Did Bush Pressure Olmert to Deny Pelosi’s Statement about Syria?

[babylonsister]

http://www.pensitoreview.com/2007/04/07/did-bush-pressure-olmert-on-pelosi-statement/

Did Bush Pressure Olmert to Deny Pelosi’s Statement about Syria?
Posted by Jon Ponder | Apr. 7, 2007, 12:11 pm

When House Speaker Nancy Pelosi left Israel last week, her delegation announced she was bearing a message from Prime Minister Ehud Olmert to Bashar al-Assad, the president-for-life of Syria.

In Syria, Pelosi’s meeting with Assad made good visuals: A Democratic leader was taking charge, attempting to find a path to peace in the Middle East. Media spin mentioned the fact that Pelosi was taking action on the Baker-Hamilton Iraq Study Group recommendation that the Bush administration end its failed policy of isolating governments it disapproved of and become more diplomatically engaged in the Middle East.

Within hours, however, the Israeli government issued a statement that essentially called the U.S. Speaker of the House a liar by flatly denying Olmert asked Pelosi to convey anything to Assad.

snip//

In light of this, former Pres. Jimmy Carter announced yesterday the Bush White House ordered him not to meet with Assad, whom Pres. Carter has known for nearly 30 years.

This suggests that the Bush White House may have also tried to “order” the speaker not to meet with Assad, only to find itself tripped up again by the inconvenience of the separation of powers in the Constitution. Since they couldn’t stop Pelosi’s visit, the next best option was to ruin it, which was likely accomplished with a single phone call.

Interestingly, the White House responded with little more than a pro forma complaint about Rep. Darrell Issa’s meeting with Pres. Assad yesterday. Issa is a Republican from San Diego County.

[Bluedogvoter]

1. I doubt it.

Why would Isreal want to have anything to do with Syria while they are actively supporting terrorism?

[dogday]

12. This might just change your mind

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_mesg&forum=389&topic_id=598534&mesg_id=598534

[enough already]

2. Smelled like a Rovian trick to me from the start

Followed immediately by the lapdog corporate media whores attacking Nancy. It's all just too fucking convenient to be a coincidence.

[ck4829]

3. You can never put it past this administration to do something like that

[HysteryDiagnosis]

4. Nancy can speak fluently, who would you rather have

representing us in the ME? A tongue tied fratboy or an intelligent coherent majority speaker???

[EST]

5. It would be neitther surprising nor out of character.

That bunch of crooks knows only political savagery, never diplomacy or skill.

[Eurobabe]

6. My bet is CrashCart was the hit man on this

It reeks of Dick.

[Behind the Aegis]

7. Much ado about nothing

"Within hours, however, the Israeli government issued a statement that essentially called the U.S. Speaker of the House a liar by flatly denying Olmert asked Pelosi to convey anything to Assad."

That is not a true statement. The Israeli statement did not call or imply Speaker Pelosi was a liar, nor did they "flatly" deny that Olmert asked Pelosi to convey a message to Assad. They (the Israeli government) took issue with the message delivered as not being the "complete" message relayed to Pelosi from Olmert.

The officials said Olmert had told Pelosi that he thought her trip to Damascus was a mistake, and that when she asked - nevertheless - whether he had a message for Assad, Olmert said Syria should first stop supporting terrorism and "act like a normal country," and only then would Israel be willing to hold discussions.

source

Just as conservative forces are trying to portray Pelosi as a "loose cannon" and "traitor" for talking with "terrorists," the other side is doing essentially the same thing with Israel.

[babylonsister]

8. So you don't think the wh played any part in Olmert's

chastisement of Pelosi?

[Behind the Aegis]

9. It doesn't matter. It is speculative, just like this article.

As I pointed out in my post, the "chastisement" was more of a clarification, not a denial, as it is being portrayed by posters on DU, as well as some articles being posted. I also said, this is "much ado about nothing."

But her remark that Israel was prepared to negotiate with Damascus prompted Prime Minister Ehud Olmert's office to underline the Jewish state's preconditions for such talks.

---snip---

An Israeli government official said that was not the message Olmert had asked Pelosi earlier this week to convey to Assad, who seeks the return of the Golan Heights, a strategic plateau Israel captured in the 1967 Middle East war.

(Reuters article page 1)

"The prime minister said Israel is interested in peace with Syria, but Syria would first have to abandon the path of terror and providing support for terrorist groups," the official said, in reference to Palestinian group Hamas and Lebanon's Hezbollah.

"Comments (Olmert) made to the speaker of the House did not represent any change in a policy Israel has expressed to all international figures dealing with the (Syrian) issue," a statement from Olmert's office said.

Reuters article page 2

[babylonsister]

11. Well, it matters to me as it would point out the admin's vindictiveness, which

I know we're all well aware of.

And this isn't the only article which concluded Olmert 'chastised' Pelosi's message:

http://sfgate.com/cgi-bin/article.cgi?f=/c/a/2007/04/06/BAG3GP482D9.DTL

snip//

Pelosi also carried a message from Israeli Prime Minister Ehud Olmert for Assad, saying that Israel is ready for peace talks with Syria if the Syrians stop sponsoring terrorism. Pelosi got into some hot water for conveying Olmert's message when he later publicly disavowed it.

Pelosi told the Associate Press Friday that she was unaware of the dust-up. Lantos, during his interview with The Chronicle, confirmed Pelosi's view that the Israeli prime minister asked her to take the message to Assad.

[Behind the Aegis]

15. It doesn't change that this is still speculation.

I don't put anything past this administration, nor most administrations worldwide...everyone has an agenda.

As for your link, I had this to say about that article...

Behind the Aegis (1000+ posts) Sat Apr-07-07 02:53 PM
Response to Original message
7. "(H)e later publicly disavowed it."
No, Olmert didn't disavow the message, it was corrected. The one thing I saw in this article that I didn't see an any earlier article about Pelosi's meeting with Assad was that while delivering the message to Assad, she included the "prerequisites" to those peace talks. Every article I read about Pelosi's meeting only state she said Israel was ready for peace talks, this includes follow up articles after the PMO released its statement. This is the only article, to date, that I have seen that Speaker Pelosi's message also included Israel's conditions.

[mmonk]

10. Yep.

The hoopla part is political partisan drama by bush and the press.

[Behind the Aegis]

13. Honestly, it is being fed by both sides. n/t

[mmonk]

17. I was speaking primarily of the different takes

that is was improper and she was dealing with terrorists or being soft on it. Yes, the spectacle as a whole is hoopla fed by both sides.

[Behind the Aegis]

18. I understood what you were saying.

In all honesty, I expected such a reaction from the WH. I would have been shocked if they didn't attack her for going to Syria. Seriously, without sounding all "tinfoily", there are just certain things we can anticipate from this administration. Despite my feelings for the Syrian government, I am glad Speaker Pelosi did what she did. She is encouraging "cooler heads to abound," and I personally like that option.

[The Stranger]

14. They stabbed her in the back is what they did.

Fuck Olmert.

[Behind the Aegis]

16. In your opinion, but given the text of your message, I am not surprised by it. n/t

[FVZA_Colonel]

22. Have you heard anything about the possibility that it was documented that she did not fail

to deliver anything? I believe I saw a thread on that matter earlier today on this site, but I am unsure as to the validity of this (and how such a thing might be possible). I am not trying to say that Olmert has some sort of Machiavelian reason for making the claims that he did, but I thought there was evidence to cast doubt on the idea that she failed to deliver any part of the message.

[Behind the Aegis]

23. I am not sure what you are asking.

Are you asking if her meeting with Olmert was documented (meaning in print)? It seems, for all the reports I have read, is that she didn't deliver the entire message, meaning she left off the conditions of Israeli/Syrian peace talks. Only recently, did I see an article that seemed to suggest she also included the "conditions." But, from all previous accounts (before the "dust-up"), nothing indicated she delivered Olmert's entire message.

[FVZA_Colonel]

24. That was actually it.

I'm sorry for the confusion, it was a poorly worded question. Either way, however, I don't think what she did was necessarily wrong.

[Behind the Aegis]

25. Glad I got it!

I was a tad confused. I don't think what she did was a bad thing either. I also don't think the Israelis clarifying that there has been no change in their policy for Syrian negotiations was bad either. I don't see deception on the part of Speaker Pelosi, and I don't see an attack by the Israeli government on her. Like I said in my initial post on this thread, it really is "much ado about nothing."

[davidwparker]

19. if he did, does that mean Pelosi is on the chimpeachment table?

[cascagraphic]

20. People will spin this forever but we know who's right here.

[sam kane]

21. The important point is that she never "botched" the message.

She never lied about bringing the message. But you would never know that from reading The Washington Post or the rest of the MSN. Olmert said that it wasn't new, not that it was wrong.