In an interview with the BBC yesterday, former President Jimmy Carter launched a scathing attack on the Bush administration, and Dick Cheney in particular. When asked about the conflict between Cheney and Condoleezza Rice over Israel’s attack on Syria, Carter pounced on Cheney’s long-standing militant position, the countless mistakes Cheney has made, draft-dodging, and Cheney’s continuing delusions about Iraq.
Partial Transcript:
BBC: There was a report in the New York Times today that said there was a division within the administration, once again between Dick Cheney, the Vice president, and Condoleezza Rice, about how Syria should be engaged — this is following the recent Israeli air strike against a Syrian target.
Intelligence reports say that there was some nascent nuclear activity there, perhaps imported from NK, in that particular building. The Syrians deny it. Condoleezza Rice thinks one should continue along diplomatic track. Dick Cheney says its time for preemptive strikes, like the ones that we’ve seen. Where do you stand?
CARTER: As usual, Dick Cheney is wrong.
He’s a militant who avoided any service of his own in the military and he has been most forceful in the last 10 years or more in fulfilling some of his more ancient commitments that the United States has a right to inject its power through military means in other parts of the world. And, here he’s trying again to promote what might very well be a counterproductive and catastrophic military adventure.
I’m filled with admiration for Condoleezza Rice in standing up to him, which she did even when she was in the White House under President George W. Bush. Now, Secretary of State, her influence is obviously greater than it was then, and I hope she prevails.
BBC: You don’t mince your words on Dick Cheney do you?
CARTER: Well, you know he’s been a disaster for our country. I think he’s been overly persuasive on President George Bush and quite often he’s prevailed.
It was one of his main commitments was to go into Iraq under false pretenses, and he still maintains those false pretenses are accurate. He still maintains that somehow Saddam Hussein was involved in the 9/11 attack. He still maintains that Iraq somehow or another had weapons of mass destruction - claims that have been disproven [sic] by all reasonable sources.
“Israel’s decision to attack Syria on Sept. 6, bombing a suspected nuclear site set up in apparent collaboration with North Korea, came after Israel shared intelligence with President Bush this summer indicating that North Korean nuclear personnel were in Syria, U.S. government sources said,” the Washington Post reports. “The Bush administration has not commented on the Israeli raid or the underlying intelligence.”
President Bush threatened yesterday, “to veto a bill expanding a popular children’s health insurance program, calling it “a step toward federalization of health care,” the New York Times reports. “The program expires Sept. 30, and Congress is on the verge of renewing it by providing coverage to an additional 4 million children over the 6.6 million already enrolled — at an additional cost of $35 billion over five years.”
“President Bush pointedly declined on Thursday to discuss an Israeli airstrike in northern Syria,” the New York Times reports. “Mr. Bush did, however, warn North Korea that the United States expected it to dismantle its nuclear weapons programs and to stop selling weapons or expertise abroad, as it promised to do this year.”
“Sidestepping the turmoil in the housing market and the credit problems associated with it, President Bush said Thursday that the nation’s economy was strong and would remain so if Congress steered clear of tax increases,” the Los Angeles Times reports. “But he would not rate the risk of recession, saying, ‘You need to talk to economists. I think I got a B in Econ 101. I got an A, however, in keeping taxes low.’”
“President Bush acknowledged “some unsettling times” in the country’s troubled housing and credit markets, while Federal Reserve chairman Ben Bernanke offered more assurances steps would be taken to curb the fallout,” the Boston Globe reports. “The housing slump, the worst in 16 years, is likely to drag on well into 2008, when the nation will be voting for a new president. Home foreclosures - now at record highs - and delinquencies are likely to get worse, Bernanke told the House Financial Services Committee yesterday.”
Bush “plans to meet Palestinian President Mahmoud Abbas in New York on Monday during the U.N. General Assembly meetings, the White House said,” Reuters reports. “The meeting will be to ‘continue discussions on helping the Palestinian Authority and on issues related to an eventual two-state solution of Israel and Palestine living side by side in peace and security,’ White House National Security Council spokesman Gordon Johndroe said on Thursday.”
CONGRESS
“Underscoring his resolve,” Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid “revived a proposal to cut off funding for most U.S. military operations in Iraq by next summer — the most drastic antiwar measure in the legislative mix, and the biggest long shot for passage,” the Washington Post reports. “With only a few votes changing since May 16, when similar language died on a 67 to 29 vote.”
“Congress gave final approval Thursday to legislation designed to transform the Food and Drug Administration from a passive monitor to an active detective seeking out medications that have been approved for sale but turn out to be hazardous — a problem linked to an estimated 15,000 deaths a year,” the Los Angeles Times reports. “The drug-safety provisions were the centerpiece of a massive bill that also would renew industry user fees that fund the FDA’s review of medications and medical devices submitted for approval.”
“Democrats are disappointed they have been unable to force President Bush to change course in Iraq, but they will keep pushing — with or without Republican help,” Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid of Nevada said Thursday, CNN reports. “GOP senators have filibustered every Democratic-led push to bring troops home from Iraq.”
The Senate on Thursday “overwhelmingly condemned the liberal anti-war group MoveOn.org for its newspaper ad that last week accused the top U.S. general in Iraq of lying and misrepresenting the situation on the ground, a measure on which Democratic leaders had refused to allow a vote last week,” the Washington Times reports. “The nonbinding measure, offered by Sen. John Cornyn, Texas Republican, passed by a vote of 72-25, with 24 Democrats and one independent, Bernard Sanders of Vermont, voting against it.”
“The FBI has taped conversations between Republican Sen. Ted Stevens of Alaska and an oil company executive who has pleaded guilty to bribery, according to a source with knowledge of the investigation,” CNN reports. “The calls were between Stevens, who is up for re-election in 2008, and Bill Allen, then CEO of oilfield services firm VECO Corp., the source said Thursday.”
“A Washington watchdog group on Thursday asked the Justice Department to investigate Rep. David Scott (D-Ga.) for possible tax violations and improper use of his House office and staff,” the Atlanta Journal-Constitution reports. “Citizens for Responsibility and Ethics (CREW) filed the complaint here just two days after declaring Scott among the 25 ‘most corrupt’ congressmen here for mingling personal and campaign interests, failing repeatedly to pay personal and business taxes and, as one of his former aides claimed, using his House staff to work on his campaign.”
IRAQ
“Iraq’s Ministry of Interior has concluded that employees of a private American security firm fired an unprovoked barrage in the shooting last Sunday in which at least eight Iraqis were killed and is proposing a radical reshaping of the way American diplomats and contractors here are protected,” the New York Times reports. “In the first comprehensive account of the day’s events, the ministry said that security guards for Blackwater USA, a company that guards all senior American diplomats here, fired on Iraqis in their cars in midday traffic.”
“Iraq wants to tighten control over security contractors after a deadly shooting incident involving the U.S. firm Blackwater, ending their long immunity from Iraqi prosecution, the Interior Ministry said” today, Reuters reports. “Spokesman Major-General Abdul-Kareem Khalaf said the ministry had drafted legislation giving it wider powers over the contractors and calling for ’severe punishment for those who fail to adhere to the…guidelines on how they should operate.’”
“Military officials said Thursday that contracts worth $6 billion to provide essential supplies to American troops in Kuwait, Iraq and Afghanistan–including food, water and shelter–were under review by criminal investigators, double the amount the Pentagon had previously disclosed,” the New York Times reports. “In addition, $88 billion in contracts and programs, including those for body armor for American soldiers and materiel for Iraqi and Afghan security forces, are being audited for financial irregularities, the officials said.”
“The first cases of cholera appeared in Baghdad on Thursday, in a sign the epidemic that has already sickened thousands in northern Iraq is now spreading more widely in a population made vulnerable by war to a normally preventable disease,” the New York Times reports. “The World Health Organization and Iraqi Red Crescent Society reported two cases here and Iraqi television reported another case, in a 7-month-old baby, in Basra, far to the south.”
NATION
“Tens of thousands of chanting marchers descended on the small Louisiana town of Jena on Thursday to protest the treatment of six black teenagers who allegedly beat a white classmate after a series of racially tinged incidents at the local high school,” the New Orleans Times-Picayune reports. “Hailing from as far as England, protesters arrived at sunrise by the busload to rally behind the ‘Jena Six,’ as the accused teens have come to be known, in a legal case that has drawn worldwide attention.”
“Prominent Democratic fundraiser Norman Hsu violated federal election laws by reimbursing several donors for the political checks they wrote, and extracted campaign donations from others by threatening to cut their ties with a highly lucrative Ponzi scheme he oversaw, according to a criminal complaint filed by the Justice Department” on Thursday, the Washington Post reports. “A federal fraud case that the U.S. attorney for New York’s Southern District unsealed against Hsu suggests for the first time why he in a short period of time became one of the nation’s most prolific bundlers of campaign funds.”
“A big overhang of property will bring U.S. house prices down further, but it is too early to say if the economy will plunge into recession, former Federal Reserve chief Alan Greenspan was quoted as saying” today, Reuters reports. “Greenspan said in an interview with Austrian magazine Format that low interest rates in the past 15 years were to blame for the house price bubble, but that central banks were powerless when they tried to bring it under control.”
“A federal grand jury has subpoenaed House records connected to a one-time aide to” former House Majority Leader Tom DeLay, R-Texas, “who has been caught up in the Jack Abramoff influence-peddling scandal,” AP reports. “The subpoena involving Ed Buckham was issued to the chief administrative officer of the House by a grand jury in Washington.”
WORLD
“Hundreds of Islamists chanting slogans against Pakistan’s military leader rallied outside the Supreme Court” today “as judges heard petitions challenging President Gen. Pervez Musharraf right to run for re-election,” AP reports. “Opposition parties have promised to stage anti-Musharraf street protests across Pakistan” today, “claiming it would be illegal for the general, who seized power in a 1999 coup, to run.”
“A bomb attack” today “against a convoy of French troops killed one soldier and caused many casualties among Afghans near the blast, while heavy fighting in southern Afghanistan killed about 75 Taliban fighters, officials said,” AP reports. “The attack in western Kabul blew the windows out of a civilian bus and set at least one vehicle on fire.”
Based on remarks White House Press Secretary Tony Snow made moments ago, President Bush is turning the current objective in Iraq on its head and redefined victory (tenth version based on my recollection) yet again. Furthermore, the White House initiated a war of words against the Democrats rather than seeking collegial solutions for the catastrophe in Iraq.
When asked to respond to Nancy Pelosi’s comment that “General Petraeus’s strategy amounts to an endless strategy for war — a war without end,” Snow gave a new definition for victory - “”Helping the Iraqis develop the capability of defending themselves and governing themselves.” (Ed. note: quoted remarks for Pelosi are the reporters words, not necessarily Pelosi’s exact words.)
Indeed if you look closely at what Snow said, Pelosi’s comments are on target.
It appears the military strategy is no longer creating a secure environment so that Iraq’s political infrastructure can achieve reconciliation and function. Instead, according to Snow’s remarks, the strategy and objective goes much further.
Snow referenced several “developmental components including: (1) provincial reconstruction teams; (2) seeks greater cooperation and interaction with regional powers and regional allies; and, (3) is a strategy that has expectations in terms of what the neighbors out to do including Iran and Syria.”
Snow also made it clear there are no time parameters.
Taking shots at Speaker of the House Nancy Pelosi, Snow accused Pelosi of attempting to “create a political framework for ignoring the success that has taken place as a result of the surge in recent months and the fact that General Petraeus’s counterinsurgency strategy has worked in ways that has surprised even the U.S. in terms of the development of strong grass roots of Iraqi action against al-Qaeda…and against other forces.”
I will provide a reference link or video later when it becomes available.
The New York Times reports Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice will meet with Syria’s foreign minister, but Iraq is pressuring for more. Iraq wants the U.S. to meet with Iran.
First, I don’t much believe the Iraqi government is in a position to make demands. They haven’t met any goals put forth by the U.S. Instead, conditions just get worse. Furthermore, Parliament is about to take an extended leave while their country is crumbling around them.
Second, it’s a major milestone for George Bush to sanction any meeting with Syria. Yes, everybody would be better served if Bush-approved meetings would occur with Iran ASAP, but pressuring the blockhead only makes him push back. It’s too bad we have a recalcitrant president, but that’s what we have; he needs to be motivated, not chastised.
Liz Cheney, the daughter of you-know-who, joins the hypocritical crowd criticizing Speaker Nancy Pelosi - all Pelosi-bashing, no bashing of Republicans. Public discourse serves the common good, but only when the discourse is fair, balanced, logical and has a worthwile objective.
For every reason Ms. Cheney denounces Speaker Pelosi, an opposing view, amongst other things, can legitimately be brought forth, which brings me to my point. Ms. Cheney failed to mention the Republican part of the Pelosi delegation, nor did she mention the GOP delegation that immediately preceded Speaker Pelosi’s. It seems her father’s countless failures would serve as a teaching aid; however reality shows it has not.
Furthermore, Ms. Cheney is obviously standing on her head. Citing a litany of incidents, Ms. Cheney criticizes Speaker Pelosi for saying, “the road to Damascus is a road to peace.” What Ms. Cheney, and those that join her circle of critics, fail to realize is the road to Damascus theoretically can be a road to peace; it is the road out of Damascus that is not peaceful as illustrated in Ms. Cheney’s critique.
George Bush, Dick Cheney, and now obviously little Cheney operate on a “garbage in, garbage out” foreign policy. The road out of Damascus will never lead to peace until peaceful behavior and examples make their way into Damascus. People are a product of their enviornment and will remain so until influenced by external factors. Isolation does not facilitate influence.
Sticking your tongue out, little girl, does nothing but make the other child madder.
I can’t prove it by referencing a post, but I suspected the White House was directly involved in Israel’s prime minister’s rapid fire statement in response to Nancy Pelosi’s meeting with Syria’s president Bashar Assad. Pelosi, in summary, told Assad that Israeli Prime Minister Olmert was willing to discuss peace, and added the qualifications Olmert based his statement on. If you will remember, the Israeli prime minister’s office issued a statement discounting, at best, Pelosi’s statement to Assad. Of course that was accompanied by the blistering rhetoric from Dick Cheney and George Bush. Well, my suspicions may have been correct.
I would love to say I told you so and back it up with solid evidence, but the closest I can come to it is the last paragraph in this post. To the issue…Josh Marshall has pulled together a rather complex series of events that, in summary, supports my suspicions. I just knew Dubya picked up the phone, called Olmert, and pressured him to discredit Pelosi as soon as he (W.) heard about the content of Pelosi and Assad’s meeting.
Josh did a good job of pulling the pieces together. Read the details.
Wolf Blitzer asks Sen. Arlen Specter (R-PA) and Sen. Joe Lieberman (I-CT) to comment on Speaker Nancy Pelosi’s trip to Syria. You have to watch this - Lieberman sounds like Cheney and Specter sounds like a tenured Democrat.
When Lieberman started claiming the Bush administration has been negotiating with Syria, Specter unloads on Lieberman and all but calls Lieberman a liar. Also, notice Specter at the end; he gives Lieberman an “I just kicked your butt” goodbye.
On ABC’s “This Week” today, Sen. Jon Kyl (R-AZ) referenced the Iraq Study Group Report as a source for criticizing Speaker of the House Nancy Pelosi’s recent trip to Syria. At best, Kyl twisted the intent and overall meaning of the Iraq Study Group Report and at worst, deceitfully and incorrectly quoted the report in an attempt to justify his criticism of Pelosi.
Paraphrasing, Kyl said Pelosi should not have gone because the Iraq Study Group Report says the President or the Secretary of State should have approved her trip. Not true. But, before jumping to the video, I want to point out a few excerpts from the Iraq Study Group Report.
First, the report says the U.S. should initiate a specific group, The Iraq International Support Group, to facilitate and address diplomatic discussion and issues.
In addition to supporting stability in Iraq, a comprehensive diplomatic offensive—the New diplomatic Offensive—should address these key regional issues. By doing so, it would help marginalize extremists and terrorists, promote U.S. values and interests, and improve America’s global image. (p. 44, par. 1)
…
RECOMMENDATION 1: The United States, working with the Iraqi government, should launch the comprehensive New Diplomatic Offensive to deal with the problems of Iraq and of the region. This new diplomatic offensive should be launched before December 31, 2006. (p. 45, par. 3)
Like everything else in the report, George Bush dismissed the No. 1 recommendation of the group. The report emphasizes the importance of the diplomatic group and the consequences of not implementing it. Furthermore, the report does not say U.S. participation is limited exclusively to George Bush, Dick Cheney, and Condi Rice, or the executive branch for that matter; quite the contrary:
2. The Iraq Interntional Support Group
This new diplomatic offensive cannot be successful unless it includes the active participation of those countries that have a critical stake in preventing Iraq from falling into chaos. To encourage their participation, the United States should immediately seek the creation of the Iraq International Support Group. (pp. 46-47)
…
Externally [to Iraq], the United States should immediately begin to employ all elements of American power to construct a regional mechanism that can support, rather than retard, progress in Iraq. (p. 49, par. 3). (Emphasis added.)
As you will see, Sen. Carl Levin (D-MI) also appeared on the show. Now, play close attention Kyl when he quotes the Iraq Study Group Report.
Kyl’s statements are clear, Bush and Condoleezza Rice have ultimate and sole authority according to the report. Not true. Furthermore, when Bush has not even implemented the recommendations, how can Sen. Jon Kyl apply the rules defined for something that was never created?
If — that’s a big if — the president had done what the report said, then he or Rice should lead, which is substantially different than unilateral, authority.
RECOMMENDATION 6: The New Diplomatic Offensive and the work of the Support Group should be carried out with urgency, and should be conducted by and organized at the level of foreign minister or above. The Secretary of State, if not the President, should lead the U.S. effort. That effort should be both bilateral and multilateral, as circumstances require. (p. 50, par. 1) (Emphasis added.)
Kyl was wrong. You cannot apply rules defined to an entity that does not exist. And, if it did, the report is clear the Bush Doctrine - my way, and only my way - do not apply.
The Study Group recognizes that U.S. relationships with Iran and Syria involve difficult issues that must be resolved. Diplomatic talks should be extensive and substantive, and they will require a balancing of interests. (p.50, par. 5) (Emphasis added.)
My primary point is, Jon Kyl, George Bush and whomever else can apply the rules of the report, if and only if they first implement the recommendations. No implemenation; no rules to apply.
The same applies when Kyl starts yapping about discussion vs. negotiation. First, he’s twisting things again, and if you noticed, Levin shut him down on the negotiation statements.
If Bush is not going to do anything to resolve this catastrophe, then somebody else will. The people have mandated that it be done.
I mentioned earlier that Hardball’s Chris Matthews questioned Eugene Robinson of the Washington Post about the Post’s editorial yesterday, which was highly critical of Nancy Pelosi’s recent trip to the Middle East. Robinson distanced himself from the editorial board and said he disagreed with their view.
I’m glad to see Robinson take a stand and blister his bosses. Obviously he would not be a candidate for Bush’s White Hose Press Secretary.
This is a partial transcript of the video. A complete transcript of the video (not the entire show) is available here.
MATTHEWS: Eugene, it‘s great to have you here on behalf of “The Washington Post.â€
(LAUGHTER)
MATTHEWS: Why is “The Washington Post†trashing Nancy Pelosi for doing basically what Jim Baker and Lee Hamilton said to do, engage the neighborhood over there in the Middle East?
EUGENE ROBINSON, “WASHINGTON POSTâ€: I‘m pleased to be able to tell you I‘m not a member of editorial board, and you know, I write my columns, they do their editorials. I can tell you where I stand on it, which is that…
MATTHEWS: First of all, let‘s hear what your newspaper, the mother ship, has to say on this topic. This is the editorial page. I‘m quoting from it. You know, this used to be a liberal newspaper, “The Washington Post,†back in Nixon‘s day with Ben Bradlee and other back there, Meg Greenfield, the editorial page editor. It is not a liberal paper. It‘s a hawkish paper.
Quote, “We have found much to criticize in Mr. Bush‘s military strategy and regional diplomacy, but Ms. Pelosi‘s attempt to establish a shadow presidency is not only counterproductive, it‘s foolish.â€
Pretty strong, Gene.
ROBINSON: Pretty strong. You know…
(CROSSTALK)
ROBINSON: … they should tell us what they really think. You know, I mean, I think that she‘s right on the substance. She‘s clearly right on the substance. Of course, we should be talking to Syria. And you know, this policy that if we don‘t like a regime, you know, we pretend—you know, we cover our ears and we don‘t talk to them, is absurd. If Syria can be helpful or is being harmful in Iraq, in Lebanon, whatever, we should talk to them. You know, I think there‘s a question about the style and the timing. I think…
(CROSSTALK)
MATTHEWS: … time to talk to Bashar Assad and…
(CROSSTALK)
ROBINSON: I kind of wish—I think there‘s a lot of value in sending the message to Syria and the world that Americans and the new Congress have a different idea of how to conduct diplomacy and foreign policy from the Bush idea. I think it‘s useful message. I wish…
MATTHEWS: Well, that‘s—that‘s…
ROBINSON: … she had sent, you know, Jim Clyburn or Steny Hoyer or somebody to do it…
We all know the disdain President Bush has for Speaker Nancy Pelosi, which is particularly heightened with her trip to Syria. Bush has the right to express his opinions; however a significant element of his arguments raise the debate to a higher level and in fact illustrates he does not adhere to his own foreign policy on terrorism. Bush violating his own policy allows Osama bin Laden to remain free.
According to Dubya, states that support or harbor terrorists are enemies of the U.S. and he vows to “fight” them. We’ve heard that ad nauseam. In a New York Times article on Bush’s criticism of Pelosi, the Times reports:
The Bush administration has resisted the idea of opening such a dialogue, citing its view that the country is a state sponsor of terrorism. It accuses the Syrian government of providing militants with safe passage into Iraq and of interfering in Lebanon’s politics after its army was forced to leave there in 2005. Syria denies the accusations.
For Bush, one size does not fit all; with respect to Pakistan and frequently Saudi Arabia, he violates his own policy. That violation allows America’s greatest enemy, Osama bin Laden, to remain free.
It is a well known fact that Osama bin Laden and al Qaeda are in the northwest region of Pakistan, but what’s being done about it? Zip. Yes, Pakistan’s president Pervez Musharraf played a significant role initially in the U.S. retaliation against the Taliban in Afghanistan, but don’t we now have a double-standard in place that is highly contradictory to Bush’s policy and our national security? Why, at this point in time, does Bush not enforce his policy and seek with all vigor America’s greatest enemy?
Musharraf is in a precarious situation; he is pulled in multiple directions, even at the risk of his own life, but what tilts the balance in his favor at the risk of our national security?
I will dial down the rhetoric and make my point. Bush cannot credibly employ his argument against Pelosi in her efforts to bring peace, when he does not enforce his own policy, which allows Public Enemy No. 1 to wander freely.
The reality of the situation is, Bush is trying to enforce a Karl Rove policy - no Democrat shall be allowed to succeed at anything, especially at the expense of a Republican president, even if the president is a delusional idiot.
King George’s statements yesterday about Speaker Nancy Pelosi and her trip to Syria are nothing short of hypocritical and slanderous. There is always a double standard when it comes to W.’s policies and opinions, so it is rather stupid for me to expect anything different. Now that we’ve properly established my stupidity, what is King George’s excuse? Yesterday W. condemned Pelosi and had the chutzpah to literally accuse her of encouraging terrorism because she visited Syria; however when Republican members of Congress do the same thing, we don’t hear a peep from His Royal Highness.
Republican Representatives Frank Wolf, Joe Pitts, and Robert Aderholt met with Syrian President Bashar Assad in Damascus Sunday, but that’s okay. So, pray tell, what is W.’s acceptable excuse for getting his stinger out of joint over Pelosi’s trip?
Furthermore, contrary to King George’s pronouncement, he doesn’t own the foreign policy market. The Constitution specifically divides foreign policy powers between the President and the Congress. Maybe Laura should wordsmith that part of the Constitution into a bedtime story and read it to W. over a warm glass of milk.
You are currently browsing the The Political Chase weblog archives for the Syria category.
In an interview with the BBC yesterday, former President Jimmy Carter launched a scathing attack on the Bush administration, and Dick Cheney in particular. When asked about the conflict between Cheney and Condoleezza Rice over Israel’s attack on Syria, Carter pounced on Cheney’s long-standing militant position, the countless mistakes Cheney has made, draft-dodging, and Cheney’s continuing delusions about Iraq.
