- ‹ previous
- 1815 of 2798
- next ›
Showing Who's Boss
SHOWING WHO'S BOSS....Israeli Prime Minister Ehud Olmert explains how he gets things done when the U.S. State Department is pushing to vote for a UN resolution he opposes:
"I said, 'Get me President Bush on the phone,' " Mr. Olmert said in a speech in the southern Israeli city of Ashkelon, according to The Associated Press. "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,' " Mr. Olmert continued. "He got off the podium and spoke to me."
....Mr. Olmert claimed that once he made his case to Mr. Bush, the president called [Condoleezza] Rice and told her to abstain. "She was left pretty embarrassed," Mr. Olmert said, according to The A.P.
There are, of course, many things you could say about this. But the question that most piques my curiosity is: Why? Why would Olmert tell this story? Sure, he's bragging for a local audience, but what's the point? It's not as if he's running for anything these days. And he has to know that a story like this will embarrass the American government on a whole bunch of different levels. So why do it? Is he an idiot? Does he just not care anymore? What's the deal?
UPDATE: The most obvious comment about Olmert's story, of course, is this one:
"This is terrible for the United States," said Daniel Levy, a former Israeli peace negotiator. "This confirms every assumption they have in the Arab world about the tail wagging the dog. . . . It's a story you're likely to hear quoted there for years to come."
I'd say that's a pretty fair guess. Thanks a lot, Mr. Prime Minister.
optical, there are a number of signed stories. And the administration itself has accepted the story of what Olmert said and has responded to it:
McCormack, who pointed out that he was with Rice at the United Nations during the negotiations and vote, denied Olmert's characterization.
"She was not at all embarrassed or ashamed of the actions that we took," he told reporters. "Secretary Rice's recommendation and inclination ? the entire time ? was to abstain.... This idea that somehow she was turned around on this issue is 100-percent completely untrue."
McCormack did not explain why Rice participated in the wording of the resolution, however.
Why? I think the answer is in the context in which he was speaking.
Since I don't know the context I don't really have an answer.
Assuming what he said was true, and when Israel commands Bush complies, I am at least a little glad that this is made public. When this crap stays hidden it simply stinks up the place for a longer time.
If you ask why, you receive more lessons from the iron fist.
And I'm sure Obama will dance for Olmert too. Not.
This is basically begging soon to be President Obama and Secretary of State Clinton to publicly display a kind of access parity for both Israel and the Palestinians, just to make the contrast with Bush.
It gets worse with this weird denial from the State Department.
http://news.yahoo.com/s/afp/20090112/pl_afp/mideastconflictgazaolmertusr...
"But a US State Department official, speaking on the condition of anonymity, denied Olmert's claim.
"Mr. Olmert is wrong," the official said.
Even if everything had gone according to plan, "she would have abstained. That was the plan," said the official."
Posted too soon.
At the above link it says,
"She was left shamed. A resolution that she prepared and arranged, and in the end she did not vote in favour," Olmert said in a speech in the southern town of Ashkelon.
and then the weird denial:
"Even if everything had gone according to plan, "she would have abstained. That was the plan"
Since the tail has been wagging the dog with only a few rare failures for years, it is good to have this explicitly known. Maybe a movement to reclaim sovereignty over our own foreign policy would have a fighting chance now?
I really doubt it, but this looks like at least a potential opportunity to be wasted.
We give Israel billions of dollars a year for this?
Kevin seems upset not because there is new confirmation that the tail is wagging the dog, but because the tail actually boasted about it and now the dog has no plausible deniability.
Well Condi has 7 days left to resign and salvage her personal legacy. That would be fun.
Something really stinks about this story. I looked up the original AFP report - no author on it. Everyone else is referring to this, and then adding whatever they feel.
This is crap journalism. Don't you examine your source material Kevin? Or are you trying to be the next Drudge.
optical, there are a number of signed stories. And the administration itself has accepted the story of what Olmert said and has responded to it:
McCormack, who pointed out that he was with Rice at the United Nations during the negotiations and vote, denied Olmert's characterization.
"She was not at all embarrassed or ashamed of the actions that we took," he told reporters. "Secretary Rice's recommendation and inclination the entire time was to abstain.... This idea that somehow she was turned around on this issue is 100-percent completely untrue."
McCormack did not explain why Rice participated in the wording of the resolution, however.
Why? Go back and look at the Sunday New York Times. The big story? The Bush Administration talking about how it was able to keep the Israelis from bombing Iran.
If you're an Israeli leader, that kind of talk from the American government is a bit emasculating. So I'm guessing Olmert decided two could play at that game.
Speculation on my part. But it's the only way of connecting the dots that makes sense to me.
JS said: Kevin seems upset not because there is new confirmation that the tail is wagging the dog, but because the tail actually boasted about it and now the dog has no plausible deniability.
But Kevin explicitly said "the question that most piques my curiosity is: Why?", not that he was or was not upset about it. Its clear that Israel has had an overly strong voice in our policy, and this has left us unable to act as a fair, neutral broker in negotiations. Its also clear that this kind decision making from Bush horribly undermines the State Dept and any diplomatic efforts. But these facts are no surprise after the last 8 years of incompetence and failure. One thing that is interesting about the story is the the question Kevin posed. What's Olmert's motiation to make such an inflamatory and unnecessary statement in public? The answer, depending on what it really is, could be very significant. For example maybe Olmert if quite happy to be inflamatory because he want to continue with open military conflict.
John Kerry proposed a global test. With Bush, we get an Israeli test. How nice.
Kahner, at the end of his post Kevin quotes Daniel Levy saying:
"This confirms every assumption they have in the Arab world about the tail wagging the dog. . . . It's a story you're likely to hear quoted there for years to come."
And Kevin comments:
"I'd say that's a pretty fair guess. Thanks a lot, Mr. Prime Minister."
I think a fair interpretation of this is that he is upset about Olmert's statement because it "confirms every assumption they have in the Arab world" -- not because of the deeper reality it conveys.
"Even if everything had gone according to plan, "she would have abstained. That was the plan"
Ah, they had a plan.
Speculation on my part. But it's the only way of connecting the dots that makes sense to me.
You could be right. Juan Cole has another speculation:
The likelihood is that Olmert was stung by severe criticism of his government for allowing the UNSC cease-fire resolution to be passed. His Kadima Party is in a neck and neck race with the even more hard line and far rightwing Likud Party, with elections to be held on February 10. Presumably Olmert was trying to deflect the Likudniks' charges that Kadima was inept or impotent, and to improve the standing of his would-be successor, Tzipi Livni (now the Foreign Minister).
This is also a reasonable explanation. (I need to ask a a politically aware Israeli co-worker.)
Who are we kidding. Cuban Americans, Jewish Americans, and Irish Americans (not so much any more) have to be confronted when we are talking about Cuba, Israel or Northern Ireland. Nobody wants to buck those domestic constituencies. All three groups work hard to "support" their friends and relatives. The policies they support are not generally based on American needs. As a result we get crappy foreign policy.
We need politicians willing to stand up for America. I have had it with doing dumb things because some bunch thinks they are helping their "homeland."
"Even if everything had gone according to plan, "she would have abstained. That was the plan."
If Condi Rice was involved there was no plan.
Irish Americans began arriving en masse around 1850, by about 75 years later they had managed to send out enough money to liberate Ireland. Jewish Americans began arriving en masse around 1890, and by about 50 years later they had managed to send out enough money to establish Israel. Cuban Americans began arriving en masse around 1960, and now it is 49 years later.
My point is, how many Irish Americans do you know who give a rats' ass about Ulster?
Irish Americans like football.
Some people are just too honest for their own good. Mearsheimer and Walt have similar anecdotes in their book on the Israel lobby.
http://www.amconmag.com/article/2008/jun/30/00018/
"This was my first AIPAC conference, and the first surprise was how blatant the business of wielding influence is. The conference makes no bones about this function, the most savage expression of which is the Tuesday dinner at which AIPAC performs its "roll call," where the names of all the politicians who have come to the conference are read off from the stage by three barkers in near auctioneer fashion. The pols try to outdo one another in I-love-Israel encomia. House Speaker Nancy Pelosi surely won the day when she teared up while dangling the dogtags of three Israeli soldiers captured by Hezbollah and Hamas two years ago."
So why did he say that ?
1) Bragging is fun. Bragging about bossing the President of the USA around must be real real fun. Look the guy is in disgrace and might end up in prison. My main hypothesis is that he's Blagojeviching.
2) This is real real bad for the next Israeli Prime Minister too. Obama will want to show that things have changed. It seems sadly likely that the next prime minister will be Netanyahu.
Now look me in the eye and tell me your patriotism is stronger than your desire to see Bibi squirm.
[Eye cyber looked "yes" firmly cyber-stated]
OK you're a better patriot than Olmert, but you never had to deal with Bibi.
Let's look at it this way. Olmert is the same guy now he's been all along. So what does this say about all of his other actions ?
This is the biggest revelation coming out of this war. AMERICA WAKE UP!! This single bit of news can be a measuring tape against which all politicians, news outlets and forums can be measured as to who is who. Who is on the payroll and who is not. This is an outrage against the people of the US, why bother voting. So whoever is friends with the US and support US policies are really supporting Israel even if they are Muslims like Pakistan, etc. What a joke.
There is Mearsheimer and Walt and Sharon:
"Every time we do something you tell me America will do this and will
do that... I want to tell you something very clear: Don't worry
about American pressure on Israel. We, the Jewish people, control
America, and the Americans know it."
Ariel Sharon, October 3, 2001, to Shimon Peres, as reported on Kol
Yisrael radio.
And now Olmert rubbing it in our faces. I guess denial can be comforting for some of us...
JS, i'm not saying Kevin isn't upset about the Olmert comment. I am as well. The reason is that this statement will reinforce the perception that US policy is completely controlled by Isreali interests and undermine any legitimate diplomatic efforts by the current or future administration. This does mean that either of us aren't upset about the "tail wagging the dog" policy Bush has pursued, it just means that's not what this particular post focused on. I'm angry about both US and Israeli actions, but its not breaking news. The Olmert's comments and their likely effect are.