Israel says "Jump"; America says "How High?"
#1
This is a tad bit old -- from 19 January -- but worth the read. From Chronicles Magazine:
 
 

Is Ehud’s Poodle Acting Up? by Patrick J. Buchanan
January 19th, 2009



As Israel entered the third week of its Gaza blitz, Prime Minister Ehud Olmert regaled a crowd in Ashkelon with an astonishing tale.
He had, said Olmert, whistled up George Bush, interrupted him in the middle of a speech and told him to instruct Condi Rice not to vote for a U.N. resolution Condi herself had written. Bush did as told, said Olmert.
The crowd loved it. Here is the background.
After intense negotiations with Britain and France, Secretary of State Rice had persuaded the Security Council to agree on a resolution calling for a cease-fire. But Olmert wanted more time to kill Hamas.
So, here, in Olmert’s words, is what happened next.
Quote:In the night between Thursday and Friday, when the secretary of state wanted to lead the vote on a cease-fire at the Security Council, we did not want her to vote in favor.
I said, “Get me President Bush on the phone.” 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.
Vox Wrote:Ay-mazing.

According to Olmert, Bush was clueless.
Quote:He said: “Listen. I don’t know about it. I didn’t see it. I’m not familiar with the phrasing.”
I told him the United States could not vote in favor. It cannot vote in favor of such a resolution. He immediately called the secretary of state and told her not to vote in favor. …
She was left shamed. A resolution that she prepared and arranged, and in the end she did not vote in favor.
The U.N. diplomatic corps was astonished when the United States abstained on the 14-0 resolution Rice had crafted and claimed her country supported. Arab diplomats say Rice promised them she would vote for it.
State Department spokesman Sean McCormack, with Rice at the United Nations during the debate on the resolution, said Olmert’s remarks were “just 100 percent, totally, completely untrue.”
But the White House cut Rice off at the knees, saying only that there were “inaccuracies” in the Olmert story. The video does not show Bush interrupting his speech to take any call.
Yet, the substance rings true and is widely believed, and Olmert is happily describing the egg on Rice’s face:
“He (Bush) gave an order to the secretary of state, and she did not vote in favor of it—a resolution she cooked up, phrased, organized and maneuvered for. She was left pretty shamed. …”
With Bush and Rice leaving office in hours, and Olmert in weeks, the story may seem to lack significance.
Yet, public gloating by an Israeli prime minister that he can order a U.S. president off a podium and instruct him to reverse and humiliate his secretary of state may cause even Ehud’s poodle to rise up on its hind legs one day and bite its master.
Taking such liberties with a superpower that, for Israel’s benefit, has shoveled out $150 billion and subordinated its own interests in the Arab and Islamic world would seem a hubristic and stupid thing to do.
And there are straws in the wind that, despite congressional resolutions giving full-throated approval to all that Israel is doing in Gaza, this is becoming a troubled relationship.
Two weeks ago, Foreign Minister Tzipi Livni, in opposing any truce, assured the world there “is no humanitarian crisis in the (Gaza) Strip,” and the humanitarian situation there “is completely as it should be.”
Not so to Hillary Clinton. In her confirmation hearings, the secretary of state-designate, reports The New York Times, “struck a sharper tone toward Israel on violence in the Middle East.”
Clinton “seemed to part from the tone set by the Bush administration in calling attention to what she described as the ‘tragic humanitarian costs’ borne by Palestinians, as well as Israelis.”
More dramatic was a weekend report by the Times‘ David Sanger that the White House had rebuffed Olmert’s request for new U.S. bunker-buster bombs and denied Israel permission to overfly Iraq in any strike on Iran’s nuclear enrichment plant at Natanz.
Sanger described these U.S.-Israeli talks as “tense.”
Repeatedly, Israel has warned that Iran is close to a bomb and threatened to attack unilaterally. Indeed, Israel simulated such an attack in an air exercise of 100 planes that went as far as Greece.
Bush both blocked and vetoed that attack, says Sanger. But he did assure Olmert that America is engaged in the sabotage of Iran’s nuclear program by helping provide Tehran with defective parts.
This would seem a stunning breach of security secrets, but no outrage has been heard from the White House, nor has any charge come that the Times compromised national security.
With Olmert, Rice and Bush departing, and Obama and Hillary taking charge committed to talking to Iran, can the old intimacy survive the new friction and colliding agendas?
COPYRIGHT 2009 CREATORS SYNDICATE INC.

Vox Wrote:Please visit Chronicles Magazine to read the comments on this article. I recommend subscribing to their print magazine, too! Good stuff most of the time...
Reply
#2
The part about Bush getting off the stage to talk to Ehud is incorrect as he was in Philadelphia and delivered a twenty-seven minute speech without interruption. I remember reading this back then, and it of course was attributed to the Bush administration, but their is tape of the event that shows the speech without interruption.
Reply
#3
timoose Wrote:The part about Bush getting off the stage to talk to Ehud is incorrect as he was in Philadelphia and delivered a twenty-seven minute speech without interruption. I remember reading this back then, and it of course was attributed to the Bush administration, but their is tape of the event that shows the speech without interruption.
The fact that Olmert can say that this is how it happened and sound plausible speaks volumes.  In the middle of a speech, during a hot shower, interrupting that night's episode of Sponge Bob Squarepants, the details don't matter.  That Bush heeded his master's bidding does.
Reply
#4
Washington is Israeli-occupied territory. They've got every politician there right by the you-know-what's.
Reply
#5
True and both Major Parties are bought/paid for........


I vote Constitution Party whenever possible and esp for Federal........Baldwin and Peroutka were not Israel-firsters.....
Reply
#6
pat Buchanan-quick to attack GOPers, but quick to call a return to the "kennel" in 2004......not even backing a Buchananite, Peroutka.....
Reply
#7
Well excuse me but I think the important part is the facts. But far be it from me to interfere with your good time, Gentlemen.
Reply
#8
"The U.S., together with France, had authored the recent UN Gaza ceasefire resolution but then, in the evening of January 8 between 9:15pm and 10:15pm, was the only one to abstain from it. How come?


The US change of mind came at the last moment, as a result of White House intervention following a call from Olmert. Rice was overridden and in the final vote, the US abstained. In her remarks afterwards, Rice made clear she backed the resolution, saying the US "fully supports" its goals, text and objectives.


U.S. Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice supported the UN Resolution and assisted with its formulation. Livni was in contact with Rice in an attempt to soften its wording.
At the last minute, at 3:30 A.M., Prime Minister Ehud Olmert also intervened with a desperate phone call to President George W. Bush, requesting that the United States veto the resolution. Bush refused, simply instructing Rice to abstain from the vote.
Now Olmert gives his version of that day:
US Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice was left shame-faced after President George W. Bush ordered her to abstain in a key UN vote on the Gaza war, Israeli Prime Minister Ehud Olmert said on Monday.
"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.
...
The United States, Israel's main ally, had initially been expected to voted in line with the other 14 but Rice later became the sole abstention.
"In the night between Thursday and Friday, when the secretary of state wanted to lead the vote on a ceasefire at the Security Council, we did not want her to vote in favour," Olmert said
"I said 'get me President Bush on the phone'. 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.
"I told him the United States could not vote in favour. It cannot vote in favour of such a resolution. He immediately called the secretary of state and told her not to vote in favour."
Bush was in Philadelphia on January 8 talking about the no child left behind sham between 11am and 12am. The time difference between Israel and U.S. eastern is -7 hours. If Olmert called at 3:30 that would have been 8:30pm in Washington DC, not during any official speech in Philadelphia, but right before the Security Council meeting.
So Olmert is exaggerating his influence here - he did not get Bush to interrupt a speech, but he did get him to change a UN vote..
But the essence is clear. Israel called and the U.S. president did as he was told to do.
Reply
#9
timoose Wrote:The part about Bush getting off the stage to talk to Ehud is incorrect as he was in Philadelphia and delivered a twenty-seven minute speech without interruption. I remember reading this back then, and it of course was attributed to the Bush administration, but their is tape of the event that shows the speech without interruption.
 
The article says:
Quote:But the White House cut Rice off at the knees, saying only that there were “inaccuracies” in the Olmert story. The video does not show Bush interrupting his speech to take any call.
Yet, the substance rings true and is widely believed, and Olmert is happily describing the egg on Rice’s face:
“He (Bush) gave an order to the secretary of state, and she did not vote in favor of it—a resolution she cooked up, phrased, organized and maneuvered for. She was left pretty shamed. …”
Reply
#10
Exactly as you say, it's just that he never left the stage/speech. I wasn't trying to dis-credit the entire article just that, that tiny part is not true. I'm not being a Bush operative and trying to dis-credit this article by casting doubt on one detail so as to cast a shadow over it all. Personally I'm through with Protestant Presidents, especially because the Constitution undermines the Catholic Faith, .
Reply




Users browsing this thread: 1 Guest(s)