Well I think the first thing we should find out about was whether or not Bush interrupted a speech in Philadelphia. Wouldn’t that be a good indication of whether or not there is some truth going on?
This actually makes me happier that we are getting Hillary Clinton. He would NEVER DARE to do Hillary like that, not ever.
He clearly knows there are no personal consequences here for him, he’s out, Bush is out, it doesn’t matter.
Dumb question coming from an American, but how did he get elected?
He probably dramatized the events (i.e. the pulling Bush off the podium part), but it’s clear that the verifiable facts of the story add up. Rice did take a last minute phone call from Bush. After which, she abruptly changed course and voted to abstain on a resolution that she had a large part in putting together. Obviously we can not know why Bush made that call, or what exactly was said, but I see little reason to doubt that it was on the behest of Israel. There’s a very small chance, imho, that the U.S. would vote for a resolution that Israel opposed. Certainly not this early in the war.
Even if you don’t believe what Olmert saying is true, it simply can’t go unanswered. It’s a public humiliation for Bush and United States for another head of government to act as though they control what we do. The world needs to see that we decide what to do based on our own interests, and that Israel is not in charge of our foreign policy.
I guess Bush is worried about placating the Jewish vote when he runs for Dallas Dogcatcher next year.
He was number two in the ruling party when Ariel Sharon went into a coma, I believe.
Don’t heads of state/government sometimes vote in person if they’re present at the UN?
It’s pretty clear GWB has “intellectually” bought the neocon story hook, line, and sinker, otherwise he’d hardly have had any motivation at all to have advanced attacking Iran, etc., post-2004.
Plus, if the Weekly Standard et al. – the usual trumpet-bearers of the neocon banner – turn on him (as they would if he dared embarrass Olmert at this juncture) – his precious “legacy,” such as it is, evaporates. Did you see Fred Barnes’s piece about the “Ten Best Things GWB Did?” Ain’t nobody (maybe not even NR) other than WS going to publish that. That’s all he has left for his “legacy.” Think he’s going to forfeit that by crossing Bibi or Olmert or Kristol?
The NYT reported recently that GWB several times refused to give US concurrence to Israeli plans to bomb sites in Iran.
And I agree that he may have – as would any world ruler looking to avoid WW2.5.
Why would Israel seek “concurrence” unless they planned to use U.S. supplied planes, intel, etc. to do so, to the embarassment of the U.S.? If Israel were just some ol’ sovereign nation, their seeking of U.S. “concurrence” would be seen as a weird anomaly – it is not, precisely because the Arab street knows that Israel speaks with U.S. weapons and diplomatic support.
Naturally, the U.S. declined to be seen (having not declared war on Iran) as having, well, explicitly attacked Iran in an act of war. Hardly a pacifistic move, more a minimal and cosmetic diplomatic concealment.
Not according to this ynet report a brief excerpt is below:
The article goes into much greater detail.
He sold himself as Arik Sharon’s hand-picked successor, and people bought it. Plus, his competition was incredibly weak, and the public wan’t fully aware of his flaws.
For the benefit of those who haven’t seen it, “Bush’s Achievements: Ten things the president got right” can be summed up as:
- Killing the Kyoto global warming treaty
- Enhanced interrogation of terrorists
- Expansion of presidential authority
- Unswerving support for Israel
- No Child Left Behind (NCLB)
- Focus on promoting democracy around the world
- The Medicare prescription drug benefit
- Putting John Roberts and Sam Alito on the Supreme Court
- Strengthening relations with Asian democracies without alienating China
- The surge
From my perspective, at least 7 of these items are things Bush got wrong; I don’t know enough about 1, 8, & 9 to express an opinion. Several sort of sound okay, until you look at the details. Bush’s one real moment of pride, his expansion of AIDS relief to Africa, isn’t on the list.
For a second there I thought you were talking about GWB. But then, this might explain some of the motivations behind the recent bloodshed. Let’s hope it was worth it; i.e. he keeps his job and his approval rating goes up.
Olmert’s a lame duck. He’s already resigned and will be gone after the February elections regardless of who wins.
Tell us, Alessan, is there any realistic chance of that?
ETA: Apparently not.
Right. Olmert’s lucky if he stays out of prison at this point.