to say to President Obama? Will they be able to pick up the phone and call him to suggest forcefully that he alter the voting intention of the United States of America in the UN Security Council? And what would he do, if they did?

Given the commitment to Israel of Mr Obama and his Secretary of State, Hillary Clinton, as was obvious in their groveling speeches last year to the American Israeli Public Affairs Committee, there is no guarantee that they will, either of them, ever utter a word in criticism of Israel.

There is one thing certain: the U.S. Congress is going to continue its unconditional support for Israel, no matter what war crimes are committed by its disgusting thugs-in-uniform. The Reps need the money, after all, which they get through political action committees which are generously funded by American Jews. And they are scared to political death by the threat that pro-Israel agencies will destroy them politically if they dare say a word against Israel.

There are very few Representatives of the people of America who would dare challenge Israel, or who might possibly criticize Israel, or who have the courage to condemn atrocities committed by Israel.

The worst of all the barbarians who are killing children and their mothers and fathers in Gaza are the Israeli pilots who mercilessly bomb houses occupied by terrified families. And they are staunchly supported by the House of Representatives of the United States of America.

These pilots, these vile little war-gamers of the skies, these latter-day examples of what Tom Wolfe called "The Right Stuff", can zoom over towns full of traumatized children and happily heave and hurl their bombs and rockets to kill yet more Palestinian kids without the remotest chance of being shot down. How heroic; how truly gladiatorial. How contemptible. They are blood brothers with the pilots of the Nazis' Stuka ground attack aircraft of yesteryear, with their terrifying sirens, who bombed columns of fleeing refugees all round Europe.

But the U.S. House of Representatives rushed to praise Israel, and endorse its invasion and its merciless air strikes, and committed America to a motion "Recognizing Israel's right to defend itself against attacks from Gaza, reaffirming the United States' strong support for Israel, and supporting the Israeli-Palestinian peace process."

Not many Americans know anything about the hideous barbarity in Gaza, because U.S. cable networks and newspapers rarely carry pictures of disfigured blood-splashed children who have been killed, maimed or orphaned by the Israelis. But here in Europe we have access to some TV channels and newspapers that are very different from the pliant pro-Zion patsies of the major news outlets across the Atlantic.

And if U.S. television channels carried pictures like the ones we see, there would be such outbursts of horror and indignation that even the US Congress might be forced to condemn the Israeli fascists for their barbarity. But the all-powerful Israel lobby makes sure that little of the sort will appear.

Who runs America?
The only honorable members of the House, voting against unconditional support for Israeli killing of Palestinian children, were Democrats Dennis Kucinich (Ohio), Maxine Waters (California), Gwen Moore (Wisconsin), and Nick Rahall (West Virginia), along with Texas Republican Ron Paul. And Mr Kucinich put the whole case for their vote when he said

"In Gaza, the United Nations gave the Israeli army the coordinates of a UN school, and the school was then hit by Israeli tank fire, killing about 40. The UN put flags on emergency vehicles, coordinating the movements of those vehicles with the Israeli military, and the vehicles came under attack, killing emergency workers. The Israeli army evacuated 100 Palestinians to shelter, and then bombed the shelter, killing 30 people."

Blunt stuff – but it cut no ice with the 390 members of the House who voted for Israel to continue its killing.

The Israelis have killed over a thousand Palestinians, and the UN reports that at least 500 of these deaths were civilians, and that half of these were women and children. One million of Gaza's 1.5 million people have no electricity, and about 750,000 are without water. They are existing in conditions of appalling squalor and fear, with US-supplied helicopter gunships and F-16s striking at will, and tanks and artillery destroying their houses and killing their children.

Yet the House votes for Israel. And the President of the United States of America jumps to obey the Israeli prime minister. But will there be any change under Obama and Clinton?

A year ago Hillary Clinton told the American Israeli Committee that "we stand with Israel because of our shared values and our shared belief in the dignity of men and women and the right to live without fear or oppression."

Last June Barack Obama told the American Israeli Committee "Now is the time to be vigilant in facing down every foe, just as we move forward in seeking a future of peace for the children of Israel, and for all children. Now is the time to stand by Israel . . ."

Will they continue to support Israel, the country that has laid waste a land and murdered over 200 women and children?

If they do, the question must be asked: Who runs America?


-- Brian Cloughley's book about the Pakistan army, War, Coups and Terror, has just been published by Pen & Sword Books (UK) and will be published in the US in May by Skyhorse (New York). This article appeared in CounterPunch.org.

Source: Middle East Online[/quote]

Post Reply