This plea will surely fall on deaf ears. The standard line is that anything that Israel does even what many would consider war crimes is justified as self defence and by the fact that Hamas is a terrorist organisation that fires rockets into Israel. Nothing else matters. Israel can attack two UN schools killing dozens, the parliament buildings, police stations, the university, etc. etc. Apparently all are Hamas targets! Of course Israel hates the UN. The UN has passed numerous resolutions that Israel loves to ignore. The US has in fact sabotage two attempts to reach a ceasefire already.
This is from antiwar.com.
Amnesty Calls on Rice to Drop 'Lopsided' Gaza Stance
by Jim Lobe
The US section of Amnesty International sent an "urgent" letter Friday to Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice, calling on her to end what it called Washington's "lopsided response" to the ongoing Israeli air strikes on Gaza that have reportedly killed more than 400 Palestinians, including scores of unarmed civilians.
While the letter also expressed concern about the rocket fire by Palestinian groups that has taken four Israeli lives in urban areas more than 30 kilometers from Gaza during the past week, it called Israel's campaign air campaign "disproportionate" and accused the Jewish state of violating international law.
"Without diminishing the responsibility of Hamas and other Palestinian armed groups for indiscriminate and deliberate attacks on Israeli civilians, the US government must not ignore Israel's disproportionate response and the longstanding policies which have brought the Gaza Strip to the brink of humanitarian disaster," the letter declared.
"…Amnesty International USA is particularly dismayed at the lopsided response by the US government to the recent violence and its lackadaisical efforts to ameliorate the humanitarian crisis in Gaza," it stressed, noting that several recent reports by its London-based parent organization, UN aid agencies, Oxfam, CARE and other relief groups have described the situation in Gaza – even before the latest outbreak of hostilities – as the worst since Israel's 1967 conquest of the area.
The letter came amid growing international clamor, especially from European and Arab capitals, for an immediate ceasefire. So far both Israel and Hamas have rejected this option.
Hamas has said it would agree to a ceasefire provided Israel agrees to lift its effective economic blockade of the territory. Israel – strongly backed by the White House – has insisted that it will stop its offensive only when Hamas agrees to a ceasefire that, in Rice's words, "is durable and sustainable."
In its letter, Amnesty urged Washington to "go beyond rhetoric and exert concrete pressure on both parties to immediately cease unlawful attacks." Statements in recent days by both Rice and the White House have contributed to the impression that Washington wants to give Israel more time to weaken Hamas' leadership and infrastructure in Gaza, in hopes that the population there will turn against the party to the benefit of Palestine Authority President Mahmoud Abbas' Fatah party.
Indeed, Israel has begun amassing tanks, artillery and troops in a number of areas just outside Gaza, possibly in preparation for a ground assault against specific Hamas targets.
In a new phase of its campaign, Israeli forces began striking the homes of Hamas leaders. An air attack Thursday killed a top cleric identified with Hamas' military wing, Nizar Rayyan, along with his four wives and nine children. The air assault reportedly struck at the homes of several other leaders again Friday in what some analysts here described as an effort to "decapitate" the Islamist group.
The European Union called Thursday for an "immediate and permanent ceasefire" that would include both an "unconditional halt to rocket attacks by Hamas on Israel and an end to Israeli military action."
On a trip to Europe Thursday, however, Israeli Foreign Minister Tzipi Livni – who, along with Defense Minister Ehud Barak, has gained in the public-opinion polls for the Feb. 10 elections since the Israeli offensive began – rejected the demand as well as a French proposal for a 48-hour "humanitarian cease-fire."
An unidentified official traveling with Livni called the latter proposal "unrealistic," "hasty," and bordering on "offensive," adding that Israel was itself shipping in tons of humanitarian supplies, including food and medicine, despite reports of severe shortages and chaos in Gaza's few hospitals. The territory has been without power for two days.
"There is no humanitarian crisis, and therefore there is no need for a humanitarian truce," Livni told reporters in Paris.
Amnesty's letter strongly disagreed with that assessment Friday, however, echoing a report issued Wednesday by Oxfam. "At present there is an urgent need for access to humanitarian aid, food and essential supplies – as both aid agencies and residents of Gaza have long ago run out of provision reserves due to the Israeli blockade which has so restricted the flow of goods into Gaza for months," it said.
"The quantities which the Israeli army has allowed into Gaza in recent days are nowhere near what is necessary to meet the basic needs of the population of 1.5 million," it added.
Rice herself has voiced some concern about the humanitarian situation and has sought private assurances from Livni that more assistance will be delivered via UN and private relief agencies, according to a number of sources close to the administration.
The same sources say that Washington has also sought assurances that Israel will try to keep civilian casualties to a minimum and that there will be no repeat of the 1996 shelling of the southern Lebanese village of Qana in which some 106 Lebanese civilians trying to escape fighting between Israel and Hezbollah were killed by Israeli shelling.
But, as noted in the Amnesty letter, "the Gaza Strip is one of the most densely populated areas in the world" and the way Israel's current bombing campaign is being carried out "is completely failing to meet" international legal requirements that all operations be "strictly necessary, proportionate and make every effort to discriminate between combatant and civilian."
In a statement released Tuesday, New York-based Human Rights Watch (HRW) also criticized Israel – as well as Hamas' rocket firings – for failing to discriminate between legitimate military and civilian targets to minimize harm to civilians. It cited several aerial attacks carried out early in the campaign which "appear to be unlawful," including strikes against students leaving a UN training facility; against a "Hamas mosque" that also destroyed a nearby house; and several police stations and a police academy.
As it has in the past, HRW also charged that Israel's blockade of the territory amounted to "collective punishment against the civilian population, a serious violation of the laws of war."
In its letter, Amnesty called on Washington to immediately suspend its arms deliveries to Israel pending an investigation as to whether previously supplied weapons have been used to commit serious human rights abuses during the current assault.
(Inter Press Service)
Showing posts with label Condoleeza Rice. Show all posts
Showing posts with label Condoleeza Rice. Show all posts
Tuesday, January 6, 2009
Tuesday, December 23, 2008
Rice: Obama to follow Bush foreign policy
Rice is probably bang on but it is certainly ironic that the Great Agent of Change is carrying on with an imperialist foreign policy that is seamlessly connected with that of Bush even to having the same Defence Minister in charge. Rice could have pointed out that there is also continuity in that Obama is going to move forward with more emphasis upon Afghanistan and also with continuing to press Pakistan for stronger action. I expect that drones will continue their overflights in Pakistan under Obama. In fact Obama could be even more warlike in his approach to Pakistan than Bush and push for more direct interventions from Afghanistan. The new beginning in Afghanistan will be Obama's own surge even though Bush seems to be already starting it.
Rice: Obama to follow Bush foreign policy
By Daniel Dombey in Washington
Published: December 21 2008 23:19 Last updated: December 21 2008 23:19
Barack Obama might have little option but to follow George W. Bush’s approach on a range of foreign policy issues, including Iran, said Condoleezza Rice, secretary of state.
Ms Rice told the Financial Times the new administration was likely to follow Mr Bush’s lead in the dispute over Iran’s nuclear programme. During the president’s second term, the US has co-ordinated its approach with the European Union, Russia and China.
“When I talk to our allies they believe that that is the structure with which this is ultimately going to be resolved,” Ms Rice said, while acknowledging that the Obama administration would generally “do things in their own way”.
She said: “The reason why there might be some elements of continuity is that what we’ve tried to do is to arrange or organise international groupings that can first manage and then resolve these very difficult problems in a multilateral way.” She was referring not just to the administration’s efforts over Iran but also its approach to North Korea and the Israel-Palestinian issue.
Ms Rice’s words could damp expectations that the incoming administration will represent a complete break with its predecessor on foreign policy.
They also highlight the obstacles facing the new team as it seeks breakthroughs for problems the Bush administration has failed to resolve. In an echo of the current administration’s rhetoric, Mr Obama promises to use carrots and sticks to push Iran to rein in its nuclear programme.
But in spite of a sustained sanctions drive by the US and its allies and an offer of talks, Iran has stepped up uranium enrichment and is widely reckoned to be moving closer to nuclear weapons capability.
While Mr Obama has promised a radically different approach to the outgoing administration on issues such as climate change, and Guantanamo Bay, many of his cabinet picks are centrists who have won praise from Republicans.
Although Ms Rice has described herself as “especially proud” of Mr Obama’s election as the first African American president, she consistently declines to say for whom she voted.
Ms Rice expressed concern over the expected appointment of a series of special envoys for world hotspots, saying it was important not to cut ambassadors and diplomats out of the loop.
Rice: Obama to follow Bush foreign policy
By Daniel Dombey in Washington
Published: December 21 2008 23:19 Last updated: December 21 2008 23:19
Barack Obama might have little option but to follow George W. Bush’s approach on a range of foreign policy issues, including Iran, said Condoleezza Rice, secretary of state.
Ms Rice told the Financial Times the new administration was likely to follow Mr Bush’s lead in the dispute over Iran’s nuclear programme. During the president’s second term, the US has co-ordinated its approach with the European Union, Russia and China.
“When I talk to our allies they believe that that is the structure with which this is ultimately going to be resolved,” Ms Rice said, while acknowledging that the Obama administration would generally “do things in their own way”.
She said: “The reason why there might be some elements of continuity is that what we’ve tried to do is to arrange or organise international groupings that can first manage and then resolve these very difficult problems in a multilateral way.” She was referring not just to the administration’s efforts over Iran but also its approach to North Korea and the Israel-Palestinian issue.
Ms Rice’s words could damp expectations that the incoming administration will represent a complete break with its predecessor on foreign policy.
They also highlight the obstacles facing the new team as it seeks breakthroughs for problems the Bush administration has failed to resolve. In an echo of the current administration’s rhetoric, Mr Obama promises to use carrots and sticks to push Iran to rein in its nuclear programme.
But in spite of a sustained sanctions drive by the US and its allies and an offer of talks, Iran has stepped up uranium enrichment and is widely reckoned to be moving closer to nuclear weapons capability.
While Mr Obama has promised a radically different approach to the outgoing administration on issues such as climate change, and Guantanamo Bay, many of his cabinet picks are centrists who have won praise from Republicans.
Although Ms Rice has described herself as “especially proud” of Mr Obama’s election as the first African American president, she consistently declines to say for whom she voted.
Ms Rice expressed concern over the expected appointment of a series of special envoys for world hotspots, saying it was important not to cut ambassadors and diplomats out of the loop.
Wednesday, August 27, 2008
Rice, In Israel, Criticizes Surge in Settlement Construction.
This is from the NY Times.
Israel as well as Palestine violate agreements. Israel is of course in violation of oodles of UN resolutions but nothing happens as a result. Probably little will happen because of this increase in settlement. When there is any movement of Israelis out of a settlement there is often considerable coverage. This coverage in a major newspaper is a welcome addition in covering the rest of the story but with all eyes focused on the Democratic Convention and Gustav the article may not attract too many readers.
August 27, 2008
Rice, in Israel, Criticizes Surge in Settlement Construction
By ETHAN BRONNER
JERUSALEM — Peace Now, the Israeli advocacy group, said in a report released Tuesday that in the last year Israel had nearly doubled its settlement construction in the occupied West Bank, in violation of its obligations under an American-backed peace plan.
Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice, in Jerusalem on a short visit to help Israeli and Palestinian leaders in their negotiations, said when asked about the report that she had told Israeli officials that such building did not advance the cause of peace.
“What we need now are steps that enhance confidence between the parties, and anything that undermines confidence between the parties ought to be avoided,” she said with the Israeli foreign minister, Tzipi Livni, at her side.
Ms. Livni said that settlement building should not influence the negotiations because the goal should be “not to let any kind of noises that relate to the situation on the ground these days enter the negotiation room.”
Earlier, Ms. Rice had made clear that neither Israelis nor Palestinians had fully lived up to their obligations. Israel is supposed to end all settlement building and remove illegal settlement outposts, while the Palestinians are supposed to dismantle terrorist infrastructures.
Negotiators had hoped for a full two-state peace framework between the Palestinian Authority and Israel to be completed by the end of President Bush’s term. Lately, though, they have cautioned that such an aim may be out of reach although the talks, they say, are making progress.
Most say they prefer to continue the process rather than try to put together a partial document. But Prime Minister Ehud Olmert, who has pledged to resign after his Kadima Party chooses a new leader in September, seems eager for an agreement before his term ends to burnish his legacy.
Standing with the Palestinian president, Mahmoud Abbas, in Ramallah after their meeting, Ms. Rice said that “God willing,” and with the hard work of the negotiators, the two-state goal could still be attained before year’s end.
Mr. Abbas seemed already to be looking beyond the Bush administration, however, and expressed hope that its successor “will continue what we have begun.”
He also complained about the increased settlement building.
The Peace Now report on settlements, based on aerial photos, visits and government data, says that more than 1,000 buildings are going up in the West Bank, including 2,600 housing units. It says that for the first five months of 2008, construction in the settlements was 1.8 times greater than in the same period of 2007.
Peace Now opposes Israeli construction on land captured in the 1967 war, like the West Bank, and favors furthering the creation of a Palestinian state there. Yet it is considered a reliable source of settlement information.
Its report says more than half of the building is beyond the separation barrier that Israel has built in recent years on the border of and inside the West Bank. This is significant, if true, because Israeli leaders have argued that ultimately a deal with the Palestinians will allow it to keep several settlement blocs and neighborhoods in East Jerusalem in exchange for land swaps. Therefore, they say, their building in East Jerusalem and close-in settlements on their side of the barrier should cause no concern.
The Peace Now report shows that the building in East Jerusalem is intensive, with the number of tenders for houses there up to 1,761 this year from 46 in 2007.
A spokesman for Israel’s Housing Ministry, Eran Sidis, said he could not check on all the data in the Peace Now report, but he defended building in areas Israel hopes to keep, saying, “There’s nothing to prevent strengthening settlement blocs that in the end of the day, in a peace agreement, will clearly be in Israel’s hands.”
American and Palestinian officials reject the idea that such building is harmless to negotiations. In addition, the Peace Now report challenges the government’s assertions that it is limiting construction to the western side of the barrier by showing that beyond the barrier, building continues apace. It also says that in the illegal outposts that were supposed to be removed, 125 new structures have been added, including 30 permanent houses.
Israel as well as Palestine violate agreements. Israel is of course in violation of oodles of UN resolutions but nothing happens as a result. Probably little will happen because of this increase in settlement. When there is any movement of Israelis out of a settlement there is often considerable coverage. This coverage in a major newspaper is a welcome addition in covering the rest of the story but with all eyes focused on the Democratic Convention and Gustav the article may not attract too many readers.
August 27, 2008
Rice, in Israel, Criticizes Surge in Settlement Construction
By ETHAN BRONNER
JERUSALEM — Peace Now, the Israeli advocacy group, said in a report released Tuesday that in the last year Israel had nearly doubled its settlement construction in the occupied West Bank, in violation of its obligations under an American-backed peace plan.
Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice, in Jerusalem on a short visit to help Israeli and Palestinian leaders in their negotiations, said when asked about the report that she had told Israeli officials that such building did not advance the cause of peace.
“What we need now are steps that enhance confidence between the parties, and anything that undermines confidence between the parties ought to be avoided,” she said with the Israeli foreign minister, Tzipi Livni, at her side.
Ms. Livni said that settlement building should not influence the negotiations because the goal should be “not to let any kind of noises that relate to the situation on the ground these days enter the negotiation room.”
Earlier, Ms. Rice had made clear that neither Israelis nor Palestinians had fully lived up to their obligations. Israel is supposed to end all settlement building and remove illegal settlement outposts, while the Palestinians are supposed to dismantle terrorist infrastructures.
Negotiators had hoped for a full two-state peace framework between the Palestinian Authority and Israel to be completed by the end of President Bush’s term. Lately, though, they have cautioned that such an aim may be out of reach although the talks, they say, are making progress.
Most say they prefer to continue the process rather than try to put together a partial document. But Prime Minister Ehud Olmert, who has pledged to resign after his Kadima Party chooses a new leader in September, seems eager for an agreement before his term ends to burnish his legacy.
Standing with the Palestinian president, Mahmoud Abbas, in Ramallah after their meeting, Ms. Rice said that “God willing,” and with the hard work of the negotiators, the two-state goal could still be attained before year’s end.
Mr. Abbas seemed already to be looking beyond the Bush administration, however, and expressed hope that its successor “will continue what we have begun.”
He also complained about the increased settlement building.
The Peace Now report on settlements, based on aerial photos, visits and government data, says that more than 1,000 buildings are going up in the West Bank, including 2,600 housing units. It says that for the first five months of 2008, construction in the settlements was 1.8 times greater than in the same period of 2007.
Peace Now opposes Israeli construction on land captured in the 1967 war, like the West Bank, and favors furthering the creation of a Palestinian state there. Yet it is considered a reliable source of settlement information.
Its report says more than half of the building is beyond the separation barrier that Israel has built in recent years on the border of and inside the West Bank. This is significant, if true, because Israeli leaders have argued that ultimately a deal with the Palestinians will allow it to keep several settlement blocs and neighborhoods in East Jerusalem in exchange for land swaps. Therefore, they say, their building in East Jerusalem and close-in settlements on their side of the barrier should cause no concern.
The Peace Now report shows that the building in East Jerusalem is intensive, with the number of tenders for houses there up to 1,761 this year from 46 in 2007.
A spokesman for Israel’s Housing Ministry, Eran Sidis, said he could not check on all the data in the Peace Now report, but he defended building in areas Israel hopes to keep, saying, “There’s nothing to prevent strengthening settlement blocs that in the end of the day, in a peace agreement, will clearly be in Israel’s hands.”
American and Palestinian officials reject the idea that such building is harmless to negotiations. In addition, the Peace Now report challenges the government’s assertions that it is limiting construction to the western side of the barrier by showing that beyond the barrier, building continues apace. It also says that in the illegal outposts that were supposed to be removed, 125 new structures have been added, including 30 permanent houses.
Friday, August 15, 2008
Georgia signs ceasefire, Rice says Russia must now pull out
So I wonder who authorises the U.S. to give orders to Russia? Rice even being in Tbilisi is a sign of Big Brother looking after its own and sending the black sister for a photo op and to show solidarity with David against the newly minted Evil Empire Goliath. Nevertheless the ceasefire is certainly a positive development and from the Russian reaction acceptable to the Russian side as well. These events will probably fade from the western press after a time but the tensions will remain. The U.S. still remains committed to Georgia joining NATO. This will cause conflict with some members of the European Union within NATO who are not willing to confront Russia even more, since much of Europe depends upon Russia for energy supplies especially natural gas. Russia is not about to forget that the missile defence system is going ahead in spite of continued objections from the Russian side. There is no doubt about that there is a new Cold War developing. In time I expect that there will be more conflict with China as well and perhaps a coming together of China and Russia once again in confronting U.S. hegemony. Already we have the tired old phrases about the Free World versus Russia (and China no doubt). I have seen blogs even talking about Russia in terms of a country run by atheistic communists! Wow!
Georgia signs ceasefire, Rice says Russia must now pull out
Breakaway regions "unlikely to live together with Georgia," Russian president says
Last Updated: Friday, August 15, 2008 12:26 PM ET
CBC News
Georgian President Mikhail Saakashvili said Friday he signed a ceasefire agreement with Russia that protects the former Soviet republic's interests despite concessions to Moscow.
He said he will "never, ever surrender" in a showdown with Russia, and he accused the West of inviting Russian aggression.
Saakashvili made his remarks in the Georgian capital of Tbilisi with United States Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice standing nearby. Rice said she had been assured that Russian President Dmitry Medvedev will sign an identical document.
"With this signature by Georgia," Rice said, the Russian pullback "must take place and take place now."
Saakashvili's announcement comes just hours after Medvedev said the Georgian breakaway regions of South Ossetia and Abkhazia are "unlikely to live together with Georgia" after recent conflicts there.
Medvedev spoke to reporters in Moscow earlier Friday, a week after heavy fighting between Russian and Georgian troops broke out over the Moscow-backed breakaway republic of South Ossetia.
Medvedev said that while Russia respects the principle of territorial integrity, after what happened, it's unlikely Ossetians and Abkhazians will ever be able to live together with Georgia in one state. Russian troops drove Georgian forces out of both regions last week.
Bush stands firmly behind Georgia
Meanwhile U.S. President George W. Bush repeated on Friday his demand that Russia get out of Georgia, saying the Cold War is over.
"Bullying and intimidation are not acceptable ways to conduct foreign policy in the 21st century," he told reporters at the White House. He said Georgians have cast their lot with the free world and "we will not cast them aside."
The U.S. president said that Russia has damaged its relationship with the United States and other countries.
German Chancellor Angela Merkel said on Friday some of Russia's actions against Georgia over South Ossetia had been "disproportionate." Her comments carry weight as Germany is Russia's largest trading partner.
"Some of Russia's actions were not proportionate," Reuters quoted Merkel as saying at a joint news conference with Medvedev. "Russian troops should withdraw from central areas in Georgia," she added.
Rice says difficult questions can be addressed later
U.S. Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice and Georgian President Mikheil Saakashvili shake hands in Tbilisi on Friday. (Irakli Gedenidze/Pool/Associated Press)Rice told reporters travelling with her to Tbilisi that the immediate goal is to get Russian combat forces out of Georgia and that more difficult questions can be addressed later.
But she said the U.S. would never ask Georgia to agree to something that isn't in its best interests.
The French-brokered agreement calls for both sides to pull back to positions they held before the fighting started last Friday, when Georgia sent troops to try to retake the separatist province of South Ossetia.
Russia responded to the action by pushing Georgian forces back and advancing far into undisputed Georgian territory. Rice said earlier that the deal would allow Russian peacekeepers stationed in South Ossetia before the conflict began to stay in the region. The troops would also be temporarily allowed to patrol a few kilometres outside the area.
Russia said it is committed to pulling fighting forces out of Georgia, but the Associated Press reported on Friday that Russian troops were still blocking an entrance to the key central Georgian city of Gori.
Displaced Georgian civilians rest just outside the town of Gori on Friday. (Uriel Sinai/Getty Images)Russia has said more than 2,000 people, mostly civilians in South Ossetia, as well as 74 of its own soldiers, have been killed in the conflict. Georgia put the figure much lower, at around 175 dead. None of the figures has been independently verified.
While South Ossetia's independence is not recognized internationally, it has close ties to Russia, and almost all of its 70,000 residents have Russian passports.
The International Committee of the Red Cross says tens of thousands of people in Georgia, including its two breakaway provinces, need urgent help but that security concerns are keeping its staff out of the region.
It says residents of South Ossetia are living without basic services, such as water and electricity.With files from the Associated Press
Georgia signs ceasefire, Rice says Russia must now pull out
Breakaway regions "unlikely to live together with Georgia," Russian president says
Last Updated: Friday, August 15, 2008 12:26 PM ET
CBC News
Georgian President Mikhail Saakashvili said Friday he signed a ceasefire agreement with Russia that protects the former Soviet republic's interests despite concessions to Moscow.
He said he will "never, ever surrender" in a showdown with Russia, and he accused the West of inviting Russian aggression.
Saakashvili made his remarks in the Georgian capital of Tbilisi with United States Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice standing nearby. Rice said she had been assured that Russian President Dmitry Medvedev will sign an identical document.
"With this signature by Georgia," Rice said, the Russian pullback "must take place and take place now."
Saakashvili's announcement comes just hours after Medvedev said the Georgian breakaway regions of South Ossetia and Abkhazia are "unlikely to live together with Georgia" after recent conflicts there.
Medvedev spoke to reporters in Moscow earlier Friday, a week after heavy fighting between Russian and Georgian troops broke out over the Moscow-backed breakaway republic of South Ossetia.
Medvedev said that while Russia respects the principle of territorial integrity, after what happened, it's unlikely Ossetians and Abkhazians will ever be able to live together with Georgia in one state. Russian troops drove Georgian forces out of both regions last week.
Bush stands firmly behind Georgia
Meanwhile U.S. President George W. Bush repeated on Friday his demand that Russia get out of Georgia, saying the Cold War is over.
"Bullying and intimidation are not acceptable ways to conduct foreign policy in the 21st century," he told reporters at the White House. He said Georgians have cast their lot with the free world and "we will not cast them aside."
The U.S. president said that Russia has damaged its relationship with the United States and other countries.
German Chancellor Angela Merkel said on Friday some of Russia's actions against Georgia over South Ossetia had been "disproportionate." Her comments carry weight as Germany is Russia's largest trading partner.
"Some of Russia's actions were not proportionate," Reuters quoted Merkel as saying at a joint news conference with Medvedev. "Russian troops should withdraw from central areas in Georgia," she added.
Rice says difficult questions can be addressed later
U.S. Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice and Georgian President Mikheil Saakashvili shake hands in Tbilisi on Friday. (Irakli Gedenidze/Pool/Associated Press)Rice told reporters travelling with her to Tbilisi that the immediate goal is to get Russian combat forces out of Georgia and that more difficult questions can be addressed later.
But she said the U.S. would never ask Georgia to agree to something that isn't in its best interests.
The French-brokered agreement calls for both sides to pull back to positions they held before the fighting started last Friday, when Georgia sent troops to try to retake the separatist province of South Ossetia.
Russia responded to the action by pushing Georgian forces back and advancing far into undisputed Georgian territory. Rice said earlier that the deal would allow Russian peacekeepers stationed in South Ossetia before the conflict began to stay in the region. The troops would also be temporarily allowed to patrol a few kilometres outside the area.
Russia said it is committed to pulling fighting forces out of Georgia, but the Associated Press reported on Friday that Russian troops were still blocking an entrance to the key central Georgian city of Gori.
Displaced Georgian civilians rest just outside the town of Gori on Friday. (Uriel Sinai/Getty Images)Russia has said more than 2,000 people, mostly civilians in South Ossetia, as well as 74 of its own soldiers, have been killed in the conflict. Georgia put the figure much lower, at around 175 dead. None of the figures has been independently verified.
While South Ossetia's independence is not recognized internationally, it has close ties to Russia, and almost all of its 70,000 residents have Russian passports.
The International Committee of the Red Cross says tens of thousands of people in Georgia, including its two breakaway provinces, need urgent help but that security concerns are keeping its staff out of the region.
It says residents of South Ossetia are living without basic services, such as water and electricity.With files from the Associated Press
Sunday, June 1, 2008
Rice: Bush administration was clear about Iraq war.
This is from wiredispatch.
Rice sometimes seems a bit more progressive than some of the Bush administation but as this article shows she is also a faithful defender of Bush as well. Maybe when she leaves politics she will tell all too! This is a hopeless piece of propagandizing on her part. The record of Hussein's weapons of mass destruction was never clear. What was clear was that the press and many prominent officials not just in the U.S. but elsewhere were saying that it was clear. What was clear too is that the US never allowed the UN inspectors to complete their mission not even after the invasion!
Rice: Bush administration was clear about Iraq war
Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice says Bush administration was upfront on Iraq war
MATTHEW LEEAP News
May 29, 2008 04:02 EST
Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice on Thursday rejected allegations from a former White House spokesman who says the Bush administration misled the American public into going to war with Iraq.
Rice would not comment specifically on charges made by ex-press secretary Scott McClellan in a new book, but said President Bush was honest and forthright about the reasons for the war. She also said she remained convinced that toppling Saddam Hussein was right and necessary.
"The president was very clear about the reasons for going to war," she told reporters at a news conference with Swedish Prime Minister Fredrik Reinfeldt in Stockholm where she is attending an international conference on Iraq.
Chief among those reasons was the belief, shared widely before the war, that Saddam Hussein had or was developing weapons of mass destruction, Rice recalled, suggesting the international community shouldn't have backed harsh sanctions against Iraq if it doubted the threat.
"I am not going to comment on a book that I haven't read," she said, referring to McClellan's scathing memoir, "but what I will say is that the concern about weapons of mass destruction in Saddam Hussein's Iraq was the fundamental reason."
"It was not the United States of America alone that believed that he had weapons of mass destruction that he was hiding," Rice said, dismissing suggestions that the administration knew the intelligence was incorrect.
"The story is there for everyone to see, you can't now transplant yourself into the present and say we should have know what we in fact did not know in 2001 and 2002," she said. "The record on weapons of mass destruction was one that appeared to be very clear."
Those who were skeptical should have spoken up at the time and argued against U.N. sanctions such as the oil-for-food program, she said.
"The threat from Saddam Hussein was well understood," Rice said. "You can agree or disagree about the decision to liberate Iraq in 2003, but I would really ask that if you ... believe he was not a threat to the international community, then why in the world were you allowing the Iraqi people to suffer under the terms of oil-for-food."
The heart of the McClellan book concerns Bush's decision to go to war in Iraq, a determination McClellan says the president had made by early 2002 — at least a full year before the invasion — if not even earlier.
"He signed off on a strategy for selling the war that was less than candid and honest," McClellan writes in "What Happened: Inside the Bush White House and Washington's Culture of Deception."
However, McClellan wrote that he did not believe Bush or the White House "deliberately or consciously sought to deceive the American people."
McClellan says Bush's main reason for war always was "an ambitious and idealistic post-9/11 vision of transforming the Middle East through the spread of freedom." But Bush and his advisers made "a marketing choice" to downplay this rationale in favor of one focused on increasingly trumped-up portrayals of the threat posed by the weapons of mass destruction.
During the "political propaganda campaign to sell the war to the American people," Bush and his team tried to make the "WMD threat and the Iraqi connection to terrorism appear just a little more certain, a little less questionable than they were." Something else was downplayed as well, McClellan says: any discussion of "the possible unpleasant consequences of war — casualties, economic effects, geopolitical risks, diplomatic repercussions."
The White House responded angrily Wednesday to McClellan's memoir, calling it self-serving sour grapes.
"Scott, we now know, is disgruntled about his experience at the White House," said current White House press secretary Dana Perino, a former deputy to McClellan. "We are puzzled. It is sad. This is not the Scott we knew."
Source: AP News
Rice sometimes seems a bit more progressive than some of the Bush administation but as this article shows she is also a faithful defender of Bush as well. Maybe when she leaves politics she will tell all too! This is a hopeless piece of propagandizing on her part. The record of Hussein's weapons of mass destruction was never clear. What was clear was that the press and many prominent officials not just in the U.S. but elsewhere were saying that it was clear. What was clear too is that the US never allowed the UN inspectors to complete their mission not even after the invasion!
Rice: Bush administration was clear about Iraq war
Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice says Bush administration was upfront on Iraq war
MATTHEW LEEAP News
May 29, 2008 04:02 EST
Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice on Thursday rejected allegations from a former White House spokesman who says the Bush administration misled the American public into going to war with Iraq.
Rice would not comment specifically on charges made by ex-press secretary Scott McClellan in a new book, but said President Bush was honest and forthright about the reasons for the war. She also said she remained convinced that toppling Saddam Hussein was right and necessary.
"The president was very clear about the reasons for going to war," she told reporters at a news conference with Swedish Prime Minister Fredrik Reinfeldt in Stockholm where she is attending an international conference on Iraq.
Chief among those reasons was the belief, shared widely before the war, that Saddam Hussein had or was developing weapons of mass destruction, Rice recalled, suggesting the international community shouldn't have backed harsh sanctions against Iraq if it doubted the threat.
"I am not going to comment on a book that I haven't read," she said, referring to McClellan's scathing memoir, "but what I will say is that the concern about weapons of mass destruction in Saddam Hussein's Iraq was the fundamental reason."
"It was not the United States of America alone that believed that he had weapons of mass destruction that he was hiding," Rice said, dismissing suggestions that the administration knew the intelligence was incorrect.
"The story is there for everyone to see, you can't now transplant yourself into the present and say we should have know what we in fact did not know in 2001 and 2002," she said. "The record on weapons of mass destruction was one that appeared to be very clear."
Those who were skeptical should have spoken up at the time and argued against U.N. sanctions such as the oil-for-food program, she said.
"The threat from Saddam Hussein was well understood," Rice said. "You can agree or disagree about the decision to liberate Iraq in 2003, but I would really ask that if you ... believe he was not a threat to the international community, then why in the world were you allowing the Iraqi people to suffer under the terms of oil-for-food."
The heart of the McClellan book concerns Bush's decision to go to war in Iraq, a determination McClellan says the president had made by early 2002 — at least a full year before the invasion — if not even earlier.
"He signed off on a strategy for selling the war that was less than candid and honest," McClellan writes in "What Happened: Inside the Bush White House and Washington's Culture of Deception."
However, McClellan wrote that he did not believe Bush or the White House "deliberately or consciously sought to deceive the American people."
McClellan says Bush's main reason for war always was "an ambitious and idealistic post-9/11 vision of transforming the Middle East through the spread of freedom." But Bush and his advisers made "a marketing choice" to downplay this rationale in favor of one focused on increasingly trumped-up portrayals of the threat posed by the weapons of mass destruction.
During the "political propaganda campaign to sell the war to the American people," Bush and his team tried to make the "WMD threat and the Iraqi connection to terrorism appear just a little more certain, a little less questionable than they were." Something else was downplayed as well, McClellan says: any discussion of "the possible unpleasant consequences of war — casualties, economic effects, geopolitical risks, diplomatic repercussions."
The White House responded angrily Wednesday to McClellan's memoir, calling it self-serving sour grapes.
"Scott, we now know, is disgruntled about his experience at the White House," said current White House press secretary Dana Perino, a former deputy to McClellan. "We are puzzled. It is sad. This is not the Scott we knew."
Source: AP News
Tuesday, April 22, 2008
Rice Frames Al-Sadr as Coward in Iran.
This is from the Washington Times. It is difficult to see the sense in this type of provocation. Sadr is an opportunist and a savvy strategist. He is not about to respond to this except rhetorically. Sadr would rather have peace because this will allow him to concentrate on building up political support for elections later this year. However, if Maliki and the U.S. continue attacks against the Mahdi militia he will be forced to respond. Perhaps the Republicans want the situation to worsen in Iraq so that they can claim that they are the "war party" and that no further moves to reduce forces should be made. There are bound to be more U.S. casualties if the Sadr truce breaks down completely. The question is whether this will cause even more anti-war feeling or cause people to rally around the flag to "support the troops". I have always found it odd that "supporting the troops" always means putting them in harms way and ensuring that more get killed.
Article published Apr 21, 2008Rice frames al-Sadr as coward in Iran
April 21, 2008 By Anne Gearan - BAGHDAD (AP) — Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice mocked anti-American cleric Muqtada al-Sadr as a coward yesterday, hours after the radical leader threatened to declare war unless U.S. and Iraqi forces end a military crackdown on his followers. Miss Rice, in the Iraqi capital to tout security gains and what she calls an emerging political consensus, said Sheik al-Sadr is content to issue threats and edicts from the safety of Iran, where he is studying. Sheik al-Sadr heads an unruly militia that was the main target of an Iraqi government assault in the oil-rich city of Basra last month, and his future role as a spoiler is an open question. "I know he's sitting in Iran," Miss Rice said dismissively, when asked about Sheik al-Sadr's latest threat to lift a self-imposed cease-fire with government and U.S. forces. "I guess it's all-out war for anybody but him," Miss Rice said. "I guess that's the message; his followers can go to their deaths and he's in Iran." In a statement on his official Web site, Sheik al-Sadr said, "We denounce the visit of U.S. secretary, asking the government to ban the entrance of the terrorists' occupiers to our pure land." The statement asked Iraqis to express their opposition to the visit through peaceful means. A full-blown uprising by Sheik al-Sadr, who led two rebellions against U.S.-led forces in 2004, could lead to a dramatic increase in violence in Iraq at a time when the Sunni extremist group al Qaeda in Iraq appears poised for new attacks after suffering severe blows last year. In a warning posted Saturday on his Web site, Sheik al-Sadr said he tried to defuse tensions by declaring the truce in August, only to see the Shi'ite-led government of Prime Minister Nouri al-Maliki respond by closing his offices and "resorting to assassinations." He accused the government of selling out to the Americans and branding his followers as criminals. "So I am giving my final warning ... to the Iraqi government ... to take the path of peace and abandon violence against its people," Sheik al-Sadr said. "If the government does not refrain ... we will declare an open war until liberation." Miss Rice praised Mr. al-Maliki for confronting Sheik al-Sadr's Mahdi Army, which had a choke hold on Basra, Iraq's second-largest city. The assault was Mr. al-Maliki's most-decisive act by far against Sheik al-Sadr, a fellow Shi'ite and once a political patron. Kurdish and Sunni politicians, including a chief rival, have since rallied to Mr. al-Maliki, and the Bush administration argues he could emerge stronger from what had appeared to be a military blunder. During five days of heavy fighting last month, Iraqi troops struggled against militiamen, particularly the Mahdi Army. The ill-prepared Iraqi military was plagued by desertions and poor organization and U.S. troops had to take over in some instances. The offensive was inconclusive, with Iran helping mediate a truce.
Article published Apr 21, 2008Rice frames al-Sadr as coward in Iran
April 21, 2008 By Anne Gearan - BAGHDAD (AP) — Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice mocked anti-American cleric Muqtada al-Sadr as a coward yesterday, hours after the radical leader threatened to declare war unless U.S. and Iraqi forces end a military crackdown on his followers. Miss Rice, in the Iraqi capital to tout security gains and what she calls an emerging political consensus, said Sheik al-Sadr is content to issue threats and edicts from the safety of Iran, where he is studying. Sheik al-Sadr heads an unruly militia that was the main target of an Iraqi government assault in the oil-rich city of Basra last month, and his future role as a spoiler is an open question. "I know he's sitting in Iran," Miss Rice said dismissively, when asked about Sheik al-Sadr's latest threat to lift a self-imposed cease-fire with government and U.S. forces. "I guess it's all-out war for anybody but him," Miss Rice said. "I guess that's the message; his followers can go to their deaths and he's in Iran." In a statement on his official Web site, Sheik al-Sadr said, "We denounce the visit of U.S. secretary, asking the government to ban the entrance of the terrorists' occupiers to our pure land." The statement asked Iraqis to express their opposition to the visit through peaceful means. A full-blown uprising by Sheik al-Sadr, who led two rebellions against U.S.-led forces in 2004, could lead to a dramatic increase in violence in Iraq at a time when the Sunni extremist group al Qaeda in Iraq appears poised for new attacks after suffering severe blows last year. In a warning posted Saturday on his Web site, Sheik al-Sadr said he tried to defuse tensions by declaring the truce in August, only to see the Shi'ite-led government of Prime Minister Nouri al-Maliki respond by closing his offices and "resorting to assassinations." He accused the government of selling out to the Americans and branding his followers as criminals. "So I am giving my final warning ... to the Iraqi government ... to take the path of peace and abandon violence against its people," Sheik al-Sadr said. "If the government does not refrain ... we will declare an open war until liberation." Miss Rice praised Mr. al-Maliki for confronting Sheik al-Sadr's Mahdi Army, which had a choke hold on Basra, Iraq's second-largest city. The assault was Mr. al-Maliki's most-decisive act by far against Sheik al-Sadr, a fellow Shi'ite and once a political patron. Kurdish and Sunni politicians, including a chief rival, have since rallied to Mr. al-Maliki, and the Bush administration argues he could emerge stronger from what had appeared to be a military blunder. During five days of heavy fighting last month, Iraqi troops struggled against militiamen, particularly the Mahdi Army. The ill-prepared Iraqi military was plagued by desertions and poor organization and U.S. troops had to take over in some instances. The offensive was inconclusive, with Iran helping mediate a truce.
Friday, October 26, 2007
Lawmakers skewer Rice on Iraqi corruption.
The tenor of the discussion is interesting. There is not even the faintest hint that the US should maybe concentrate upon its own corruption problems rather than insisting in the harshest and belligerent tones that it has every right to correct corruption in Iraq. After all its our puppet must be the thought. We are paying for the strings and manufactured it from scratch at great expense. The Democrats are the best at this holy and arrogant outrage.
Of course this is not to deny that there is corruption in the Iraqi govt. but there is also corruption among private contractors and their relationships with US government officials and the Iraqis. Maybe only the corrupt will co-operate with the occupiers!
Lawmakers skewer Rice on Iraqi corruption by Stephen Collinson
Thu Oct 25, 6:45 PM ET
WASHINGTON (AFP) - US Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice fought off an inquisition by lawmakers Thursday over claims that Iraqi Prime Minister Nuri al-Maliki was shielding top ministers from corruption probes.
ADVERTISEMENT
Democratic lawmaker Henry Waxman, who has demanded answers from Rice on various aspects of the US operation in Iraq for months, got his chance at a hearing of a key House of Representatives committee.
He raised claims that Maliki had issued a decree requiring his approval before any minister or official in the presidential office was brought before a court on corruption charges.
Rice refused to respond directly but said US officials took all allegations of corruption in Iraq seriously and pledged to review the case.
"To assault the prime minister in Iraq, with to date heretofore unsubstantiated allegations or uncorroborated allegations in a setting that would simply fuel those allegations ... would be deeply wrong," Rice said.
"Not only is it potentially damaging to relationships that we are very dependent on ... it is wrong."
Rice argued that publicly talking about specific corruption cases risked exposing intelligence sources in Iraq, but said any official or document was available to the committee in closed session.
Democrats say such discussions must be in public, including documents which could damage the administration's claims of success in Iraq.
The hearing represented the latest sharp confrontation between Congress and the Bush administration, three days after the White House asked lawmakers for another 196 billion dollars in funding for the Iraq and Afghan wars.
On Wednesday, anger mounted after the Congressional Budget Office said the cost of the "war on terror" could hit 2.4 trillion dollars by 2017.
As tempers flared in the hearing of the House Oversight and Government reform committee, Waxman confronted Rice with a document purportedly from the Iraqi Prime Minister's office signed by its manager, Tariq Najim Abdullah.
The order said no official from the presidential office, council of ministers or current or previous ministers should be sent to court with Maliki's express approval.
The document, dated 04/01/2007, was handed to the committee Judge Radhi Hamza al-Radhi, former head of the Iraqi Commission on Public Integrity who has fled to the United States.
"Is the prime minister one of the people that cares about fighting corruption in Iraq?" Waxman asked.
Rice replied that the United States did not accept "any policy that would make immune from investigation or prosecution any member of the Iraqi government, no matter how high."
"If there is corruption, the United States wants to root it out."
Earlier this month, the Iraqi government said it would take legal action against the judge, accusing him of smuggling official documents and defaming the prime minister.
Radhi and a group of colleagues headed to Washington in August to undergo training with the US Justice Department.
Maliki at the time accused him of fleeing the country to avoid being tried on graft charges and replaced him as head of the Commission.
Radhi denies the graft allegations and told Waxman's committee earlier this month corruption was affecting virtually every government ministry and that some of the most powerful officials in Iraq are implicated.
As tensions rose in the hearing, Democrats lined up to hammer the Bush administration on Iraq, and Republicans attempted to defend Rice, and argue that the current US troop "surge strategy" had improved security there.
"May I have an opportunity though to finish my answers?" Rice asked Waxman at one stage, while Republican member Dan Burton felt obliged to apologize for the harsh questioning of Democrats on the committee.
"You are not being prosecuted, and we are not prosecutors," Burton said.
But Democratic member Stephen Lynch warned Rice "our kids are on the ground now in that country fighting and dying. We can't wait a moment longer before we talk about this."
Waxman earlier warned Rice's personal reputation was on the line, as she faced questions about her department's oversight of the Blackwater private security firm, accused of killing as many as 17 Iraqi civilians on September 16.
Of course this is not to deny that there is corruption in the Iraqi govt. but there is also corruption among private contractors and their relationships with US government officials and the Iraqis. Maybe only the corrupt will co-operate with the occupiers!
Lawmakers skewer Rice on Iraqi corruption by Stephen Collinson
Thu Oct 25, 6:45 PM ET
WASHINGTON (AFP) - US Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice fought off an inquisition by lawmakers Thursday over claims that Iraqi Prime Minister Nuri al-Maliki was shielding top ministers from corruption probes.
ADVERTISEMENT
Democratic lawmaker Henry Waxman, who has demanded answers from Rice on various aspects of the US operation in Iraq for months, got his chance at a hearing of a key House of Representatives committee.
He raised claims that Maliki had issued a decree requiring his approval before any minister or official in the presidential office was brought before a court on corruption charges.
Rice refused to respond directly but said US officials took all allegations of corruption in Iraq seriously and pledged to review the case.
"To assault the prime minister in Iraq, with to date heretofore unsubstantiated allegations or uncorroborated allegations in a setting that would simply fuel those allegations ... would be deeply wrong," Rice said.
"Not only is it potentially damaging to relationships that we are very dependent on ... it is wrong."
Rice argued that publicly talking about specific corruption cases risked exposing intelligence sources in Iraq, but said any official or document was available to the committee in closed session.
Democrats say such discussions must be in public, including documents which could damage the administration's claims of success in Iraq.
The hearing represented the latest sharp confrontation between Congress and the Bush administration, three days after the White House asked lawmakers for another 196 billion dollars in funding for the Iraq and Afghan wars.
On Wednesday, anger mounted after the Congressional Budget Office said the cost of the "war on terror" could hit 2.4 trillion dollars by 2017.
As tempers flared in the hearing of the House Oversight and Government reform committee, Waxman confronted Rice with a document purportedly from the Iraqi Prime Minister's office signed by its manager, Tariq Najim Abdullah.
The order said no official from the presidential office, council of ministers or current or previous ministers should be sent to court with Maliki's express approval.
The document, dated 04/01/2007, was handed to the committee Judge Radhi Hamza al-Radhi, former head of the Iraqi Commission on Public Integrity who has fled to the United States.
"Is the prime minister one of the people that cares about fighting corruption in Iraq?" Waxman asked.
Rice replied that the United States did not accept "any policy that would make immune from investigation or prosecution any member of the Iraqi government, no matter how high."
"If there is corruption, the United States wants to root it out."
Earlier this month, the Iraqi government said it would take legal action against the judge, accusing him of smuggling official documents and defaming the prime minister.
Radhi and a group of colleagues headed to Washington in August to undergo training with the US Justice Department.
Maliki at the time accused him of fleeing the country to avoid being tried on graft charges and replaced him as head of the Commission.
Radhi denies the graft allegations and told Waxman's committee earlier this month corruption was affecting virtually every government ministry and that some of the most powerful officials in Iraq are implicated.
As tensions rose in the hearing, Democrats lined up to hammer the Bush administration on Iraq, and Republicans attempted to defend Rice, and argue that the current US troop "surge strategy" had improved security there.
"May I have an opportunity though to finish my answers?" Rice asked Waxman at one stage, while Republican member Dan Burton felt obliged to apologize for the harsh questioning of Democrats on the committee.
"You are not being prosecuted, and we are not prosecutors," Burton said.
But Democratic member Stephen Lynch warned Rice "our kids are on the ground now in that country fighting and dying. We can't wait a moment longer before we talk about this."
Waxman earlier warned Rice's personal reputation was on the line, as she faced questions about her department's oversight of the Blackwater private security firm, accused of killing as many as 17 Iraqi civilians on September 16.
Thursday, October 25, 2007
US to look into Arar's status: Rice
The US already looking into this matter once before. It will be interesting if they decide any differently. Last time they just kept the status quo in spite of all the evidence the O'Connor presented that showed Arar was not a terrorist. Arar was sent to Syria on an order issued by a high official in the Bush hierarchy on the basis of an immigration "hearing" where Arar's lawyer was not present. Arar was judged to be a member of Al Qaeda! Here is a short clip from the Washington Post.
Then-Deputy Attorney General Larry D. Thompson, in his capacity as acting attorney general, signed the highly unusual order, citing national security and declaring that to send the man, Maher Arar, home to Canada would be "prejudicial to the interests of the United States," according to the officials, who spoke on the condition of anonymity.
U.S. to look into Arar's status: Rice
Last Updated: Thursday, December 21, 2006 | 2:26 PM ET
CBC News
U.S. security officials will review why Canadian Maher Arar is still on a U.S. terrorist watch list, Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice said Thursday following a meeting with Canada's foreign affairs minister.
"It will of course be looked at," Rice told reporters at a joint news conference with Peter MacKay in Washington.
U.S. Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice and Canadian Foreign Affairs Minister Peter MacKay, shown after an appearance in Stellarton, N.S., in September, discussed Maher Arar on Thursday. Rice said his case 'will be looked at.'
(Andrew Vaughan/Canadian Press) Rice said she instructed Michael Chertoff, the Department of Homeland Security's secretary, and the Justice Department to look further into the matter.
"He said he would examine it and would get back to me."
But Rice reiterated that the U.S. makes its own security decisions based on independent information.
"We value accuracy in cases but we do have our own process," she said. "It needs to be understood that in the post-Sept. 11 circumstances, we are determined to protect our borders."
MacKay said he brought up Arar's status in the meeting with his U.S. counterpart and reiterated that Arar has been cleared by the Canadian government of any ties to terrorism.
"There's clarity in Canada's position with the findings of Mr. Arar," MacKay said. "I'm very pleased at the decision to revisit the restriction on his case."
Arar, a Canadian citizen born in Syria, was seized at a New York airport in 2002 and sent to Syria, where he was tortured. A judicial inquiry into his case led by Justice Dennis O'Connor was set up after Arar returned to Canada more than a year later.
O'Connor concluded Arar had no terror links and the RCMP had given misleading information to U.S. authorities, which may have been the reason he was sent to Syria.
Parliament apologized to Arar and the government has been asking Washington to remove him from a watch list that prevents him from travelling to the U.S. and makes him a marked man, despite being cleared in Canada.
However, the U.S. has refused and has not explained why.
'Go our own way'
The meeting between MacKay and Rice came a day after an American security official bluntly stated the U.S. would follow its own path on Arar without informing Canadians on its reasons.
"With respect to some issues, we're going to have to respectfully but firmly go our own way and the Arar matter, at least for now, is one of those," Paul Rosenzweig, acting assistant secretary for international affairs for the Department of Homeland Security, told reporters in Washington.
"As for the sharing of information with the Canadian government, while I do recognize that in an idealized world we would share every bit of intelligence information with all of our partners, in the real world that is an idealization that isn't achievable."
Prime Minister Stephen Harper told Sun Media that "as near as I can see, we simply have a U.S. government that won't admit it's wrong."
He said he can't compel the U.S. to explain why it still views Arar with suspicion.
"I'm not aware of the U.S. violating any law by not sharing it with us, but I'm obviously disappointed that they don't seem at this point to have responded fully to the conclusions of our own inquiry, and I have no explanation for why they're taking the position that they are."
Arar's lawsuit against the U.S. has been cited as one reason American authorities won't talk about the case.
Then-Deputy Attorney General Larry D. Thompson, in his capacity as acting attorney general, signed the highly unusual order, citing national security and declaring that to send the man, Maher Arar, home to Canada would be "prejudicial to the interests of the United States," according to the officials, who spoke on the condition of anonymity.
U.S. to look into Arar's status: Rice
Last Updated: Thursday, December 21, 2006 | 2:26 PM ET
CBC News
U.S. security officials will review why Canadian Maher Arar is still on a U.S. terrorist watch list, Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice said Thursday following a meeting with Canada's foreign affairs minister.
"It will of course be looked at," Rice told reporters at a joint news conference with Peter MacKay in Washington.
U.S. Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice and Canadian Foreign Affairs Minister Peter MacKay, shown after an appearance in Stellarton, N.S., in September, discussed Maher Arar on Thursday. Rice said his case 'will be looked at.'
(Andrew Vaughan/Canadian Press) Rice said she instructed Michael Chertoff, the Department of Homeland Security's secretary, and the Justice Department to look further into the matter.
"He said he would examine it and would get back to me."
But Rice reiterated that the U.S. makes its own security decisions based on independent information.
"We value accuracy in cases but we do have our own process," she said. "It needs to be understood that in the post-Sept. 11 circumstances, we are determined to protect our borders."
MacKay said he brought up Arar's status in the meeting with his U.S. counterpart and reiterated that Arar has been cleared by the Canadian government of any ties to terrorism.
"There's clarity in Canada's position with the findings of Mr. Arar," MacKay said. "I'm very pleased at the decision to revisit the restriction on his case."
Arar, a Canadian citizen born in Syria, was seized at a New York airport in 2002 and sent to Syria, where he was tortured. A judicial inquiry into his case led by Justice Dennis O'Connor was set up after Arar returned to Canada more than a year later.
O'Connor concluded Arar had no terror links and the RCMP had given misleading information to U.S. authorities, which may have been the reason he was sent to Syria.
Parliament apologized to Arar and the government has been asking Washington to remove him from a watch list that prevents him from travelling to the U.S. and makes him a marked man, despite being cleared in Canada.
However, the U.S. has refused and has not explained why.
'Go our own way'
The meeting between MacKay and Rice came a day after an American security official bluntly stated the U.S. would follow its own path on Arar without informing Canadians on its reasons.
"With respect to some issues, we're going to have to respectfully but firmly go our own way and the Arar matter, at least for now, is one of those," Paul Rosenzweig, acting assistant secretary for international affairs for the Department of Homeland Security, told reporters in Washington.
"As for the sharing of information with the Canadian government, while I do recognize that in an idealized world we would share every bit of intelligence information with all of our partners, in the real world that is an idealization that isn't achievable."
Prime Minister Stephen Harper told Sun Media that "as near as I can see, we simply have a U.S. government that won't admit it's wrong."
He said he can't compel the U.S. to explain why it still views Arar with suspicion.
"I'm not aware of the U.S. violating any law by not sharing it with us, but I'm obviously disappointed that they don't seem at this point to have responded fully to the conclusions of our own inquiry, and I have no explanation for why they're taking the position that they are."
Arar's lawsuit against the U.S. has been cited as one reason American authorities won't talk about the case.
Wednesday, September 26, 2007
Lawmaker says Rice interfered with Iraq inquiry
This sounds like the standard sort of interference in inquiries that make it difficult for investigating agencies to get relevant data. The smoke screen of National Security can always be brought up. Sometimes it may be relevant but then who knows. The beauty of this is that the other side can bring it up whether it is relegvant or not.
Lawmaker says Rice interfered with Iraq inquiry
Tue Sep 25, 2007 6:27pm EDT
WASHINGTON (Reuters) - A leading Democratic lawmaker on Tuesday accused Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice of interfering in congressional inquiries into corruption in Iraq's government and the activities of U.S. security firm Blackwater.
Democratic Rep. Henry Waxman said State Department officials had told the Oversight and Government Reform Committee he chairs they could not provide details of corruption in Iraq's government unless the information was treated as a "state secret" and not revealed to the public.
"You are wrong to interfere with the committee's inquiry," Waxman said in a letter to Rice. "The State Department's position on this matter is ludicrous," added Waxman, a vocal opponent of the Bush administration's Iraq policies.
The State Department had no immediate comment on the letter or Waxman's allegations of interference but it has in the past dismissed the California lawmaker's comments as partisan.
Waxman said security contractor Blackwater, which was involved in an incident in which Iraqi civilians were killed last week, said they could not hand over documents relevant to an investigation without State Department approval.
"Congress has a constitutional prerogative to examine the impacts that corruption within the Iraqi ministries and the activities of Blackwater may have on the prospects for political reconciliation in Iraq," Waxman wrote to Rice.
Blackwater provides security for the U.S. Embassy in Baghdad and has a contract with the State Department.
The company was involved in a September 16 shooting in which 11 people were killed while Blackwater was escorting a convoy through Baghdad. The State Department is investigating the incident along with the Iraqis.
Waxman, who has called a hearing on Blackwater for October 2, released a letter his staff received from the security contractor's attorneys dated September 24.
"It (the State Department) directs Blackwater USA not to disclose any information concerning the contract without DOS (Department of State) preauthorization in writing."
Blackwater also urged the committee not to ask questions at the hearing that could reveal sensitive information "that could be utilized by our country's implacable enemies in Iraq."
Such information included the size of their security staff in Baghdad, weaponry and the operation of convoys.
Waxman also released a letter signed by State Department contracting officer Kiazan Moneypenny to Blackwater.
"I hereby direct Blackwater to make no disclosure of documents or information ... unless such disclosure has been authorized in writing by the contracting officer," wrote Moneypenny.
Waxman also complained Rice was refusing to testify at any hearings his committee planned to look at political reconciliation in Iraq, corruption or the Blackwater incident.
© Reuters2007All rights reserved
Lawmaker says Rice interfered with Iraq inquiry
Tue Sep 25, 2007 6:27pm EDT
WASHINGTON (Reuters) - A leading Democratic lawmaker on Tuesday accused Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice of interfering in congressional inquiries into corruption in Iraq's government and the activities of U.S. security firm Blackwater.
Democratic Rep. Henry Waxman said State Department officials had told the Oversight and Government Reform Committee he chairs they could not provide details of corruption in Iraq's government unless the information was treated as a "state secret" and not revealed to the public.
"You are wrong to interfere with the committee's inquiry," Waxman said in a letter to Rice. "The State Department's position on this matter is ludicrous," added Waxman, a vocal opponent of the Bush administration's Iraq policies.
The State Department had no immediate comment on the letter or Waxman's allegations of interference but it has in the past dismissed the California lawmaker's comments as partisan.
Waxman said security contractor Blackwater, which was involved in an incident in which Iraqi civilians were killed last week, said they could not hand over documents relevant to an investigation without State Department approval.
"Congress has a constitutional prerogative to examine the impacts that corruption within the Iraqi ministries and the activities of Blackwater may have on the prospects for political reconciliation in Iraq," Waxman wrote to Rice.
Blackwater provides security for the U.S. Embassy in Baghdad and has a contract with the State Department.
The company was involved in a September 16 shooting in which 11 people were killed while Blackwater was escorting a convoy through Baghdad. The State Department is investigating the incident along with the Iraqis.
Waxman, who has called a hearing on Blackwater for October 2, released a letter his staff received from the security contractor's attorneys dated September 24.
"It (the State Department) directs Blackwater USA not to disclose any information concerning the contract without DOS (Department of State) preauthorization in writing."
Blackwater also urged the committee not to ask questions at the hearing that could reveal sensitive information "that could be utilized by our country's implacable enemies in Iraq."
Such information included the size of their security staff in Baghdad, weaponry and the operation of convoys.
Waxman also released a letter signed by State Department contracting officer Kiazan Moneypenny to Blackwater.
"I hereby direct Blackwater to make no disclosure of documents or information ... unless such disclosure has been authorized in writing by the contracting officer," wrote Moneypenny.
Waxman also complained Rice was refusing to testify at any hearings his committee planned to look at political reconciliation in Iraq, corruption or the Blackwater incident.
© Reuters2007All rights reserved
Saturday, September 15, 2007
Did Israel attack possible Syrian nuclear facilities
The Israeli incursions and actions in Syria are still unexplained. Of course Syria reporting the events to the UN will result in no action whatsoever. Both Israel and the US have absolutely no respect for International Law or UN resolutions except when it comes to their being imposed on those designated as enemies.
Rice concerned over Syrian nukes
In TV interview, US secretary of state addresses reports of possible nuclear facilities in Syria, says, 'We have to have policies that prevent the world's most dangerous people from having the world's most dangerous weapons'
Ynet Published: 09.14.07, 11:39 / Israel News
Rice did not mention any possible attack on Syria, but said the United States was working with its allies to "shut down activities".
Rice concerned over Syrian nukes
In TV interview, US secretary of state addresses reports of possible nuclear facilities in Syria, says, 'We have to have policies that prevent the world's most dangerous people from having the world's most dangerous weapons'
Ynet Published: 09.14.07, 11:39 / Israel News
Rice did not mention any possible attack on Syria, but said the United States was working with its allies to "shut down activities".
Thursday, September 13, 2007
Rice: US presence in Iraq protects Iraq from Iran
This is from Yahoo.Rice says U.S. needs to keep Iraq safe from Iran Wed Sep 12, 8:37 AM ET. Who is to keep Iraq safe from the US? Why does no one ever ask that question?
Rice and Reuters neglect to point out that Maliki claims that Iran's role in Iraq has been positive and both presidents have met with none of the conflict evident that is a trademark of US relations with Iran. Did the US think that allowing the majority Shias a prominent role in Iraq would not bring closer relations with Iran?
It is surely more than a little ironic that an occupier of Iraq should show such concern for Iran threating Iraq whereas Iraq itself that fought a long and bloody war with Iran, thinks that relations between the two countries are good.
WASHINGTON (Reuters) - The United States wants to ensure Iraq's territorial integrity, including from "very troublesome neighbors" like Iran, U.S. Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice said on Wednesday.
Rice said in an interview on NBC's "Today" show that the situation has improved in Iraq under President George W. Bush's strategy of temporarily building up troops to allow time for Iraqi lawmakers to achieve political reconciliation.
Bush's top military and civilian leaders in Iraq faced blistering criticism by lawmakers this week and growing questions about whether security gains were enough to keep U.S. troops in the war zone.
Rice agreed that there was still work to be done but she said the American troop presence was important to secure not only Iraq but neighboring countries.
"The way ahead here is to solidify the gains that we have made ... and to begin to have American forces, in lower numbers, turn to other responsibilities which frankly, like a stable Iraq, are very key to our interests, including securing the territorial integrity of Iraq," Rice said.
"Iraq has very troublesome neighbors. Iran is a very troublesome neighbor," she said, noting that Iranian President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad has said that if the United States leaves Iraq, Iran is prepared to fill the vacuum.
Rice said the United States needed Iraq and other allies in the region "to resist both terrorism and Iranian aggression."
Washington is leading international efforts to isolate Iran over its disputed nuclear program and accuses it of fomenting instability in Iraq.
"The war in Iraq, when we are successful there, will make a more stable Iraq and that will make a more stable Middle East," she said. "Clearly a stable Middle East will make America safer."
In testimony to Congress this week, Gen. David Petraeus outlined a plan to gradually pull out 30,000 troops and bring troop levels to between 100,000 and 130,000 by next summer.
Bush is expected to endorse Petraeus' recommendation for a troop drawdown when he gives a 20-minute speech on Iraq at 9 p.m. EDT on Thursday (0100 GMT on Friday). Bush is expected to emphasize that he is able to order troop cuts only because of the success achieved on the ground in Iraq.
Rice and Reuters neglect to point out that Maliki claims that Iran's role in Iraq has been positive and both presidents have met with none of the conflict evident that is a trademark of US relations with Iran. Did the US think that allowing the majority Shias a prominent role in Iraq would not bring closer relations with Iran?
It is surely more than a little ironic that an occupier of Iraq should show such concern for Iran threating Iraq whereas Iraq itself that fought a long and bloody war with Iran, thinks that relations between the two countries are good.
WASHINGTON (Reuters) - The United States wants to ensure Iraq's territorial integrity, including from "very troublesome neighbors" like Iran, U.S. Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice said on Wednesday.
Rice said in an interview on NBC's "Today" show that the situation has improved in Iraq under President George W. Bush's strategy of temporarily building up troops to allow time for Iraqi lawmakers to achieve political reconciliation.
Bush's top military and civilian leaders in Iraq faced blistering criticism by lawmakers this week and growing questions about whether security gains were enough to keep U.S. troops in the war zone.
Rice agreed that there was still work to be done but she said the American troop presence was important to secure not only Iraq but neighboring countries.
"The way ahead here is to solidify the gains that we have made ... and to begin to have American forces, in lower numbers, turn to other responsibilities which frankly, like a stable Iraq, are very key to our interests, including securing the territorial integrity of Iraq," Rice said.
"Iraq has very troublesome neighbors. Iran is a very troublesome neighbor," she said, noting that Iranian President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad has said that if the United States leaves Iraq, Iran is prepared to fill the vacuum.
Rice said the United States needed Iraq and other allies in the region "to resist both terrorism and Iranian aggression."
Washington is leading international efforts to isolate Iran over its disputed nuclear program and accuses it of fomenting instability in Iraq.
"The war in Iraq, when we are successful there, will make a more stable Iraq and that will make a more stable Middle East," she said. "Clearly a stable Middle East will make America safer."
In testimony to Congress this week, Gen. David Petraeus outlined a plan to gradually pull out 30,000 troops and bring troop levels to between 100,000 and 130,000 by next summer.
Bush is expected to endorse Petraeus' recommendation for a troop drawdown when he gives a 20-minute speech on Iraq at 9 p.m. EDT on Thursday (0100 GMT on Friday). Bush is expected to emphasize that he is able to order troop cuts only because of the success achieved on the ground in Iraq.
Friday, June 1, 2007
Rice arrives in Spain, criticizes hosts over Cuba
There did not seem much fence mending going on. To start right off criticising your host and then not even staying overnight doesn't sound as if much fence mending got accomplished.
Rice arrives in Spain, criticizes hosts over Cuba
Fri Jun 1, 2007 11:59AM EDT
By Sue Pleming
MADRID (Reuters) - U.S. Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice arrived in Spain for what is meant to be a fence-mending trip on Friday but her first words were of reproach for its policy of engaging Cuba.
"Democratic states have an obligation to act democratically, meaning to support opposition in Cuba, not to give the regime the idea that they can transition from one dictatorship to another," she told reporters on her plane shortly before touching down in the Spanish capital.
"There is a major transition coming in Cuba."
Rice is the highest-level U.S. official to visit here since Spain withdrew troops from Iraq in 2004 following the election of Prime Minister Jose Luis Zapatero, giving relations between Washington and Madrid a chill.
"I expect that the issue of Cuba will continue to be an issue between us, and it will continue to be one in which we will make our views known. I am sure the Spanish want to make their views known," said Rice said, who was to meet Zapatero.
The United States has a policy of isolating Cuba and its ailing President Fidel Castro while Spain favors engagement.
Cuba and its former colonial power Spain held talks on human rights in Havana this week but, in a joint statement, did not say whether they discussed 59 dissidents in Cuban prisons.
Foreign Minister Miguel Moratinos visited Havana last April and met acting President Raul Castro, passing on a get-well note from Spain's King Juan Carlos to his brother Fidel.
Rice also criticized Spain for not doing more in Afghanistan, where it has up to 690 troops at any one time.
"I would like to see all of the allies do more, and Spain is included in that list," she said.
Rice's visit will be noticeably brief -- just six hours without the symbolic overnight stay reserved for close allies.
Asked about Rice's comments on Cuba, Zapatero was keen to play down any differences earlier this week, saying it was "understandable and normal" that two countries had varying points of view on some issues.
SPAIN FAVOURS ENGAGEMENT
Fidel Castro handed over power to his brother Raul in July last year after emergency surgery and the United States has been strongly critical of the move, calling for free elections and an end to the Castro era.
Europe expert Reginald Dale of the Center for Strategic and International Studies thinktank in Washington said the State Department had been arguing hard with the White House for closer ties with Spain.
Spain had been also pushing for an official visit by Zapatero to the United States but this had not been granted, he said. "Bush is not a forgive and forget type," he said.
The two nations cooperated on Afghanistan but there are differences on Iraq and Spain's ties with Venezuela's anti-U.S. President Hugo Chavez has irked the Bush administration.
Rice's first appointment on Friday was with King Juan Carlos, who she described as a U.S. friend and praised for his role in thwarting an attempted coup in 1981, just six years after the death of dictator Francisco Franco.
"He is obviously an important historic figure in the role that he plays in allowing the transition of Spain from authoritarianism," Rice said.
U.S.-Spanish disagreements on Cuba have a long history, In 1898, U.S. forces landed on the island and ousted Spain, then Cuba's colonial ruler, leading to Cuban independence in 1902 and a period of U.S. influence.
(Additional reporting by Jason Webb
Rice arrives in Spain, criticizes hosts over Cuba
Fri Jun 1, 2007 11:59AM EDT
By Sue Pleming
MADRID (Reuters) - U.S. Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice arrived in Spain for what is meant to be a fence-mending trip on Friday but her first words were of reproach for its policy of engaging Cuba.
"Democratic states have an obligation to act democratically, meaning to support opposition in Cuba, not to give the regime the idea that they can transition from one dictatorship to another," she told reporters on her plane shortly before touching down in the Spanish capital.
"There is a major transition coming in Cuba."
Rice is the highest-level U.S. official to visit here since Spain withdrew troops from Iraq in 2004 following the election of Prime Minister Jose Luis Zapatero, giving relations between Washington and Madrid a chill.
"I expect that the issue of Cuba will continue to be an issue between us, and it will continue to be one in which we will make our views known. I am sure the Spanish want to make their views known," said Rice said, who was to meet Zapatero.
The United States has a policy of isolating Cuba and its ailing President Fidel Castro while Spain favors engagement.
Cuba and its former colonial power Spain held talks on human rights in Havana this week but, in a joint statement, did not say whether they discussed 59 dissidents in Cuban prisons.
Foreign Minister Miguel Moratinos visited Havana last April and met acting President Raul Castro, passing on a get-well note from Spain's King Juan Carlos to his brother Fidel.
Rice also criticized Spain for not doing more in Afghanistan, where it has up to 690 troops at any one time.
"I would like to see all of the allies do more, and Spain is included in that list," she said.
Rice's visit will be noticeably brief -- just six hours without the symbolic overnight stay reserved for close allies.
Asked about Rice's comments on Cuba, Zapatero was keen to play down any differences earlier this week, saying it was "understandable and normal" that two countries had varying points of view on some issues.
SPAIN FAVOURS ENGAGEMENT
Fidel Castro handed over power to his brother Raul in July last year after emergency surgery and the United States has been strongly critical of the move, calling for free elections and an end to the Castro era.
Europe expert Reginald Dale of the Center for Strategic and International Studies thinktank in Washington said the State Department had been arguing hard with the White House for closer ties with Spain.
Spain had been also pushing for an official visit by Zapatero to the United States but this had not been granted, he said. "Bush is not a forgive and forget type," he said.
The two nations cooperated on Afghanistan but there are differences on Iraq and Spain's ties with Venezuela's anti-U.S. President Hugo Chavez has irked the Bush administration.
Rice's first appointment on Friday was with King Juan Carlos, who she described as a U.S. friend and praised for his role in thwarting an attempted coup in 1981, just six years after the death of dictator Francisco Franco.
"He is obviously an important historic figure in the role that he plays in allowing the transition of Spain from authoritarianism," Rice said.
U.S.-Spanish disagreements on Cuba have a long history, In 1898, U.S. forces landed on the island and ousted Spain, then Cuba's colonial ruler, leading to Cuban independence in 1902 and a period of U.S. influence.
(Additional reporting by Jason Webb
Monday, April 30, 2007
Rice: Bush Didnt Want War!
Someone forgot to brief Rice or else she is just an inveterate liar as are some other members of the Bush administration. This is from Juan Cole.
Monday, April 30, 2007
Rice: Bush didn't Want War
Condi Rice on Sunday denied allegations by former CIA director George Tenet that Bush came into office determined to have a war against Iraq. This is the interview by Wolf Blitzer of CNN:
QUESTION: Because you remember Paul O'Neill, the first Treasury Secretary, where he wrote in his first book, The Price of Loyalty with Ron Suskind, and what Ron Suskind later wrote in his own book, The One Percent Solution, that the Bush Administration came in with a mindset to deal with what they called unfinished business with Saddam Hussein.
SECRETARY RICE: That is simply not true. The President came in looking at a variety of threats. We then had the September 11th events. The September 11th events led to a kind of reassessment of what the threats were. But in the entire period after the President became President, he was trying to put together an international coalition that could deal with Iraq, first by smart sanctions, smarter no-fly zones, then by challenging Saddam Hussein before the Security Council to meet the just demands of the Security Council, and ultimately by having to use military force. But this was an evolution of policy over a long period of time. Of course the President came in concerned about Iraq. President Clinton had used military force against Iraq in 1998. We had gone to war against Iraq in 1991. But the idea that the President had made up his mind when he came to office that he was going to go to war against Iraq is just flat wrong. '
But here is what Bush's ghost writer Mickey Herskowitz reports Bush saying during an interview when Bush was still governor of Texas in the late 1990s:
' “He was thinking about invading Iraq in 1999,” said author and journalist Mickey Herskowitz. “It was on his mind. He said to me: ‘One of the keys to being seen as a great leader is to be seen as a commander-in-chief.’ And he said, ‘My father had all this political capital built up when he drove the Iraqis out of Kuwait and he wasted it.’ He said, ‘If I have a chance to invade….if I had that much capital, I’m not going to waste it. I’m going to get everything passed that I want to get passed and I’m going to have a successful presidency.” '
So that was 1999.
Then we have this account from May, 2000, by journalist Osama Siblani, who met with Bush in Troy, Michigan when he was campaigning for the Republican nomination:
' OSAMA SIBLANI: I met with the President, and he wanted to go to Iraq to search for weapons of mass destruction, and he considered the regime an imminent and gathering threat against the United States.
AMY GOODMAN: You met with the President of the United States?
OSAMA SIBLANI: Yes, when he was running for election in May of 2000 when he was a governor. He told me just straight to my face, among 12 or maybe 13 republicans at that time here in Michigan at the hotel. I think it was on May 17, 2000, even before he became the nominee for the Republicans. He told me that he was going to take him out, when we talked about Saddam Hussein in Iraq. . .
And then he said, ‘We have to talk about it later.’ But at that time he was not privy to any intelligence, and the democrats had occupied the White House for the previous eight years. So, he was not privy to any intelligence whatsoever. He was not the official nominee of the Republican Party, so he didn't know what kind of situation the weapons of mass destruction was at that time. '
Then let us come to January, 2001, when the Supreme Court had installed Bush in power. Former Secretary of the Treasury Paul O'Neill wrote in his memoirs of the very first Bush cabinet meeting:
'"The hour almost up, Bush had assignments for everyone ... Rumsfeld and [Joint Chiefs chair Gen. H. Hugh] Shelton, he said, 'should examine our military options.' That included rebuilding the military coalition from the 1991 Gulf War, examining 'how it might look' to use U.S. ground forces in the north and the south of Iraq ... Ten days in, and it was about Iraq."
O'Neill specifically said that Bush instructed Rumsfeld to look at military options and how it might look to use US ground forces in the north and the south of Iraq.
How much clearer could it be that Tenet is absolutely right that there was never any serious debate about the merits of 'taking out Saddam' in Bush's inner circle?
For more evidence that the fix was in with regard to Bush and action against Iraq, see my "The Lies that Led to War" in Salon.com.
posted by Juan @ 4/30/2007 06:35:00 AM 1 comments
Monday, April 30, 2007
Rice: Bush didn't Want War
Condi Rice on Sunday denied allegations by former CIA director George Tenet that Bush came into office determined to have a war against Iraq. This is the interview by Wolf Blitzer of CNN:
QUESTION: Because you remember Paul O'Neill, the first Treasury Secretary, where he wrote in his first book, The Price of Loyalty with Ron Suskind, and what Ron Suskind later wrote in his own book, The One Percent Solution, that the Bush Administration came in with a mindset to deal with what they called unfinished business with Saddam Hussein.
SECRETARY RICE: That is simply not true. The President came in looking at a variety of threats. We then had the September 11th events. The September 11th events led to a kind of reassessment of what the threats were. But in the entire period after the President became President, he was trying to put together an international coalition that could deal with Iraq, first by smart sanctions, smarter no-fly zones, then by challenging Saddam Hussein before the Security Council to meet the just demands of the Security Council, and ultimately by having to use military force. But this was an evolution of policy over a long period of time. Of course the President came in concerned about Iraq. President Clinton had used military force against Iraq in 1998. We had gone to war against Iraq in 1991. But the idea that the President had made up his mind when he came to office that he was going to go to war against Iraq is just flat wrong. '
But here is what Bush's ghost writer Mickey Herskowitz reports Bush saying during an interview when Bush was still governor of Texas in the late 1990s:
' “He was thinking about invading Iraq in 1999,” said author and journalist Mickey Herskowitz. “It was on his mind. He said to me: ‘One of the keys to being seen as a great leader is to be seen as a commander-in-chief.’ And he said, ‘My father had all this political capital built up when he drove the Iraqis out of Kuwait and he wasted it.’ He said, ‘If I have a chance to invade….if I had that much capital, I’m not going to waste it. I’m going to get everything passed that I want to get passed and I’m going to have a successful presidency.” '
So that was 1999.
Then we have this account from May, 2000, by journalist Osama Siblani, who met with Bush in Troy, Michigan when he was campaigning for the Republican nomination:
' OSAMA SIBLANI: I met with the President, and he wanted to go to Iraq to search for weapons of mass destruction, and he considered the regime an imminent and gathering threat against the United States.
AMY GOODMAN: You met with the President of the United States?
OSAMA SIBLANI: Yes, when he was running for election in May of 2000 when he was a governor. He told me just straight to my face, among 12 or maybe 13 republicans at that time here in Michigan at the hotel. I think it was on May 17, 2000, even before he became the nominee for the Republicans. He told me that he was going to take him out, when we talked about Saddam Hussein in Iraq. . .
And then he said, ‘We have to talk about it later.’ But at that time he was not privy to any intelligence, and the democrats had occupied the White House for the previous eight years. So, he was not privy to any intelligence whatsoever. He was not the official nominee of the Republican Party, so he didn't know what kind of situation the weapons of mass destruction was at that time. '
Then let us come to January, 2001, when the Supreme Court had installed Bush in power. Former Secretary of the Treasury Paul O'Neill wrote in his memoirs of the very first Bush cabinet meeting:
'"The hour almost up, Bush had assignments for everyone ... Rumsfeld and [Joint Chiefs chair Gen. H. Hugh] Shelton, he said, 'should examine our military options.' That included rebuilding the military coalition from the 1991 Gulf War, examining 'how it might look' to use U.S. ground forces in the north and the south of Iraq ... Ten days in, and it was about Iraq."
O'Neill specifically said that Bush instructed Rumsfeld to look at military options and how it might look to use US ground forces in the north and the south of Iraq.
How much clearer could it be that Tenet is absolutely right that there was never any serious debate about the merits of 'taking out Saddam' in Bush's inner circle?
For more evidence that the fix was in with regard to Bush and action against Iraq, see my "The Lies that Led to War" in Salon.com.
posted by Juan @ 4/30/2007 06:35:00 AM 1 comments
Monday, April 2, 2007
Tony Karon: Condi's Free Ride
The rest of this long analysis of Rice's mid-east diplomacy tour is at this site.
I found this analysis very interesting. I had a more positive view of Rice's attempts at diplomacy. At least she is trying! The analysis is quite sharp though.
Condi's Free Ride
The Fantasy of American Diplomacy in the Middle East
By Tony Karon
They must serve up some pretty powerful Kool Aid in the press room down at Foggy Bottom, judging by U.S. media coverage of Condi Rice's latest "Look Busy" tour of the Middle East.
Secretary of State Rice's comings and goings have long been greeted with a jaded disdain by the Arab and Israeli media. As Gideon Levy wrote plaintively (and typically) in Israel's Haaretz last August,
"Rice has been here six times in the course of a year and a half, and what has come of it? Has anyone asked her about this? Does she ask herself? It is hard to understand how the secretary of state allows herself to be so humiliated. It is even harder to understand how the superpower she represents allows itself to act in such a hollow and useless way. The mystery of America remains unsolved: How is it that the United States is doing nothing to advance a solution to the most dangerous and lengthiest conflict in our world?"
The fact that -- this time -- Rice professes to be advancing just such a solution has hardly convinced Middle Eastern scribes. As Beirut's secular, liberal Daily Star put it in an editorial on Monday, "Already this is Rice's fourth Middle East tour aimed at reactivating a stalled peace process, but so far the only measurable progress she has achieved has been racking up extra mileage on her airplane."
Mainstream U.S. media outlets were alone in their willingness to swallow the preposterous narratives offered by Rice's State Department spinners on the significance of her latest diplomatic efforts. For months, we have been reading a fantasy version of American diplomacy in which Rice was at the center of a realignment of forces in the Middle East, building a united front of Arab moderates to stand alongside the U.S. and Israel against Iran and other "extremist" elements. Last week, we were asked to believe that Rice was now about to head back to the region to choreograph a complex and dramatic diplomatic dance that would include such "challenges" as "trying to get the Saudis to talk to the Israelis." Perhaps none of her aides bothered to let her in on the open secret that the Saudis have been doing that for months -- and not under the tutelage of, or at the prompting of, the Secretary of State either.
On the eve of her departure, the Washington Post informed us, Rice would remake the peace process via a new math: 4+2+4. This was cute jargon for grouping various discussions among the Israelis and Palestinians, the "Quartet" (the U.S., the European Union, the UN, and Russia), and an "Arab Quartet" comprising Egypt, Saudi Arabia, Jordan, and the United Arab Emirates. By Monday, only three days later, however, the new math had mysteriously disappeared -- as if Rice had suddenly entered a world of innumeracy -- replaced by "parallel discussions." With the Israelis unwilling to talk to the Palestinians about the "contours of a Palestinian state," each side was instead to discuss such things separately with Rice in a kind of diplomatic confession booth.
For anyone disappointed by the sudden demise of "4+2+4," Condi assured all involved that "we'll use many different geometries, I'm sure, as we go through this process." A day later, the trip's crowning achievement was reported by the New York Times: "After three days of shuttle diplomacy between Israeli and Arab cities and a late night of haggling, Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice said Tuesday that she had persuaded Israeli and Palestinian leaders to hold talks twice a month." But not, it turned out, on the "final-status issues" -- the contours of a Palestinian state. They would simply chat to "build confidence," while, presumably, regularly reentering her confession booth.
As Lebanon-based Jordanian journalist Rami Khouri put it,
"To overcome the chronic stalemate of bilateral Palestinian-Israeli diplomacy, [Rice] is now expanding this into a trilateral failure, as the principal parties who won't talk to each other only to talk to her. It's hard to decide if this is a comedy or a horror show."
It may be a sign of the contempt with which the Bush administration treats the American media that Condi expects such a Pollyannaish pantomime to be reported as if it were history-in-the-making. And it may be a mark of the naiveté with which much of the U.S. media has, over these last years, chronicled Condi's adventures that, in fact, it is reported as if it were history-in-the-making. The Secretary of State has not only chalked up the miles in the air recently, in media terms here in the U.S., she's invariably been given a free ride.
Whose Diplomacy Is This Anyway?
In reality, if significant diplomatic maneuvering is currently underway in the Middle East, it is the work of the Saudis. The Saudi royals had grown so alarmed by the passivity and incompetence of the Bush administration -- and by the rising influence of Iran as well as Islamist movements in the Arab world (whose popularity and credibility is boosted by their willingness to stand up to Israel and the U.S.) -- that it launched an uncharacteristically robust diplomatic campaign on a number of fronts. The Condi-spun media tends to explain this as the Bush administration coaxing Riyadh's royal wallflowers onto the diplomatic dance floor. The Saudi efforts are, however, so clearly at odds with administration policies and desires on key issues that this characterization is impossible to sustain.
As Washington pressed for the isolation of Iran, Riyadh -- supposedly the leader of a new Axis of Moderation being constructed by Washington -- spent the winter vigorously engaging Tehran at the highest level. The purpose was to begin to calm Shiite-Sunni tensions across the region, aggravated by the catastrophic situation in Iraq, and to bring Lebanon's warring factions back from the brink of confrontation. While the U.S. press was generally reporting that the Saudis were entering a period of muscular confrontation with Iran, that country appeared to be searching for mechanisms to manage Saudi/Iranian differences based on a mutual recognition of each other's regional roles. Not exactly what George W. Bush, Dick Cheney, or Condoleezza Rice seems to have had in mind.
Then came the Saudi attempt to bring the warring Palestinian factions together in the Mecca Agreement. Here, the Saudis brokered negotiations to draw Mahmoud Abbas's Fatah party into a unity government with Hamas -- even as Washington continued to warn Abbas against doing so. Abbas, the president of the Palestinian National Authority, has rarely exhibited any independence from Washington. His willingness to take this step offered a clear signal that the Saudis were orchestrating things on the Israeli-Palestinian front with little patience for indulging Bush administration fantasies. The U.S. had, of course, been seeking the literal overthrow of Hamas since it won legislative elections in 2006 -- something the Saudis recognized as infeasible, given that Hamas is, at this point, far more representative of Palestinian sentiment than Fatah. Saudi leaders were also aware that Washington's campaign to isolate Hamas in the Arab world left it little option but to seek Iranian patronage.
In reality, the Bush administration seems increasingly at odds with the consensus among the Arab moderates it claims to be leading. Saudi Arabia's King Abdullah, in particular, appears to have sent a signal of this in cancelling -- with little explanation -– a special state dinner that was to be hosted by President Bush on April 17th. Then, at Wednesday's Arab League Summit in Riyadh, the King followed up by demanding an end to the crippling financial siege of the Palestinian Authority imposed by the U.S. and denouncing the American military presence in Iraq as an "illegitimate foreign occupation." This is strong stuff from the Saudis.
Rather than a patient plan crafted by the U.S. Secretary of State as some miraculous alchemist of grand strategy, the latest flurry of activity reflects the maturing of a range of crises in the Middle East that have festered dangerously, while Condi fiddled. These include:
* The fact that the Bush administration has only exerted itself -- and then just symbolically -- on the Israeli-Palestinian front when it was desperate for favors from allied Arab regimes on other fronts, notably the roiling crises in Iraq and Iran. With the U.S. struggling unsuccessfully on both fronts, its vaunted ability to influence events in the region is in precipitous decline.
* The fact that the Arab regimes most closely allied to the U.S. face mounting crises of legitimacy at home, damned not only by their authoritarianism, but also by their paralysis in the face of U.S. and Israeli violence against Arab populations. Delivering the Palestinians to statehood is now seen by those regimes as essential to their own domestic political survival.
* The fact that an Israeli government, which came to power promising peace through unilateral "disengagement" from Gaza and parts of the West Bank, having fought a disastrous war in Lebanon and facing a never-ending struggle in Gaza, is seemingly disengaged from itself, its policies in tatters. Prime Minister Ehud Olmert is drowning in a sea of corruption, scandals, and recriminations over the strategic and tactical incompetence he demonstrated in last summer's Lebanon war. With his own approval ratings at an astonishing 3%, he desperately needs a new idea to persuade Israeli voters that there's any reason to keep him in office.
* The fact that the Palestinians are experiencing an unprecedented humanitarian and political breakdown. All factions of the Palestinian government share an overwhelming incentive to get the financial siege lifted from battered, strife-torn Gaza. President Abbas' political future and legacy rest solely on completing the Oslo peace process; while for Hamas -- at least for its more pragmatic political leadership -- allowing President Abbas to pursue that course (particularly when it carries pan-Arab blessing) makes a certain sense. Hamas's political choices have always reflected a keen sense of Palestinian popular sentiment. By maintaining a distant and ambiguous stance towards Abbas's diplomatic efforts, it can plausibly deny complicity if the outcome proves unpopular on the Palestinian street.
I found this analysis very interesting. I had a more positive view of Rice's attempts at diplomacy. At least she is trying! The analysis is quite sharp though.
Condi's Free Ride
The Fantasy of American Diplomacy in the Middle East
By Tony Karon
They must serve up some pretty powerful Kool Aid in the press room down at Foggy Bottom, judging by U.S. media coverage of Condi Rice's latest "Look Busy" tour of the Middle East.
Secretary of State Rice's comings and goings have long been greeted with a jaded disdain by the Arab and Israeli media. As Gideon Levy wrote plaintively (and typically) in Israel's Haaretz last August,
"Rice has been here six times in the course of a year and a half, and what has come of it? Has anyone asked her about this? Does she ask herself? It is hard to understand how the secretary of state allows herself to be so humiliated. It is even harder to understand how the superpower she represents allows itself to act in such a hollow and useless way. The mystery of America remains unsolved: How is it that the United States is doing nothing to advance a solution to the most dangerous and lengthiest conflict in our world?"
The fact that -- this time -- Rice professes to be advancing just such a solution has hardly convinced Middle Eastern scribes. As Beirut's secular, liberal Daily Star put it in an editorial on Monday, "Already this is Rice's fourth Middle East tour aimed at reactivating a stalled peace process, but so far the only measurable progress she has achieved has been racking up extra mileage on her airplane."
Mainstream U.S. media outlets were alone in their willingness to swallow the preposterous narratives offered by Rice's State Department spinners on the significance of her latest diplomatic efforts. For months, we have been reading a fantasy version of American diplomacy in which Rice was at the center of a realignment of forces in the Middle East, building a united front of Arab moderates to stand alongside the U.S. and Israel against Iran and other "extremist" elements. Last week, we were asked to believe that Rice was now about to head back to the region to choreograph a complex and dramatic diplomatic dance that would include such "challenges" as "trying to get the Saudis to talk to the Israelis." Perhaps none of her aides bothered to let her in on the open secret that the Saudis have been doing that for months -- and not under the tutelage of, or at the prompting of, the Secretary of State either.
On the eve of her departure, the Washington Post informed us, Rice would remake the peace process via a new math: 4+2+4. This was cute jargon for grouping various discussions among the Israelis and Palestinians, the "Quartet" (the U.S., the European Union, the UN, and Russia), and an "Arab Quartet" comprising Egypt, Saudi Arabia, Jordan, and the United Arab Emirates. By Monday, only three days later, however, the new math had mysteriously disappeared -- as if Rice had suddenly entered a world of innumeracy -- replaced by "parallel discussions." With the Israelis unwilling to talk to the Palestinians about the "contours of a Palestinian state," each side was instead to discuss such things separately with Rice in a kind of diplomatic confession booth.
For anyone disappointed by the sudden demise of "4+2+4," Condi assured all involved that "we'll use many different geometries, I'm sure, as we go through this process." A day later, the trip's crowning achievement was reported by the New York Times: "After three days of shuttle diplomacy between Israeli and Arab cities and a late night of haggling, Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice said Tuesday that she had persuaded Israeli and Palestinian leaders to hold talks twice a month." But not, it turned out, on the "final-status issues" -- the contours of a Palestinian state. They would simply chat to "build confidence," while, presumably, regularly reentering her confession booth.
As Lebanon-based Jordanian journalist Rami Khouri put it,
"To overcome the chronic stalemate of bilateral Palestinian-Israeli diplomacy, [Rice] is now expanding this into a trilateral failure, as the principal parties who won't talk to each other only to talk to her. It's hard to decide if this is a comedy or a horror show."
It may be a sign of the contempt with which the Bush administration treats the American media that Condi expects such a Pollyannaish pantomime to be reported as if it were history-in-the-making. And it may be a mark of the naiveté with which much of the U.S. media has, over these last years, chronicled Condi's adventures that, in fact, it is reported as if it were history-in-the-making. The Secretary of State has not only chalked up the miles in the air recently, in media terms here in the U.S., she's invariably been given a free ride.
Whose Diplomacy Is This Anyway?
In reality, if significant diplomatic maneuvering is currently underway in the Middle East, it is the work of the Saudis. The Saudi royals had grown so alarmed by the passivity and incompetence of the Bush administration -- and by the rising influence of Iran as well as Islamist movements in the Arab world (whose popularity and credibility is boosted by their willingness to stand up to Israel and the U.S.) -- that it launched an uncharacteristically robust diplomatic campaign on a number of fronts. The Condi-spun media tends to explain this as the Bush administration coaxing Riyadh's royal wallflowers onto the diplomatic dance floor. The Saudi efforts are, however, so clearly at odds with administration policies and desires on key issues that this characterization is impossible to sustain.
As Washington pressed for the isolation of Iran, Riyadh -- supposedly the leader of a new Axis of Moderation being constructed by Washington -- spent the winter vigorously engaging Tehran at the highest level. The purpose was to begin to calm Shiite-Sunni tensions across the region, aggravated by the catastrophic situation in Iraq, and to bring Lebanon's warring factions back from the brink of confrontation. While the U.S. press was generally reporting that the Saudis were entering a period of muscular confrontation with Iran, that country appeared to be searching for mechanisms to manage Saudi/Iranian differences based on a mutual recognition of each other's regional roles. Not exactly what George W. Bush, Dick Cheney, or Condoleezza Rice seems to have had in mind.
Then came the Saudi attempt to bring the warring Palestinian factions together in the Mecca Agreement. Here, the Saudis brokered negotiations to draw Mahmoud Abbas's Fatah party into a unity government with Hamas -- even as Washington continued to warn Abbas against doing so. Abbas, the president of the Palestinian National Authority, has rarely exhibited any independence from Washington. His willingness to take this step offered a clear signal that the Saudis were orchestrating things on the Israeli-Palestinian front with little patience for indulging Bush administration fantasies. The U.S. had, of course, been seeking the literal overthrow of Hamas since it won legislative elections in 2006 -- something the Saudis recognized as infeasible, given that Hamas is, at this point, far more representative of Palestinian sentiment than Fatah. Saudi leaders were also aware that Washington's campaign to isolate Hamas in the Arab world left it little option but to seek Iranian patronage.
In reality, the Bush administration seems increasingly at odds with the consensus among the Arab moderates it claims to be leading. Saudi Arabia's King Abdullah, in particular, appears to have sent a signal of this in cancelling -- with little explanation -– a special state dinner that was to be hosted by President Bush on April 17th. Then, at Wednesday's Arab League Summit in Riyadh, the King followed up by demanding an end to the crippling financial siege of the Palestinian Authority imposed by the U.S. and denouncing the American military presence in Iraq as an "illegitimate foreign occupation." This is strong stuff from the Saudis.
Rather than a patient plan crafted by the U.S. Secretary of State as some miraculous alchemist of grand strategy, the latest flurry of activity reflects the maturing of a range of crises in the Middle East that have festered dangerously, while Condi fiddled. These include:
* The fact that the Bush administration has only exerted itself -- and then just symbolically -- on the Israeli-Palestinian front when it was desperate for favors from allied Arab regimes on other fronts, notably the roiling crises in Iraq and Iran. With the U.S. struggling unsuccessfully on both fronts, its vaunted ability to influence events in the region is in precipitous decline.
* The fact that the Arab regimes most closely allied to the U.S. face mounting crises of legitimacy at home, damned not only by their authoritarianism, but also by their paralysis in the face of U.S. and Israeli violence against Arab populations. Delivering the Palestinians to statehood is now seen by those regimes as essential to their own domestic political survival.
* The fact that an Israeli government, which came to power promising peace through unilateral "disengagement" from Gaza and parts of the West Bank, having fought a disastrous war in Lebanon and facing a never-ending struggle in Gaza, is seemingly disengaged from itself, its policies in tatters. Prime Minister Ehud Olmert is drowning in a sea of corruption, scandals, and recriminations over the strategic and tactical incompetence he demonstrated in last summer's Lebanon war. With his own approval ratings at an astonishing 3%, he desperately needs a new idea to persuade Israeli voters that there's any reason to keep him in office.
* The fact that the Palestinians are experiencing an unprecedented humanitarian and political breakdown. All factions of the Palestinian government share an overwhelming incentive to get the financial siege lifted from battered, strife-torn Gaza. President Abbas' political future and legacy rest solely on completing the Oslo peace process; while for Hamas -- at least for its more pragmatic political leadership -- allowing President Abbas to pursue that course (particularly when it carries pan-Arab blessing) makes a certain sense. Hamas's political choices have always reflected a keen sense of Palestinian popular sentiment. By maintaining a distant and ambiguous stance towards Abbas's diplomatic efforts, it can plausibly deny complicity if the outcome proves unpopular on the Palestinian street.
Sunday, March 25, 2007
Rice discusses peace with Arab "Quartet"
This is from Haaretz an Israeli paper--often more critical of Israel than any mainstream US paper!
Rice at least is trying to start the peace process but unless Israel and others dispense with the pre-conditions imposed on the Palestinian coalition government it is unlikely to get too far in solving the Palestine problem.
Rice discusses peace efforts with foreign ministers of 'Arab Quartet'
By News Agencies
U.S. Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice began a Middle East tour on Saturday by meeting four Arab foreign ministers in the south Egyptian town of Aswan to explore Arab views on steps towards peace with Israel.
Just a few days before an Arab summit in the Saudi capital Riyadh, Rice says she wants Arab governments to add some "active diplomacy" to an Arab peace initiative launched in 2002.
The four foreign ministers are from countries friendly towards the United States, the so-called Arab Quartet - Egypt, Jordan, Saudi Arabia and the United Arab Emirates. In Aswan Rice will also meet intelligence chiefs from the same four countries, officials said.
Advertisement
Israel and the United States have recently shown some interest in the Arab peace plan and Rice told reporters on Friday the Arab governments could help by adding an element of active diplomacy. She did not make specific proposals.
She also suggested Arab governments take steps towards conciliation with Israel before an Israeli-Palestinian peace agreement is complete. Their peace plan offers normal relations with Israel after Israel and the Palestinians make peace.
The secretary-general of the Arab League, Amr Moussa, said on Saturday Arab states had no intention of modifying their initiative to make it more palatable to Israel.
On Sunday morning Rice will have talks with Egyptian President Hosni Mubarak at a meeting expected to touch on Egyptian domestic politics and constitutional changes which will go to a national referendum on Monday.
Rice said on Friday the United States was concerned and disappointed by the constitutional changes, which human rights and Egyptian opposition groups have called a step away from freedom and democracy.
Egyptian Foreign Minister Ahmed Aboul Gheit dismissed her criticism as unwarranted interference in Egyptian affairs. "Only the Egyptian people have the right to say their views on that referendum... If you are not (Egyptian), then thank you very much. It's our own development, our own country," he said.
Rice will go on to Israel and the Palestinian territories, where she hopes to persuade Israelis and Palestinians to agree on a common set of issues to discuss, after scepticism about the U.S. commitment to pursuing peace.
She said the plan should be revived "in a way that leaves open the possibility for active diplomacy based on it, not just putting it in the middle of the table and leaving it at that."
The secretary of state denied reports from some Arab diplomats, however, that she had asked for changes in the original proposal.
"You need the energy and the help of moving forward on the Arab-Israeli side not at the end of the process but earlier," Rice told reporters.
Her trip to Israel, Jordan, the Palestinian Authority and Egypt comes ahead of an Arab League summit at the end of March.
Despite her plans to meet Israeli and Palestinian leaders, Rice said that the issue of the Saudi peace plan could be center stage.
"It's almost at this point more important, given the upcoming Riyadh summit, to have the discussion with the Arabs about relaunching the Arab initiative," she said.
Rice is also expected to meet Prime Minister Ehud Olmert, PA Chairman Mahmoud Abbas and Jordan's King Abdullah on the trip to the region.
Rice also criticized Hamas for not releasing captured Israel Defense Forces soldier Cpl. Gilad Shalit, held since June 2006, saying it would have helped the new Hamas-Fatah government. The Palestinians had hoped the formation of the government would win international approval.
Freeing Shalit "would have gotten this national unity government off to a better start internationally than it's off to right now," Rice said.
She also said that the U.S. might one day propose its own solutions to the most vexing problems dividing Israel and the Palestinians, such as the borders of an eventual independent Palestinian state.
In the meantime, Rice said, she wants to use meetings like those she will attend in coming days in Jerusalem and the West Bank to draft a common set of questions and concerns on both sides. She gave no timetable for either effort but made clear that the United States would be at the center of them.
"I don't rule out that at some point that might be a useful thing to do," Rice said when asked about presenting a set of U.S. proposals to settle enduring problems that have scuttled past negotiations for peace. Those include borders, the fate of Jerusalem and the rights of Palestinians and their descendants who left when Israel was formed in 1948.
The United States has not publicly placed its own proposed solutions before the Israelis and Palestinians since the closing months of the former president Bill Clinton's administration.
Both sides say U.S. involvement is crucial to any political accommodations between the two sides.
Rice is trying to invigorate new peace talks despite long odds. She will see Israeli and Palestinian leaders separately on this trip, which comes a week after the Palestinians formed a coalition government that falls short of international demands.
"What I want to do is to establish... a common approach in parallel between the two parties, to have a mechanism or certain elements that I am using to structure the discussion," Rice told reporters before leaving for her trip.
"I hope that I can get them to see that there is some advantage to having a common language, a common approach, a common mechanism for working through what issues have to be resolved," Rice said.
Rice said she will shuttle between the two sides to develop a common set of concerns, but she said she hopes she can produce a document which might eventually allow for a way for them to structure a conversation between them.
Rice brokered a three-way meeting with Prime Minister Ehud Olmert and Palestinian Authority Chairman Mahmoud Abbas when she last visited the region last month. She said she did not even ask the two to come together this time, although U.S. officials say that kind of meeting will come again in time.
For now, Rice is repeating a well-tested pattern from past peace negotiations, where the United States is a go-between and provocateur. That is another step toward the kind of central role in Israeli-Arab peacemaking that the Bush administration resisted in its early years.
Part of Rice's goal on this trip is to rally greater Arab support for peace efforts, and the smaller, practical steps that would precede any substantive peace talks.
Analysts say Rice wants to make a mark by tackling a conflict that is often seen as intractable before she leaves office.
"She has 18 months to become a consequential secretary of state," said Aaron David Miller, a former adviser on Middle East issues to both Republican and Democratic administrations. "The way to become a consequential secretary of state is to take a problem that normal human beings know is hard and make it better
Rice at least is trying to start the peace process but unless Israel and others dispense with the pre-conditions imposed on the Palestinian coalition government it is unlikely to get too far in solving the Palestine problem.
Rice discusses peace efforts with foreign ministers of 'Arab Quartet'
By News Agencies
U.S. Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice began a Middle East tour on Saturday by meeting four Arab foreign ministers in the south Egyptian town of Aswan to explore Arab views on steps towards peace with Israel.
Just a few days before an Arab summit in the Saudi capital Riyadh, Rice says she wants Arab governments to add some "active diplomacy" to an Arab peace initiative launched in 2002.
The four foreign ministers are from countries friendly towards the United States, the so-called Arab Quartet - Egypt, Jordan, Saudi Arabia and the United Arab Emirates. In Aswan Rice will also meet intelligence chiefs from the same four countries, officials said.
Advertisement
Israel and the United States have recently shown some interest in the Arab peace plan and Rice told reporters on Friday the Arab governments could help by adding an element of active diplomacy. She did not make specific proposals.
She also suggested Arab governments take steps towards conciliation with Israel before an Israeli-Palestinian peace agreement is complete. Their peace plan offers normal relations with Israel after Israel and the Palestinians make peace.
The secretary-general of the Arab League, Amr Moussa, said on Saturday Arab states had no intention of modifying their initiative to make it more palatable to Israel.
On Sunday morning Rice will have talks with Egyptian President Hosni Mubarak at a meeting expected to touch on Egyptian domestic politics and constitutional changes which will go to a national referendum on Monday.
Rice said on Friday the United States was concerned and disappointed by the constitutional changes, which human rights and Egyptian opposition groups have called a step away from freedom and democracy.
Egyptian Foreign Minister Ahmed Aboul Gheit dismissed her criticism as unwarranted interference in Egyptian affairs. "Only the Egyptian people have the right to say their views on that referendum... If you are not (Egyptian), then thank you very much. It's our own development, our own country," he said.
Rice will go on to Israel and the Palestinian territories, where she hopes to persuade Israelis and Palestinians to agree on a common set of issues to discuss, after scepticism about the U.S. commitment to pursuing peace.
She said the plan should be revived "in a way that leaves open the possibility for active diplomacy based on it, not just putting it in the middle of the table and leaving it at that."
The secretary of state denied reports from some Arab diplomats, however, that she had asked for changes in the original proposal.
"You need the energy and the help of moving forward on the Arab-Israeli side not at the end of the process but earlier," Rice told reporters.
Her trip to Israel, Jordan, the Palestinian Authority and Egypt comes ahead of an Arab League summit at the end of March.
Despite her plans to meet Israeli and Palestinian leaders, Rice said that the issue of the Saudi peace plan could be center stage.
"It's almost at this point more important, given the upcoming Riyadh summit, to have the discussion with the Arabs about relaunching the Arab initiative," she said.
Rice is also expected to meet Prime Minister Ehud Olmert, PA Chairman Mahmoud Abbas and Jordan's King Abdullah on the trip to the region.
Rice also criticized Hamas for not releasing captured Israel Defense Forces soldier Cpl. Gilad Shalit, held since June 2006, saying it would have helped the new Hamas-Fatah government. The Palestinians had hoped the formation of the government would win international approval.
Freeing Shalit "would have gotten this national unity government off to a better start internationally than it's off to right now," Rice said.
She also said that the U.S. might one day propose its own solutions to the most vexing problems dividing Israel and the Palestinians, such as the borders of an eventual independent Palestinian state.
In the meantime, Rice said, she wants to use meetings like those she will attend in coming days in Jerusalem and the West Bank to draft a common set of questions and concerns on both sides. She gave no timetable for either effort but made clear that the United States would be at the center of them.
"I don't rule out that at some point that might be a useful thing to do," Rice said when asked about presenting a set of U.S. proposals to settle enduring problems that have scuttled past negotiations for peace. Those include borders, the fate of Jerusalem and the rights of Palestinians and their descendants who left when Israel was formed in 1948.
The United States has not publicly placed its own proposed solutions before the Israelis and Palestinians since the closing months of the former president Bill Clinton's administration.
Both sides say U.S. involvement is crucial to any political accommodations between the two sides.
Rice is trying to invigorate new peace talks despite long odds. She will see Israeli and Palestinian leaders separately on this trip, which comes a week after the Palestinians formed a coalition government that falls short of international demands.
"What I want to do is to establish... a common approach in parallel between the two parties, to have a mechanism or certain elements that I am using to structure the discussion," Rice told reporters before leaving for her trip.
"I hope that I can get them to see that there is some advantage to having a common language, a common approach, a common mechanism for working through what issues have to be resolved," Rice said.
Rice said she will shuttle between the two sides to develop a common set of concerns, but she said she hopes she can produce a document which might eventually allow for a way for them to structure a conversation between them.
Rice brokered a three-way meeting with Prime Minister Ehud Olmert and Palestinian Authority Chairman Mahmoud Abbas when she last visited the region last month. She said she did not even ask the two to come together this time, although U.S. officials say that kind of meeting will come again in time.
For now, Rice is repeating a well-tested pattern from past peace negotiations, where the United States is a go-between and provocateur. That is another step toward the kind of central role in Israeli-Arab peacemaking that the Bush administration resisted in its early years.
Part of Rice's goal on this trip is to rally greater Arab support for peace efforts, and the smaller, practical steps that would precede any substantive peace talks.
Analysts say Rice wants to make a mark by tackling a conflict that is often seen as intractable before she leaves office.
"She has 18 months to become a consequential secretary of state," said Aaron David Miller, a former adviser on Middle East issues to both Republican and Democratic administrations. "The way to become a consequential secretary of state is to take a problem that normal human beings know is hard and make it better
Sunday, February 18, 2007
Rice criticizes failure to move against Shia militias
Obviously so far the surge is directed almost entirely against Sunnis. This is sure to please the Shia militias who can just lay low and not cause waves for a while and watch the Sunnis suffer.
Iraq Official: Rice Criticizes Crackdown
By QASSIM ABDUL-ZAHRA, Associated Press Writer
Saturday, February 17, 2007
(02-17) 10:25 PST BAGHDAD, Iraq (AP) --
Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice told Iraqi leaders Saturday that the Baghdad security operation needs to "rise above sectarianism" and noted that no U.S. or Iraqi forces have yet moved into the capital's major Shiite militia stronghold, an Iraqi official said.
The official, who was familiar with the discussions, said Rice told Prime Minister Nouri al-Maliki that the initial stage of the crackdown, which began Wednesday, appeared to focus on Sunni areas and had left Sadr City, stronghold of the Mahdi Army militia, nearly untouched.
The official spoke on condition of anonymity because he is not authorized to release the information to the media.
He said Rice stopped short of accusing the Iraqis of displaying pro-Shiite bias in the operation and said it appeared that the security crackdown was going well.
Top Sunni politicians have also complained that Sunni neighborhoods have been targeted for raids and searches while Sadr City and other Shiite militia hideouts have been spared.
She told the Iraqis that the operation must "rise above sectarianism" and that this was the "last chance for success," he said without elaborating.
The Iraqis, however, told her that the Mahdi Army and its leader Muqtada al-Sadr had been losing influence and were cooperating with authorities on security issues, the official said.
The Iraqis said they did not want to "waste our resources in a place that's stable," the official added.
He did not say how Rice responded.
Before the operation began, U.S. officers said privately that the Shiite-dominated security forces were resisting calls to move against al-Sadr's forces quickly, arguing that the main threat to stability came from Sunni insurgents.
Iraq Official: Rice Criticizes Crackdown
By QASSIM ABDUL-ZAHRA, Associated Press Writer
Saturday, February 17, 2007
(02-17) 10:25 PST BAGHDAD, Iraq (AP) --
Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice told Iraqi leaders Saturday that the Baghdad security operation needs to "rise above sectarianism" and noted that no U.S. or Iraqi forces have yet moved into the capital's major Shiite militia stronghold, an Iraqi official said.
The official, who was familiar with the discussions, said Rice told Prime Minister Nouri al-Maliki that the initial stage of the crackdown, which began Wednesday, appeared to focus on Sunni areas and had left Sadr City, stronghold of the Mahdi Army militia, nearly untouched.
The official spoke on condition of anonymity because he is not authorized to release the information to the media.
He said Rice stopped short of accusing the Iraqis of displaying pro-Shiite bias in the operation and said it appeared that the security crackdown was going well.
Top Sunni politicians have also complained that Sunni neighborhoods have been targeted for raids and searches while Sadr City and other Shiite militia hideouts have been spared.
She told the Iraqis that the operation must "rise above sectarianism" and that this was the "last chance for success," he said without elaborating.
The Iraqis, however, told her that the Mahdi Army and its leader Muqtada al-Sadr had been losing influence and were cooperating with authorities on security issues, the official said.
The Iraqis said they did not want to "waste our resources in a place that's stable," the official added.
He did not say how Rice responded.
Before the operation began, U.S. officers said privately that the Shiite-dominated security forces were resisting calls to move against al-Sadr's forces quickly, arguing that the main threat to stability came from Sunni insurgents.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
US will bank Tik Tok unless it sells off its US operations
US Treasury Secretary Steven Mnuchin said during a CNBC interview that the Trump administration has decided that the Chinese internet app ...
-
US Treasury Secretary Steven Mnuchin said during a CNBC interview that the Trump administration has decided that the Chinese internet app ...
-
Mike Dunleavy the governor of the US state of Alaska is intending to introduce legislation that will repeal the two state boards which regu...
-
(August 11 ) In recent weeks, a recurring problem has been that Russia has intercepted US surveillance planes over the Black Sea as they wer...
