Bush, Rice, Pelosi, Syria, diplomacy , "mixed signals" and hypocrisy!

[ProSense]

From Think Progress:

The WSJ’s Bret Stephens recalls, when the House Speaker visited Syrian President Bashar Assad back in April, “President Bush denounced her for sending ‘mixed signals’ that ‘lead the Assad government to believe they are part of the mainstream of the international community, when in fact they are a state sponsor of terror.’” Today, Assad will sit with Condoleezza Rice.

What Bush said:

Q You've agreed to talk to Syria in the context of the international conferences on Iraq. What's so different or wrong about Speaker Pelosi having her own meetings there? And are you worried that she might be preempting your own efforts?

THE PRESIDENT: We have made it clear to high-ranking officials, whether they be Republicans or Democrats, that going to Syria sends mixed signals -- signals in the region and, of course, mixed signals to President Assad. And by that, I mean, photo opportunities and/or meetings with President Assad lead the Assad government to believe they're part of the mainstream of the international community, when, in fact, they're a state sponsor of terror; when, in fact, they're helping expedite -- or at least not stopping the movement of foreign fighters from Syria into Iraq; when, in fact, they have done little to nothing to rein in militant Hamas and Hezbollah; and when, in fact, they destabilize the Lebanese democracy.

There have been a lot of people who have gone to see President Assad -- some Americans, but a lot of European leaders and high-ranking officials. And yet we haven't seen action. In other words, he hasn't responded. It's one thing to send a message; it's another thing to have the person receiving the message actually do something. So the position of this administration is that the best way to meet with a leader like Assad or people from Syria is in the larger context of trying to get the global community to help change his behavior. But sending delegations hasn't worked. It's just simply been counterproductive.

more

Rice Attacks Pelosi For Syria Trip Hours After Meeting With Syrians

The admin was determined to condemn Pelosi and the media began echoing the Bushies' talking points, so much so that Senator Kerry came to her defense: Supporting Speaker Pelosi

Now, the wingnuts at the WSJ aren't about to let Bush forget his hypocrisy, but it's still clear that they have no interest in diplomacy:

Condi's Road to Damascus

The price America will pay for her Syrian photo-op.

BY BRET STEPHENS
Tuesday, November 27, 2007 12:01 a.m. EST

Remember Nancy Pelosi's spring break in Damascus? Condoleezza Rice apparently does not. When the House Speaker paid Syrian strongman Bashar Assad a call back in April, President Bush denounced her for sending "mixed signals" that "lead the Assad government to believe they are part of the mainstream of the international community, when in fact they are a state sponsor of terror." Today, said sponsor of terror will take its place at the table Ms. Rice has set for the Middle Eastern conference at the Naval Academy in Annapolis, Md.

Only at Foggy Bottom would Syria's last-minute decision to go to Annapolis be considered a diplomatic triumph. The meeting is supposed to inaugurate the resumption of high-level negotiations between Israelis and Palestinians, with a view toward finalizing a deal on Palestinian statehood before the administration leaves office. On a deeper plane of geopolitical subtlety, it is supposed to bring Israel and the Arab world together in tacit alliance against Iran.

This raises three significant questions. First, how does Syria's presence at Annapolis affect those goals? Next, how does Syria's presence affect U.S. policy toward Syria? And what effect, if any, will all this have on Syria's behavior in the region?

<...>

Put simply, there is nothing the U.S. can offer Mr. Assad that would seriously tempt him to alter his behavior in ways that could meaningfully advance U.S. interests or the cause of Mideast peace. Yet the fact that Ms. Rice's Syria policy is now a facsimile of Speaker Pelosi's confirms Mr. Assad's long-held view that he has nothing serious to fear from this administration.
So look out for more aggressive Syrian misbehavior in Lebanon, including the continued arming of Hezbollah; the paralysis of its political process; the assassination of anti-Syrian parliamentarians and journalists; the insertion of Sunni terrorist cells in Palestinian refugee camps, and the outright seizure of Lebanon's eastern hinterlands. Look out, too, for continued cooperation with North Korea on WMD projects: Despite Israel's September attack on an apparent nuclear facility, the AP reports that North Korean technicians are back in Syria, teaching their Arab pupils how to load chemical warheads on ballistic missiles. And don't hold your breath expecting Syria's good behavior on its Iraqi frontier to last much longer.

more

Senator Kerry also addressed the situation in Lebanon after returning form a trip to the region in December 2006:

The key to Lebanon's future lies in getting Syria to truly respect Lebanese sovereignty. The money and weapons that empower Hezbollah come primarily through Syria, which uses proxies like Hezbollah to advance its hegemonic designs. They must be convinced to change course, including by ensuring that UN Resolution 1701 -- which again calls for the disarmament of Hezbollah -- is fully implemented.

To test the Syrians directly, as the Baker-Hamilton Commission suggested, Senator Christopher Dodd of Connecticut and I met with President Bashar al- Assad for more than two hours. The conversation confirmed my belief that engagement with Syria could be useful in advancing our objectives across the region. The Syrian leadership will act according to its own self-interest. The challenge is to get Syria's leaders to make a strategic decision to change direction, and shift their allegiance away from Iran.

This requires a package of incentives that will provide real benefits for playing a more constructive role and disincentives that will undermine their interests -- if not endanger their survival -- if they do not. These would be implemented incrementally, based on verified facts on the ground.

This comprehensive approach, similar to the one used with North Korea and Iran, must include the full participation of moderate Arab countries like Egypt, Jordan, and Saudi Arabia -- which, like Syria, have largely Sunni populations -- as well as Turkey. There is no guarantee that this approach will save Lebanon and turn Syria into a positive force in the region -- but the current policy only guarantees more of the same.

Lebanon teeters on the brink of disaster -- but its leaders refuse to surrender. As Amine Gemayel, the former president of Lebanon, said in explaining why he is running to replace his son in Parliament, "We keep going. We keep fighting. We keep struggling." The question is whether we will be a real partner in this struggle.

So after another full year of Bush's no diplomacy policy, with Lebanon in crisis, he's making a big push for peace?

Sunday, November 25, 2007

Will the results justify the pre-Annapolis boilerplate?

Are you wondering about the Annapolis meeting that will open this week? Will the meeting exceed the low expectations that now embrace it? The confab has already been downgraded from a “conference” to just a “meeting.” I have posted an authentic copy of the official “boiler plate” that has been circulated to U.S. diplomats. In other words, what you read is the language that has been crafted prior to the meeting by State department officials intent on convincing you, and me, that the Annapolis meeting is a bona fide step forward.

Were you the U.S. ambassador to Egypt, the political officer in El Salvador, the cultural affairs officer in Russia, the consular affairs officer in Poland, the economic attache in France or the State deparment spokesperson in Washington, this is the suggested language ("boilerplate") for responding to public inquiries and questions from the press about Annapolis.

On Edit: Well at least Bush is attempting appearing to engage in diplomacy, which he previously demonized, in an attempt to gloss over his legacy as the worst president ever!

Bush's Mideast legacy on the line at peace conference

By Ed Henry
CNN Washington Bureau

ANNAPOLIS, Maryland (CNN) -- The stakes for President Bush in the Middle East peace process have never been higher.

That probably says less about the actual process and more about the fact the president has never been that much involved -- at least not until Tuesday's conference he's hosting with more than 40 nations from around the world.

Bush, who started his presidency deeply skeptical of getting too heavily engaged in the peace process, has a motive to get his hands dirty these days -- his legacy on the Mideast is under fire because of the war in Iraq.

Helping to broker a major peace deal in his final year could turn his fortunes in the history books, so now he's putting his weight behind the effort in a major way.

"Tonight I restate my personal commitment on behalf of the United States to all those in the Middle East who wish to live in freedom and peace," Bush said in a toast Monday night at a dinner hosted by Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice. "We stand with you at the Annapolis conference and beyond."

more

After seven years of failure, destroyed credibility, devastated lives, death and destruction because of his illegal war, Bush is going to try to play catch-up in less than a year! Idiot!