Olmert Says He Made Rice Change Vote

[Hamlette]

In an unusually public rebuke, Prime Minister Ehud Olmert of Israel said Monday that Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice had been forced to abstain from a United Nations resolution on Gaza that she helped draft, after Mr. Olmert placed a phone call to President Bush. “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 Ms. Rice and told her to abstain. “She was left pretty embarrassed,” Mr. Olmert said, according to The A.P.

http://www.nytimes.com/2009/01/13/washington/13olmert.html?_r=2&scp=1&sq=olmert%20rice&st=cse

What a mess. Wrong for Bush to do it, wrong for Olmert to brag about it.

[babylonsister]

1. Condi's back, meet two knives. nt

[Donnachaidh]

9. Nice way to end a career, eh?

Karma.

[babylonsister]

12. I'm no Condi fan, but I think this stinks. nt

[Donnachaidh]

60. it sure does, but it broke my irony meter all the same. n/t

[crikkett]

2. Well well well. This should get him plenty of votes in Israel's upcoming election. n/t

[originalpckelly]

5. And if this story gets big enough, it could cause a massive revision of American policy.

I am absolutely flabbergasted that a foreign leader would have so much power over the United States, it almost sounds like we're the one receiving money and military aid from Israel.

[Donnachaidh]

10. after all the gumflapping in Congress the other day

People have got to be wondering just how deep the rot goes.

[originalpckelly]

15. Although it cannot donate, AIPAC's members can.

It's like an organization with a lot of politicians in it being called non-partisan, they may not be officially unafilliated with either of the major parties, but they are partisan based upon their actual membership.

[crikkett]

14. I think what we're receiving is some super-duper blackmail.

Unfaltering commitment to Israel or else...

Remember that tiny little mention of how Israeli intelligence was listening in on Clinton's phones? From the Lewinski thing. I'm sure it was just a joke.

[originalpckelly]

3. Are you kidding me?

You have to be shitting me, why does the government of Israel have that much power over our government?

[High Plains]

33. You tell me.

[Fireweed247]

50. Blackmail

They have been helping with the wiretapping? They helped with 9/11 and the coverup? Something mighty fishy is going on between our government and Israel. How can our Congress after allowing Bushco to get away free, even as the entire world cries out at the massive killing in Gaza...Our Congress passes a resolution supporting Israel? WE are in serious trouble here. Not only does Israel control our entire government but they are not afraid to tell everyone about it.

[shadowknows69]

4. Ok, this right here proves we need to cut Israels umbilical NOW.

[originalpckelly]

7. Definitely, this is a threat to national security...

having such an unstable country dictate American foreign policy. On the other hand, it gives me a little different view of Condi.

[JohnnyBoots]

44. That would greatly piss off the Millitary-Industrial Complex. We give Israel

tax payer money so that they can buy bombs from US manufacturers. It is all a racket.

[mikelgb]

6. direct example of Israel controlling the USA?

how else can you describe it?

Leader of Israel calls leader of USA to direct his actions

what a gaff

[originalpckelly]

8. I think we need to ask whether AIPAC has something to do with this.

Maybe our politicians do Israel's bidding because they're worried about losing political contributions from the pro-Israel AIPAC?

[cali]

11. That might be true of some politicians

but hardly explains pols like my reps- Pat, Bernie and Peter Welch, who are all pretty pro-Israel. Also, just want to point out that AIPAC doesn't (can't) donate money to pols- it does direct contributions.

[originalpckelly]

13. It's not a PAC, but it's members can donate on their own...

and they'd be more likely not to donate if AIPAC was against a pol. They analyze their voting records to determine how pro-Israel they are.

IIRC AIPAC is a large organization, and its leadership blackballing a politician would cause them to lose money, no?

[cali]

17. yep. that's what I said. and it still doesn't account

for the support for Israel that politicians who have no need to fear AIPAC, demonstrate.

[nolabels]

16. The only special interest group with little or no effect of what happens in the U.S. is the voters

When the new faces are installed it will still be the same ole - same ole

[originalpckelly]

19. Yep, the head of AIPAC was forced to resign back in '92...

because he was caught on tape boasting he had much power with our government, and that he was actually negotiating with Clinton over who they would accept as Secretary of State.

Let's not forget that this organization has been tied to espionage against the US in recent times.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lawrence_Franklin_espionage_scandal

I still cannot believe this didn't get more airplay in this country.

[ShadesOfGrey]

18. "He got off the podium and spoke to me."

:wtf:

Was he just telling a whopper? I hope so!

I also hope that Obama will put and end to this type of crap!

[originalpckelly]

20. Doubt it, AIPAC has the 'nads of our politicians in their hands...

they can squeeze, and people who are pro-Israel will likely stop donating to that politician. What's needed is a database that can cross-reference donations and membership to AIPAC with donations to politicians, because AIPAC is smart, they don't donate directly. Why do that and show the influence peddling going on, when you can let your members do it?

[Hardrada]

58. Good practical point!

[FarCenter]

21. Was Madoff really a Ponzi scheme, or a front through which money was funneled to Israel

Which would explain why the US regulatory agencies looked the other way for a couple of decades.

And why he is in his penthouse instead of Rikers Island.

[originalpckelly]

22. Huh?

[starroute]

23. Jack Abramoff's ties to Israel have never been closely examined

There were the payments he made to settlers for sniper goggles or some such. There were a couple of close associates who scampered off to Israel as everything fell apart -- and fears by investigators that Abramoff himself might do the same. There was that contract Bob Ney got at Abramoff's behest for an Israeli firm to set up the Congressional wireless system.

Going back a few decades, even Abramoff's involvement with the South African apartheid regime may point to an Israeli hand in the matter, since those two regimes were very close in the 80's. And then there's Abramoff's ties to the Lapin brothers ...

A lot of potential dirt there, but nobody has ever put it all together so far as I know.

[riderinthestorm]

35. Whoa. Sounds tin-foily but maybe not.

And starroute's post re: Abramoff is... I dunno. Food for thought.

Interesting observations at least.

:tinfoilhat:

[Nikki Stone1]

40. Any real evidence for that?

:tinfoilhat:

[cali]

49. that's batshit crazy

or just ignorant. or both.

[spanone]

24. a totally ineffective state department...absolutely worthless

[Poiuyt]

25. Is the United States just a puppet government for Israel?

It would seem so

[Strelnikov_]

26. Apparently n/t

[Hamlette]

27. Greenwald has a post on the related issue of the vote in Congress

We just witnessed the results of that dynamic with the ugly spectacle last week of a virtually unanimous Congress approving a completely one-sided Israel/Gaza Resolution. That Middle East war is an issue which, whatever else one might want to say about it, generates intense controversy, division and passion around the world. But not in the U.S. Congress. There, virtually the entire Congress (510 of the 535 members)—from the furthest left precincts of the Democratic Party to the furthest right-wing of the Republican Party, from all four corners of the U.S. and everywhere in between—looked at this war and just-so-happened to reach the same exact conclusion: not only is Israel 100% in the right, but the U.S. should involve itself publicly and squarely on Israel’s side.

Does anyone actually believe that, in the absence of extremely effective political pressure, 510 ideologically diverse members of Congress—at exactly the moment when worldwide opposition to the Israeli assault is growing in response to documented civilian horrors—would all have jointly decided that Israel was right to bomb and invade Gaza and that it is in America’s interests to insinuate itself on Israel’s side? Even Governors, such as Democrat Martin O’Malley of Maryland, ludicrously popped up to follow the pro-Israel script.


That happens for one clear reason: because one side of the debate (the AIPAC faction) is strong and aggressive in its criticisms and pressure tactics and the other side (the faction wanting an even-handed U.S. approach) is not.

via: http://www.balloon-juice.com/?p=15591

As John points out, can you imagine what would happen if France had done this/said that? We'd impeach Bush and Condi. Then declare war.

[originalpckelly]

31. This is all outrageous, and shows how easily our system is manipulated by special interests.

:Scared:

[Hamlette]

28. And a non-denial denial from the WH?

"I've seen these press reports, they are inaccurate," White House spokesman Gordon Johndroe said.


http://www.talkingpointsmemo.com/news/2009/01/w_house_reports_of_olmert-bush_call_inaccurate.php

Who is Johndroe? I'd think the WH should get someone out that to prove this did not happen and prove it quickly. The rest of the article at the link supports Olmert's statement by describing what happened at the UN when Rice voted. Quote:

A few minutes before the scheduled vote at the United Nations, Rice's staff told reporters she would make a few brief comments beforehand, but then abruptly canceled her press appearance, saying she would instead speak to Bush by phone.

The vote was delayed while other ministers waited for Rice to finish the call. She then entered the U.N. Security Council chamber, huddled with Arab ministers who shook their heads as she spoke to them.

Immediately after the vote, Rice left for Washington without talking to waiting reporters. Her spokesman did not return repeated calls and e-mail over why Rice had reneged on her promise to Arab leaders to back the vote.

Rice joined her French and British ministers in drawing up the resolution and the three Western powers haggled with Arab countries for three days over wording, which Rice told the U.N. Security Council. (Reporting by Tabassum Zakaria and Sue Pleming; Editing by Doina Chiacu)

[originalpckelly]

29. If Olmert says he called Bush, told him to change the vote...

and Condi said she was going to vote for it, then had a call from Bush, and after which the Arabs all shook their heads as she was talking to them, then it sounds like she did was Olmert said he did. What a braggart too.

[madmom]

57. Even if this didn't happen the way Olmert said it did, just the idea that he

thinks it did and he can do it if he wants is bad enough.

[originalpckelly]

59. Or even just that he thinks he can say such a thing...

even to an internal audience, that's galling.

[spanone]

30. -900 palestinians -13 israelis

[originalpckelly]

32. Prime Minister Olmuerte.

Suits him.

[TahitiNut]

38. 952 Palestinian dead in Gaza, 1/3rd children ... 13 Israeli dead, no children

Over 4,200 seriously injured Palestinians and 90,000 displaced persons inside Gaza

http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/middle_east/7826968.stm

A Gaza rights group has said more than 90,000 people have fled their homes.

Palestinian medical officials say 952 people have been killed in Gaza - around a third of them children - and more than 4,200 have been injured.

Thirteen Israelis have died, three of them civilians, Israel says.

Of the 13 Israelis, four died from "friendly fire."

[Tierra_y_Libertad]

34. Tail meet dog.

[TahitiNut]

36. A dutiful public servant listening to the voice of the electorate.

Oops! Wrong. :banghead:

[Tierra_y_Libertad]

53. "My country, right or wrong." What country is it, again?

[SOS]

37. Lots of detail from Juan Cole

Olmert did order Bush to change the UN vote, but Bush did not leave the podium in Philadelphia.

http://www.juancole.com/2009/01/israeli-pm-ehud-olmert-claims-to-be.html

[Soylent Brice]

39. wow. the audacity.

this should be a significant indicator of who exactly is in fucking charge, and has been for the last eight years. if leaders from other countries can stick their hand up his ass, cheney's argument against him being the puppetmaster looks like fodder now.

this should be the water cooler conversation across the country today.

it appears the decider is nothing but a pushover.

[Ichingcarpenter]

41. Why would he admit this? It seems that this is self destructive diplomatically

and makes his closest ally lose credibility internationally and affirm
what we've know all alone.

[originalpckelly]

42. Bragging. Wouldn't you, if you had done this?

I think he's showing that he can get things done for Israel. Remember, it was also not in Israel's best interests to confirm that it had nukes, but Olmuerte did that as well.

[Ichingcarpenter]

46. A diplomat wouldn't but an egotist would

Seems like it did cause the snafu I thought it would.

[TahitiNut]

43. Israeli political maneuvering. Kadima/Likud/Labor competing for PM.

Ohmert is toast due to scandals and corruption ... speaking in Hebrew to internal audience in an attempt to bolster his PARTISAN strong-arm credentials.

[Ichingcarpenter]

45. Breaking..... State Dept: Israeli PM flat wrong on Rice

Source: Associated Press

By MATTHEW LEE – 1 hour ago

WASHINGTON (AP) — The State Department on Tuesday flatly rejected an assertion by Israeli Prime Minister Ehud Olmert that he caused the Bush administration to abstain from last week's U.N. resolution on Gaza and that the abstention embarrassed Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice.

Spokesman Sean McCormack said the comments attributed to Olmert "are wholly inaccurate as to describing the situation, just 100-percent, totally, completely not true" and suggested that the Israeli government might want to clarify or correct the record.

Olmert said Monday that Rice had been embarrassed by orders from President George W. Bush to abstain from voting on the cease-fire resolution that she was negotiating. Olmert said he had called Bush — and interrupted him at an event in Philadelphia — to ensure the United States did not vote for it.

"I said: 'Get me President Bush on the phone,'" Olmert said in a speech in the southern Israeli city of Ashkelon. "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."

Olmert said he argued that the United States should not vote in favor of the resolution, and the president then called Rice and told her not to do so. "She was left pretty embarrassed," Olmert said.



IN LBN now: http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_all&address=102x3688181

[Hamlette]

47. About what I'd expect them to say. Only weaker. n/t

[originalpckelly]

51. BREAKING: State Dept: Israel PM correct on Rice...

I don't think that's a very likely headline.

[originalpckelly]

56. In other words, what I'm trying to say, is that this is an unfalsifiable statement.

Even if we assume Olmert did this, we would expect our government to deny it. Because there is no negative, this statement proves nothing.

[14thColony]

48. It appears nobody's even trying to hide the true nature any more

of Israel - US politics.

[AzDar]

52. Infuriating and disgusting.

:mad:

[spanone]

54. i suspect this 'conflict' will end before jan. 20. i'll be willing to bet.

[originalpckelly]

55. Not with Hillary as SOS.

If almost all of Congress voted for this pro-Israel Gaza conflict resolution, doesn't that mean the corruption is widespread? If so, even if Obama were clean (which he probably isn't just go check and I'll be you he made many good little speeches to AIPAC) his cabinet wouldn't be.

We know from Bushes administration that the advisers often get more control on a daily basis than does the President.

Bill Clinton was supposedly under the thumb of AIPAC, so much so that back in '92 the head of AIPAC was forced to resign after he was caught on tape talking about how he was negotiating with Clinton for Secretary of State positions. Now they don't even have to negotiate, or make calls, Clinton is probably already in their pocket.