State Department: Olmert never told U.S. to abstain from UN vote on Gaza

[Scurrilous]

<snip>

"The State Department on Tuesday flatly rejected an assertion by Prime Minister Ehud Olmert that he had convinced the Bush administration to abstain from last week's United Nations resolution for an immediate truce in the Gaza Strip.

State Department Spokesman Sean McCormack also denied that abstention embarrassed Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice.

McCormack said the comments attributed to Olmert "are wholly inaccurate as to describing the situation, just 100-percent, totally, completely not true" and suggested that the Israeli government might want to clarify or correct the record.

Olmert said Monday that Rice had been embarrassed by orders from President George W. Bush to abstain from voting on the cease-fire resolution that she was negotiating. Olmert said he had called Bush - and interrupted him at an event in Philadelphia - to ensure the United States did not vote for it.

"I said: 'Get me President Bush on the phone,'" Olmert said in a speech in the southern Israeli city of Ashkelon. "They said he was in the middle of giving a speech in Philadelphia. I said I didn't care: 'I need to talk to him now.' He got off the podium and spoke to me."

Olmert said he argued that the United States should not vote in favor of the resolution, and the president then called Rice and told her not to do so. "She was left pretty embarrassed," Olmert said.

McCormack, who pointed out that he was with Rice at the United Nations during the negotiations and vote, denied Olmert's characterization."

more

[bunnies]

1. Someone is lying.

Shocking. :eyes:

[bdamomma]

3. what else is new?

[LeftishBrit]

7. Someone usually is. In this case, probably Olmert.

Let us take a step back for a moment. This particular issue is not one of Olmert claiming to have influenced America's own foreign policy, but of his (allegedly) claiming to have influenced America's acceptance of Israeli policy. Olmert quite possibly would like to believe, and have others believe, that he can persuade America (and others) to accept *Israel's* actions. That doesn't mean that he believes he can demand that America (or anywhere) follow a particular course in its own actions toward other countries.

Or everyone may be lying, and the whole story made of 'the whole cloth'. Wouldn't be the first time.

[bunnies]

9. Can you even imagine the scenario Olmert describes?

:rofl: It would be a cold day in hell before W would be told what to do like that. Its a joke.

Otoh, if they're both lying, I wouldnt be the least bit surprised. Its expected. *sigh*

[BunkerHill24]

2. This is impressive....

"I said: 'Get me President Bush on the phone,'" Olmert said in a speech in the southern Israeli city of Ashkelon. "They said he was in the middle of giving a speech in Philadelphia. I said I didn't care: 'I need to talk to him now.' He got off the podium and spoke to me."

[GoesTo11]

4. Bush would have told Olmert to buzz off

Bush may allow people to manipulate him, but there's no way he'll let someone else act like the boss.

[LeftishBrit]

8. Indeed. (Well, he lets Cheney boss him, I suppose - but even that's more manipulation)

[Barack_America]

5. It's embarrassing, scandalous and 100% delicious.

I am loving this. (the drama surrounding this incident, that is)

[Arrowhead2k1]

6. It's so revealing too about the nature of our relationship with Israel.

[backwoodsbob]

10. if he pulled shrub off a podium

there will be video of him in Philly leaving the podium

Lets see the video.

I call bs.

Someone is lying

[shaayecanaan]

11. The evidence favours Olmert...

From the Guardian:-

Olmert said: "He gave an order to the secretary of state and she did not vote in favour of it - a resolution she cooked up, phrased, organised and manoeuvred for. She was left pretty shamed and abstained on a resolution she arranged."

Gordon Johndroe, a White House spokesman, said today: "I've seen these press reports. They are inaccurate."

Olmert's version coincides with the one offered up by other members of the security council the day after the vote.

It is also known that Rice had been planning a press conference before the vote but abruptly cancelled it to take a call from Bush.

Also:-

1) The PA expressed its surprise the day after the vote. It has understood the US would be voting for the resolution.

2) On entering the Security Council chamber, Dr Rice approached the Saudi foreign minister and apologised, saying that the US would be abstaining from voting on the resolution. If it was the position of the US throughout that it would be abstaining, an apology would hardly seem necessary.

3) The reason given by the US for abstaining is that it would permit the Egyptian-French peace initiative a chance to succeed. Even on its face, this assertion makes absolutely no sense at all. The resolution probably would have assisted the French negotiations (why else would the French have voted for it?). And in any event, whether the US voted for or abstained on the resolution was not going to affect the outcome of the resolution.

4) Following the resolution, AIPAC issued a sharply critical statement complaining that the US had not vetoed the resolution, indicating that they had lobbied heavily on the issue of the resolution.

5) Given the highly embarrassing nature of the revelations, an official denial is hardly surprising. One would hardly expect the US to admit that it changed its position following a request from Israel.

On balance, it looks like Olmert's version is correct. Whether or not the public can be successfully persuaded otherwise is one thing, whether the other members of the Security Council can be so persuaded is another. I have a feeling that they, and probably most of the Arab governments, will remember this for a long time.

[BunkerHill24]

12. Here's quote from Al Jazeera article.....

"Sean McCormack, a US state department spokesmen, who was with Rice at the UN last week during debate on the security council resolution, went further and said the remarks were "just 100 per cent, totally, completely untrue".

McCormack said that Washington had no plans to seek clarification from Israel.

Mark Regev, a spokesman for Ehud Olmert, said the Israeli leader stood by his remarks."


on edit: http://english.aljazeera.net/news/americas/2009/01/200911402950253579.html

[Scurrilous]

13. Olmert hits back in spat with U.S. over remarks on UN Gaza truce vote

<snip>

"Ehud Olmert's bureau maintained on Wednesday that the outgoing prime minister had correctly described diplomatic moves that led to last week's United Nations resolution on a truce in Gaza, despite a United States rejection of his account.

The U.S. State Department on Tuesday flatly rejected Olmert's assertion Monday that he had convinced the Bush administration to abstain from the resolution calling for an immediate truce between Israel and Hamas in the coastal strip.

State Department spokesman Sean McCormack also denied that the abstention embarrassed Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice.

McCormack said the comments attributed to Olmert "are wholly inaccurate as to describing the situation, just 100-percent, totally, completely not true" and suggested that the Israeli government might want to clarify or correct the record.

Olmert said Monday that Rice had been embarrassed by orders from President George W. Bush to abstain from voting on the cease-fire resolution that she was negotiating. Olmert said he had called Bush - and interrupted him at an event in Philadelphia - to ensure the United States did not vote for it."

http://www.haaretz.com/hasen/spages/1055460.html

[bemildred]

14. Olmert stands by his version of Rice flap

JERUSALEM: Aides say Prime Minister Ehud Olmert stands by his claim that he caused the U.S. to abstain from a U.N. resolution calling for a halt in Gaza fighting.

Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice negotiated the resolution. Olmert claimed earlier this week that he humiliated Rice by persuading U.S. President Bush to instruct her not to vote for it.

Rice spokesman Sean McCormack has called Olmert's claims "100-percent, totally, completely not true."

But on Wednesday, Olmert aides said the Israeli leader told the story as it happened. Olmert has also claimed that Bush broke off a speech he was giving in Philadelphia to take his call, and that the abstention embarrassed Rice.

http://www.iht.com/articles/ap/2009/01/14/news/ML-Israel-US-Rice.php

[bdamomma]

15. too late State Department the cat is out of the bag.

[Scurrilous]

16. Olmert’s ill-advised move

Jerusalem tries to present Olmert-Rice clash as personal, but does US see it that way?

http://www.ynetnews.com/articles/0,7340,L-3656256,00.html

<snip>

"In a rare and undiplomatic response, the kind that the US State Department does not usually issue to the media, Prime Minister Ehud Olmert was accused of lying when he recounted how he called President Bush and forced him to order Condoleezza Rice to abstain in the vote on Security Council resolution 1860.

The State Department did not use the word “lie,” yet characterized Olmert’s words as “completely not true,” an expression that is also not found in the global diplomatic lexicon, and certainly not when it comes to the intimate relationship between the US and Israel. The statement, which has greatly embarrassed Israel’s Foreign Service, referred to the PM’s comments as “wholly inaccurate as to describing the situation, just 100%, totally, completely not true.”

In a series of interviews, Rice denied a last-minute change in the American position regarding the vote. However, all signs indicate that there was a change: Rice arrived at the Security Council with a prepared speech expressing support for the resolution. Without providing a convincing explanation for the abstention, it was clear she was embarrassed.

Yet the question here is not about who’s telling the truth and who’s lying. In a relationship between a party that gives almost all the time (the US) and a party that keeps on getting (Israel,) when it comes to issues related to our very existence there is no room at all for this kind of Olmert chatter. The intimacy between American presidents and Israeli prime ministers was not born during Olmert’s era. This is a strategic asset and no one, even if he happens to be Israel’s prime minister, has the right to undermine it.

This is precisely what Israel-haters in the US were waiting for, the ones who claim that Israel is not only an American ally, but rather, affects decision-making in Washington in a blatant manner, and at times does so in contradiction to America’s interests. When Olmert’s quotes landed on the desk of Pat Buchanan, a commentator on MSNBC and not one of our greatest fans, he highlighted the prime minister’s words as proof for Israel’s great and undesirable influence on the American Administration. This is the same Buchanan who in the past claimed that the US embarked on war in Iraq because of Israel and its then-Prime Minister Ariel Sharon.

And all of this is happening against the backdrop of the tense wait to see the Obama Administration’s Mideast policy, and during days where various interested parties are attempting to influence the president-elect. The problem is that officials in Washington do not view the incident as a personal disagreement between Ehud and Condi, but rather, as an incident pitting Israel against the US. The words were recorded, filed, and one cannot help but bang his head against the wall when wondering what Obama and Hillary Clinton think about all this.

Former State Department official Aaron Miller, who was involved in talks with Israel alongside past American presidents, wrote in Newsweek that the US needs special ties with Israel, but not exclusive ties. I’m certain that spitting into the plate he ate out of is not the kind of farewell present Prime Minister Olmert planned on granting Bush and Rice in return for his exclusive ties with them, a week before their term in office ends. If this is indeed the case, we are dealing with a moment of mental weakness where Arrogant Ehud overcame Wise Ehud."

[Scurrilous]

17. Rice calls Olmert account ‘fiction’

<snip>

"Condoleezza Rice called "fiction" Ehud Olmert's claim that he persuaded President Bush to abstain from a U.N. Security Council call for a cease-fire and left the secretary of state "shamed."

"The prime minister was, I hope, quoted out of context, because the story that I read in the newspaper is fiction," Rice said in an interview with Bloomberg Television.

"The president and I talked about the resolution, about the importance of allowing the council to send a signal even though the United States believed that the resolution was premature," she said. "And I had made it very clear that I thought the resolution was premature, and there were also concerns about a resolution that had Israel, a member-state of the United Nations, and Hamas, which is a terrorist organization -- you don’t ever want there to be any equating those two.

"And so we talked. We talked about abstention as a good option. And I was quite aware of the president’s call to Prime Minister Olmert. Of course, Prime Minister Olmert is not at all aware of what the president said to me. And I repeat, his rendering of this is fiction -- if, in fact, that was his rendering of it. And I want to give him the benefit of the doubt. Perhaps it’s not exactly what he said."

more