The administration's is forwarding us into a sea of quagmires. The refugees are (to say the least), and being the nice guys we are, we'repledging millions to help solve what the UN describes as "". $18 million to be precise, andthat is extremely generous considering the war to date has ...so Iraqi people, tack that onto the list of "reasonsto thank the US" for. And as a consolation prize we're taking Maybethey'll get here in time for the anti-immigration crowd to round them up anddeport them.
Four years later and we realize something needs to be done tohelp the displaced people of Iraq? Maybe if the White House had their "" sooner, this wouldn't be an issue (or if they asked any pre-schooler).
The offers came at a UN conference in Geneva, which ended onWednesday.
In all there are an estimated four million displaced Iraqis,nearly two million of whom remain in Iraq, forced to move by the violence in thecountry.
Washington and other western states have pledged millions tohelp solve what the UN describes as a neglected humanitarian crisis.
The UN refugee agency, the UNHCR, says an estimated 50,000Iraqis are now fleeing the violence in their country every month, and has warnedthat without international help, the crisis could have grave humanitarianconsequences for the entire Middle East.
Western countries, particularly the US and UK, have been criticizedfor not doing enough to help Iraqi refugees or the countries neighboring Iraqwhich have received millions of refugees.
An editorial in the, Speaker Pelosi was criticized forallegedly botching a message to Syria's President.
The Editorial headline: ""
After a meeting with Syrian dictator Bashar al-Assad in Damascus, Ms. Pelosi announced that she had delivered a message from Israeli Prime Minister Ehud Olmert that "Israel was ready to engage in peace talks" with Syria. What's more, she added, Mr. Assad was ready to "resume the peace process" as well. Having announced this seeming diplomatic breakthrough, Ms. Pelosi suggested that her Kissingerian shuttle diplomacy was just getting started. "We expressed our interest in using our good offices in promoting peace between Israel and Syria," she said.
Only one problem: The Israeli prime minister entrusted Ms. Pelosi with no such message. "What was communicated to the U.S. House Speaker does not contain any change in the policies of Israel," said a statement quickly issued by the prime minister's office. In fact, Mr. Olmert told Ms. Pelosi that "a number of Senate and House members who recently visited Damascus received the impression that despite the declarations of Bashar Assad, there is no change in the position of his country regarding a possible peace process with Israel." In other words, Ms. Pelosi not only misrepresented Israel's position but was virtually alone in failing to discern that Mr. Assad's words were mere propaganda.
The Chicago Tribune points out that the accuracy of the smear, may be incorrectas posted in their article :
Pelosi's spokesman, Brendan Daly, told me in a brief phone conversation:"We never said the (Israeli's) position changed."
Instead, he said, Pelosi accurately conveyed Israel's position: should theSyrians end their support for Hezbollah and Hamas, then the Israelis would bewilling to talk.
Daly pointed out that Pelosi was briefed by State Department officials beforeher meetings with the foreign leaders and that State Department officials alsoattended her meetings.
So if Pelosi really committed foreign policy flubs of the first order, theState Department is in a position to confirm as much.
The White House certainly received a read-out of what exactly Pelosi and theforeign leaders said in their meetings. Significantly, the White House has notopenly accused Pelosi of the foreign-policy missteps the Post had accused herof.
It seems that there aren't any conservatives that feel ademocrat should have talks with any country in an attempt to stabilizerelations.
Nancy Pelosi is getting quite a bit of coverage from the conservative mediaand the Republicans regarding her "unauthorized" diplomatic trip toSyria. First of all a republican was part of the group that went.
Newt Gingrich had a bit of his hypocrisy exposed on FOX News Sunday by ChrisWallace. During the Clinton administration, Speaker Gingrich took a trip toChina
Articlefrom : ""
Back then, the media treated Gingrich like he was the American PrimeMinister, and his right-wing supporters had no problem with the House Speakertravelling and expressing his own foreign policy views which deviated from theClinton administration's
"
In 1997, Rep. Dennis Hastert (R-IL) led a delegation to Colombia at a timewhen U.S. officials were trying to attach human rights conditions to U.S.security assistance programs. Hastert specifically encouraged Colombian militaryofficials
The hypocrisy needs to stop. I don't care what side of the aisle it is comingfrom, it just needs to stop. It hurts the country and it accomplishes nothing(in the end)
The White House criticized Speaker of the House Nancy Pelosi for her decisionto travel to Syria. State Department spokesman Sean McCormick told reporters onFriday "In our view, it is not the right time to have these sort ofhigh-profile visitors to Syria," As reported by . According to the administration, this is an act ofdefiance, and such acts of diplomatic overtures by lawmakers can do more harm thangood.
White House spokeswoman Dana Perino said the speaker "should take astep back and think about the message that it sends".
"This is a country that is a state sponsor of terror, onethat is trying to disrupt the Saniora government in Lebanon and one that isallowing foreign fighters to flow into Iraq from its borders," Perino said.Fuad Saniora is prime minister of Lebanon.
Syrian President Bashar al-Assad "probably really wants people to come,and have a photo opportunity, and have tea with him, and have discussions aboutwhere they're coming from. But we just think it's a really bad idea,"Perino said.
Now let's see if there is any hypocrisy by theadministration with this issue.
Others traveling with Pelosi were Democratic Reps. Keith Ellison ofMinnesota, Henry Waxman and Tom Lantos of California, Louise Slaughter of NewYork and Nick Rahall of West Virginia, and Ohio Republican David Hobson.Ellison is the first Muslim member of Congress.
In the Huffington Post story you can find the following.
"It's interesting because three of our colleagues, who are all Republicans,were in Syria yesterday and I didn't hear the White House speaking out aboutthat," Pelosi said, referring to the Sunday meeting of Reps. Frank Wolf,Joe Pitts and Robert Aderholt with Syrian President Bashar Assad in Damascus.
Lastnight on Hannity & Colmes, Alan Colmes confronted guest Newt Gingrich aboutthe double standard, and in Newt's well honed political way answered that she isthe third in line for the presidency, and said the White House didn't ask therepublicans not to visit, but would have stood by that decision if they did.Nice try Newt. The video can be seen over at our friends
The administration isn't doing such a bang up job in the diplomacy dept. and if thedemocrats have to make some unpopular decisions to take some matters into theirown hands, then all I can say is they're doing what we asked them to do in November, and the Iraq Study Group recommended that we speak with Syria.
Fox News and conservative commentators have been both (D-MA) and (D-FL) for wanting to travel to Syria and speak with president Assad about Iraq. However, these same talk-show personalities have said nothing about Arlen Specter's (R-PA) recent decision to do the exact same thing. Maybe it doesn't fit the right-wing talking points to even acknowledge that a Republican would maybe think about talking to every government in the region about Iraq.
why he is traveling to Syria:
The senator said he and other Republicans are concerned that theadministration's policies in the Middle East are not working and thatother GOP members may follow in his footsteps.
"I've talked to my Republican colleagues, and there is a disquiet here," Specter said.
The visit, coming on the heels of a trip by Florida Sen. Bill Nelson,would be a direct affront to the White House. The United States haslimited diplomatic ties with Syria because of its support for Hezbollahand Hamas, which the U.S. deems terrorist organizations.
President Bush has expressed reluctance to seek help from Damascus on Iraq until theSyrians curb that support and reduce their influence in Lebanon.
When something doesn't work, you try something new. That is common sense. Arlen Specter, like John Kerry and Bill Nelson, probably know they made the wrong decision on authorizing force in Iraq. Now they want a way out. If you think dialogue with Iraq's Middle East neighbors is not a good idea, then say so, and use substance to say why. But don't use such a fragile issue as a way to further a polarizing notion that John Kerry hates our soldiers. If he hates our soldiers, then he must hate himself because he was once one -- unlike every person in the Administration that never fought in a war before, and wants to send our troops to die for a failed policy.
Vice President Dick Cheney will the day after Thanksgiving to meet with Saudi leaders. The most important issue on the docket is the violence in Iraq, which could destabilize U.S.-Saudi business deals in the region. This meeting was likely set up to help counter the this weekend between Iranian, Iraqi and Syrian officials in Tehran, amid the this week of a pro-western politician in Beirut.
As the turmoil continues in Iraq, and as Lebanon's independence from Syria is now in jeopardy, the Bush Administration is re-thinking its overall Middle East strategy. Next month, the Baker-Hamilton Commission -- otherwise known as the Iraq Study Group -- will report its findings to the Bush Administration. The Pentagon is conducting its own investigation into strategy, and has come up with three possible regarding troop contingency in Iraq. The Democrats are also trying to exert their influence on Bush's stay-the-course Iraq policy. On December 5th, they will hold a with military and foreign policy experts to open discussion on a change of direction.
Iran to hold summit with Iraq and Syria to counter U.S. influence.
Neoconservative intellectuals felt that going into Iraq would put bold lettering on our political and economic influence in the region, and help contain both Iran and Syria in the long-term. Three years later, just about every person not suffering from denial would agree that the opposite has happened. In fact, the instability in Iraq has helped Iran create a Shiite Crescent -- geopolitical sphere of influence spanning from Tehran through Baghdad to Beirut. Syria has also benefited at our expense.
This weekend, to hold a summit with Syrian and Iraqi officials in an attempt to signal that U.S. influence in the region is in its last throes:
Inan apparent bid to counter U.S. influence in the region, IranianPresident Mahmoud Ahmadinejad invited his Iraqi and Syrian counterpartsto a weekend summit in Tehran to tackle the chaos in Iraq...
Although a spokesman for the Iraqi president saidSyrian President Bashar Assad would not be attending the summit, theIranian move appeared designed to upstage possible American efforts toreach out to Tehran and Damascus in a wider effort to subdue runawayviolence in Iraq.
The invitation was also a display of Iran's increasingly muscular role in the Middle East, where it already hasestablished deep influence over Syria and Lebanon. Tehran is thought tobenefit from a low level of chaos in Iraq to keep the U.S. bogged down- but is wary that too much bloodshed could cause trouble across itsown border, where Kurds could become restive.
A close parliamentary associate of IraqiPresident Jalal Talabani said the summit represents an attempt byTehran to strengthen its position in the region and prevent the U.S.from dividing Syria, a predominantly Sunni Arab country, from its allyof convenience, Shiite Iran.
Now, thanks to our current occupation in Iraq, Iran has turned into a regional superpower that poses a threat to Saudi Arabia, Israel, Egypt, Jordan, Iraqi Sunnis, and Iraqi Kurds. And how is that supposed to make America more safe?
This is not only embarrassing, but it is humiliating. What Iran is trying to do by holding this summit is pretty obvious. They will tell the Iraqis that if they want foreign fighters to stop coming over the borders, then they need to ensure that the U.S. will not have a military base in Iraq nor have any influence in Iraqi affairs. So in order words, we are replacing Saddam Hussein's regime with a government aligned with the hard-liners in Iran.
If you are Iran, you are thankful that Bush has been president. Now you hold all the cards. Even if Bill Clinton or just about any other Democrat or Republican leader tried, they couldn't have messed it up as much as the Bush-Cheney-Rumsfeld team. The Administration has an utterly pathetic Middle East strategy. We can only hope that the Bush Sr crowd, including James Baker and Robert Gates, can get us out of this mess.
This latest message from Syria should be proof that Iraq has put us in a terrible geopolitical position to the point that we have no leverage whatsoever.
The UK's reports:
SYRIA is to demand American help in securing the return of the GolanHeights from Israel as the price of co-operation over Iraq. With theWhite House under pressure to talk to its adversary, President Basharal-Assad has resolved that his assistance will not be cheap.
Assad has been considering how to respond to an American overturefollowing reports that the Iraq Study Group will recommend that theUnited States engage Syria and Iran in talks on Iraq, a position backedby Tony Blair last week.
TheSyrian president wants America and Britain to use their influence withIsrael to raise the return of the Golan Heights, seized by the Israelisin the 1967 war. “It will be the top demand,†said Ayman Abdel Nour, aleading reformer in the ruling Ba’ath party.
Who ever thought it would come to this? Obviously, if Bush goes along with this demand, it will anger the neoconservatives, allowing that ideological school of thought to further separate itself from the President. At the same time, Bush is worried about one thing: his legacy. Right now, he has to be thinking, "To hell with my party. I am a lame duck. I owe them nothing." At the same time, he needs his party's support in order to pressure Democrats to get at least part of his agenda passed, even though it will be difficult. So Bush will need to pick which way he will go.
One thing is for sure: if John Kerry had won in 2004 and suggested engaging with Syria over Iraq, Republicans would probably call for his impeachment on the grounds of treason. But it seems like the Baker people are telling Bush that this might be the only way out (to engage with Syria).
Personally, I am not convinced that this is the only option available. Besides, the Golan Heights is quite a concession, and Israel is not likely to go along with it.
I see this conflict a little differently than the mainstream media does. I will try my best to explain myself as articulately as possible.
Syria knows exactly what it is trying to do, and if Israel isn't careful the state located to their northeast will get its wish. In March of 2005, the as as a western representative system emerged in the capital of Beirut. Fortunately for Syria, the pro-Syrian terrorist group known as Hezbollah still managed to hold onto a few seats in the Lebanese parliament. Because the new Lebanese government has only existed for a little more than one year, they are especially weak in certain areas, particularly in the south where Hezbollah has a strong following.
In this current conflict, Syria is using Hezbollah to launch attacks from southern Beirut against Israel. President Bush and German Chancellor Merkel are , when in reality the Lebanese government lacks both the political and military power to control them. Basically, the goal of Syria is to use Hezbollah to entice Israel into firing on the civilian population in Lebanon, which would then result in more anger against Israel and support towards Hezbollah, allowing Syria to once again permanently assert itself into the affairs of Lebanon.
But Syria is only one player in the wider conflict. Each side has its own motive. The more sides that gain from there being a conflict, the longer the conflict will last. While Syria's ultimate prize is regaining control of Lebanon, the Tehran-based government in Iran is trying to divert U.S. attention away from the current nuclear standoff, while getting other Arab states to support the illegal program. Israel's motive is to get their soldiers back that were abducted. The Palestinian parliament, led by Hamas, supports Hezbollah. But Palestinian Authority President Mahmoud Abbas, on the other hand, wants a ceasefire. Yesterday he secretly to negotiate the matter.
Although Iran and the Palestinians obviously play a huge role in this, the country to watch the most is Syria. It is in their geopolitical interest to polarize Muslims in the region against Israel, therefore disrupting the balance of power and leading to more support for Hezbollah in the Arab world. If Hezbollah gets the political backing of the Lebanese people, then Syria will have the opportunity to get back into Lebanese affairs. That is why it is so important for Israel not to target Lebanese civilians.
The mainstream media wants to simplify the conflict into a battle between Israel and Lebanon, or between Israel and Hezbollah. But in reality, it is about the opportunist agenda of the Syrian government that is being asserted against the pro-western government in Lebanon. It looks like President Bush is finally beginning to understand this reality, which was why he called for from attacking too far into Lebanon to the point that it would give the Lebanese people a greater incentive to support Hezbollah and the Syrian government.
Again, this is about Syria's affairs in Lebanon, and Iran backing Syria's urge to regain its geopolitical sphere of influence in the Western Middle East. Iran and Syria know that Lebanon is a weak state, and they see the opportunity to take it down. It is not about Israel trying to occupy more land. It is not about Iran's plan to annihilate Israel, at least not at the state level. And for heavens sake, it is not about the Rapture or the Book of Revelations. At the very core, it is about Syria using Hezbollah to get back into Lebanon after being kicked out one year ago.
Recent Comments