Willful Foreign Policy Malfeasance

Greetings fellow concerned citizens. I am new here, having been graciously invited to join by Blue Girl in a Red State. I am a bit new at this, so I will try not to screw it up.

Josh Marshall at TPM cited an article in Ha'aretz detailing how the United States has forbidden Israel to engage Syria in talks regarding normalization of relations. Not actual normalization understand you; just talks.


"The United States demanded that Israel desist from even exploratory contacts with Syria, of the sort that would test whether Damascus is serious in its declared intentions to hold peace talks with Israel.

In meetings with Israeli officials recently, Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice was forceful in expressing Washington's view on the matter. ...

When Israeli officials asked Secretary Rice about the possibility of exploring the seriousness of Syria in its calls for peace talks, her response was unequivocal: Don't even think about it."


If there was any question about the obstreperousness of the Bush Administration as to meaningful foreign policy, that should be laid to rest. I am fairly pragmatic, and understand full well that the depths of ignorance can always be plumbed further by our politicians, especially the Bushies, but every now and then I am still stunned. Not only do our leaders refuse to engage in meaningful diplomacy, the opportunities for which often appear to be served to them on a silver platter, but they also strong arm other countries to refuse to make peace as well. This is no longer mere incompetence, this is willful and wanton refusal to act in the best interests of the United States and the world as it relates to the United States. Yet, we have become so anesthetized to poor leadership that this will undoubtedly not even register a blip on the outrage scale nationally.

I want my country back; thing is, time is fleeting. Demand is already being formented for the end to the Iraq war and for better domestic poicies; concurrent with those priorities, however, must be a demand for immediate enlightenment of diplomatic policy not just in the middle east, but across the globe. The 06 elections were a turning point, and it appears that prospects are good that we can build on that successfully in 08, both as to Congress and the Executive. I have, however, a deep concern that the damage that has been done over the last six years, and that looks to continue until January 2009, can become so pervasive, so deep, that the upward arc of the United States will be irretrievably altered for the worse. History teaches that all great civilizations have a zenith; let us work together to insure that we have not yet reached ours.

There's more: "Willful Foreign Policy Malfeasance" >>

Push-Back on the Hill

The White House was quite taken aback by the degree of open hostility with which Congress greeted the president's new "plan" for Iraq. Everywhere an administration official appeared before a committee on Thursday they had a rough go of it, to say the least. For three hours Condoleeza Rice faced a brutal grilling by the Senate Foreign Relations Committee that at times became downright hostile as she tried to sell the notion that this time they are confident they have a plan that will work to stabilize Iraq and achieve "victory."

Not one Senator, Democrat or Republican, expressed even tepid support for the presidents proposed escalation. Chuck Hagel became visibly irritated with Rice's semantic quiblings, and Barbara Boxer confronted the Secretary of State with visual aids - posters with bullet-points detailing her past lies. Even those not openly hostile made known in no uncertain terms that they had no confidence in the president's scheme for fostering a functioning democracy in the heart of the Middle East.

The bipartisan support the administration claimed they were hoping for was instead bipartisan condemnation. "I've gone along with the president on this, and I bought into his dream. And at this stage of the game, I don't think it's going to happen." Sen. George V. Voinovich (R-Ohio) told Rice bluntly. Bill Nelson (D-Fla.) offered a similar assessment. "I have supported you and the administration on the war, and I cannot continue to support the administration's position. I have not been told the truth over and over again by administration witnesses, and the American people have not been told the truth."

The White House was dismayed that legislators were not only unwilling to embrace the new scheme; they didn't even appear too eager to shake it's hand. Over the past few days, over 130 lawmakers had been summoned to the hill for personal meetings with the president as he attempted to cultivate support, but to no avail. The lawmakers didn't appear to be willing to do much more than acknowledge that yet again, the president had a plan. (This is the fourth one since June, for those keeping score at home).

White House counsel Dan Bartlett continued to tout the party line, maintaining that one consequence of a failed U.S. effort in Iraq would be "an emboldened and strengthened Iran." He added that critics should do more than take shots at Bush's plan. "We do believe that those who have decided to reject this plan before it has an opportunity to work have a greater responsibility to propose something that will work," he said. "We have yet to see that from Democrats." (Someone should take a moment to remind Mr. Bartlett that the Administration has no track record to mandate confidence in absolutely anything they do or say. We had an election a couple of months ago that drove this point home, or should have. I would also like to remind Mr. Bartlett that the Democrats have offered their own plans. That he doesn't want to acknowledge this fact does not nullify their existence.)

Senate Minority Leader Mitch McConnell (R-KY) immediately threatened a filibuster if Democratic efforts to force a vote on a resolution disapproving the policy move forward, but opponents of the plan would most likely be able to muster the 60 votes needed to break his parliamentary obstacle. Part of me hopes it plays out that way - and hangs the sore loser appelation around McConnell's neck for all time...Remember the "Nuclear Option" that the Republicans threatened a couple of years ago when their cabal was threatening to trash years of tradition to install some specious judges?

There is little doubt that a fillibuster could be broken. Already six Senate Republicans have come out against the idea of escalation, and at least four more have expressed serious misgivings. Senate Majority Leader Harry M. Reid (D-Nev.) predicted that the resolution would pick up 12 GOP votes, a count McConnell did not dispute.

Later in the day, Defense secretary Robert Gates and Chairman of the joint Chiefs of Staff did not fare much better in front of the House Armed Services Committee. They faces grueling questioning from multiple committee members regarding the timing of the escalation of troops, and several committee members from both parties questioned the level of commitment from the Iraqi government.

Nine House Republicans sent a letter to the president detailing opposition to any increase in troop strength. Democratic leaders said they will push a resolution on support for the president's proposal, and House Republicans said Bush risks a major defeat. For Republicans who narrowly escaped defeat in November, the coming vote could be a nightmare, they said.

Rep. Thomas M. Davis III (R-VA) said he "would not say there are a lot of enthusiastic members over here" in support of the president. "I have zero comfort level with escalating this," he said.

There's more: "Push-Back on the Hill" >>