Rice shame-faced by Bush over UN Gaza vote

[DogPoundPup]

TEL AVIV - 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.

excerpt~
"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."

But a US State Department official, speaking on the condition of anonymity, denied Olmert's claim.

http://www.middle-east-online.com/english/?id=29738

[oneruncanwinagame]

1. Dumb & Dumber

I thought Olmert was smarter than that. Insinuating that Israel defines US foreign policy is enough to get reasonable people like myself to denounce the state of Israel as a threat to the security of the United States due to their illegal warfare and the complications it causes us and other western nations.

I always thought Israeli leadership didn't want peace because of their ass-backwards statements like, "there will be no peace talks until a complete cessation of violence" which I interpret to be an ass-backwards "there will be no peace talks until there is a complete peace".

But maybe these egomaniacs who use violence as power are really that dumb.

[shaayecanaan]

2. I thought this had to be fake...

No way would a head of an even vaguely competent government be that stupid and tactless, I thought. Impossible.

But no, its widely reported:-
eg

http://jta.org/news/article/2009/01/12/1002190/olmert-i-got-bush-to-shame-rice

Normally I hate it when people type "lol" or "rotflmao" or those other lame acronyms as a rhetorical device when they have absolutely nothing else to fall back on. But in this instance, I am actually literally laughing out loud. This is un-be-fucking-lievable.

[BunkerHill24]

3. Could the tail wag the dog?

Because that's what Mr. Olmert is saying here!

[thewiseguy]

4. Is this real?

[Idealism]

5. For what it is worth, the NYT also reported this

http://www.nytimes.com/2009/01/13/washington/13olmert.html?_r=1

[Scurrilous]

6. Olmert Slams Condi... Advanced Classes in Chutzpah

<snip>

"Speaking in southern Israel today, Prime Minister Ehud Olmert revealed details of a call he apparently placed to President Bush which led to the US changing its vote on U.N. Security Council Resolution 1860 calling for a ceasefire in Gaza and boasting how he had "shamed" the US secretary of state and laid down the law with the president (full report below). AIPAC has also slammed the Bush administration for not vetoing U.N. SCR 1860, as MJ noted earlier.

The first thing to say is that a ceasefire is vital and the U.N. resolution if it helps deliver an end to the violence, rocket-fire and the human suffering, the opening of the blockade on Gaza, and the prevention of weapon smuggling, then it is an important contribution worthy of support. Secondly, Secretary Rice would do best to respond to this act of chutzpah by using her remaining week in office to actually get that resolution implemented and deliver a meaningful ceasefire package - she can still do it and go out on a higher note than having been "Colin Powell"-ed by her own president at the U.N. and dissed by a foreign leader. But the real point is this: what Olmert said is more than just mind-boggling chutzpah - it is deeply irresponsible, insulting and will be a boomerang for Israel. Here's the full quote and report:"

more

[no_hypocrisy]

7. The leader of Israel demanded how this country should lead?

What's wrong with this picture?

[LeftishBrit]

8. If Olmert did say this, he was boasting for a domestic audience...

and (if I may be slightly tinfoily myself) may have been trying to cover up the extent to which he's allowing himself to be egged on by certain elements of the American Right.

Of course Israel doesn't run America(!)- and Olmert is a complete lame duck anyway.

[shaayecanaan]

12. Domestic audiences...

may have been trying to cover up the extent to which he's allowing himself to be egged on by certain elements of the American Right

The audience in question was a gathering in southern Ashkelon. I sincerely doubt Olmert being egged on by the American right is much of a priority for them.

Of course Israel doesn't run America(!)

That is not the contention being made, I think. The contention being made is that the influence of the Jewish lobby in the US is often the decisive factor in the formulation of US foreign policy towards Israel. That is not the same as asserting that Israel controls America.

It should be emphasised that this is not unique. The WASPocracy in the US is the reason for the "special relationship" with Britain. Before Pearl Harbour, 80% of Americans opposed intervention in World War II. Despite that fact, the mostly WASP leadership of the United States did everything short of declaring war on Germany, including supplying the Allies and protecting British trans-atlantic shipping. But for this assistance Britain may well suffered a famine in 1942.

Despite the fact that the attack on America came from Japan in WW2, the Americans agreed that the war in Europe would be the first priority. It is very difficult to explain this unless one accounts for the disproportionate influence of WASPs in the US. Given that the US acted to save Britain but did not act to save the Jews it could be argued that WASP political influence was the much stronger of the two. Certainly the religious background of US presidents points to this - of America's 40 presidents, 23 were of Anglican or Presbyterian background. Collectively, these churches account for only 3% of the US population.

If you look at the United States Senate, the most over-represented religions are Anglicanism, Presbyterianism, and Judaism. The most under-represented religions are the black churches. Other religions (eg Catholicism) are represented roughly in keeping with their numbers. If Blacks are to be represented in proportion to their numbers in the Senate, it will most likely require a reduction of WASP political power. But it will also probably require a reduction in Jewish representation in the Senate.

The most influential lobbies in the US are the American Association for Retired Persons, AIPAC, and the NRA. The AARP has deep pockets because it has basically become a glorified insurance company, using its name to sell healthcare to old people. Because of this it is opposed to single payer public healthcare even though it would be in the best interests of its constituents. Instead it supports "public" health schemes that involve healthcare companies making the same obscene profits at the expense of the public purse rather than the free market.

In all such instances such political influence is to the general detriment of the national interests of the US. Im not sure why that simple point is considered so contentious, to be honest.

[bunnies]

9. He'd better get it out of his system.

No way Obama will be putting up with that shit.

[Marrah_G]

10. It is beyond me how this little country, dependant totally on us, has so much power

and if he is lying, why is he being allowed to continue the lie?

[LeftishBrit]

11. It doesn't; and Olmert is a lying twit; and he's already been given his marching orders ...

he's milking his last 15 minutes of fame before he has to go after the February election.

He's leaving under a cloud, facing corruption charges. He'll be lucky if he doesn't end up in jail.

(My comments assume that the report is even correct. But even if it isn't, Olmert is already a lying twit, on other grounds.)