Bush Administration Condemns Iraq Resolution, Then Uses It As A Diplomatic Strategy
Bush Administration Condemns Iraq Resolution, Then Uses It As A Diplomatic Strategy
The White House and its conservative allies have been arguing that the congressional debate over a non-binding resolution on Iraq is sending the wrong message to Iraqis about our commitment. “What signal does it send to the Iraqis in terms of steadfastness?” asked Press Secretary Tony Snow last week.
But in her recent trip to Iraq, Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice used the debate as part of a diplomatic strategy to urge Iraqi political leaders to accelerate their efforts to produce results on the economic and security conditions in Iraq. The NY Times reported:
Ms. Rice said she used the restiveness in Washington to underline for Iraqi officials the spread of American frustration with Iraq’s lagging political and economic progress.
She said she had ”made clear that some of the debate in Washington is, in fact, indicative of the concerns that the American people have about the prospects for success” if Iraq’s leaders did not quickly take actions to ensure longer-term stability.
Iraqi leaders took note. Hoshyar Zebari, Iraq’s foreign minister, said Rice “emphasized a great deal the issue of urgency.” Rice stressed to Iraqi leaders that “patience is not unlimited in the United States and that there’s a great deal of frustration,” Zebari added.
Noting the irony, Sen. Carl Levin (D-MI) said, “It’s interesting that finally [the administration] understands the power of what we are doing in the Congress.” Watch it:
Transcript:
LEVIN: Well, the course that the president is on is a failing course. It’s been failing for four years. We’re trying to change that course to one which has the maximum chance of success.
And the maximum chance of success is to limit our mission, to get us out of the middle of a sectarian civil war. So it’s the president’s course which is a course toward failure.
Interestingly enough, while we’re being criticized at the White House for having this debate, Condi Rice over in Baghdad was using the fact that Congress is moving towards restricting the presence of American troops in her effort to put pressure on the Iraqi leaders to tell them yesterday in Baghdad hey, folks, you better get your political act together, because look, Congress is about to restrict in a number of possible ways the president in terms of American presence in Iraq.
It’s interesting that finally they understand the power of what we are doing in the Congress.
Topic Cloud
ArchivesBlog Roll
actually, al franken has said, weeks ago, that this resolution could be the admin’s best friend… then he could tell the iraqis, “hey, look, you gotta do this… the congress has tied my hands”…
February 19th, 2007 at 11:17 amheh – so condi listens to AirAmericaRadio… ha!
Bush Regime loves to play games and they play the Congress the same as they do the Iraqi government. Time for the games to end and bring the US troops home alive.
February 19th, 2007 at 11:19 amCondoleeza Rice is sending mixed signals to our troops and emboldening the enemy.
/sarcasm off
February 19th, 2007 at 11:21 amThe Bush administration was against debate over the Iraq occupation before they were for it -when politically expedient.
February 19th, 2007 at 11:29 am#1, if Condi listens to AA Radio, then she’s one of the few.
February 19th, 2007 at 11:31 ami’m sorry, but, after reading the teaser for this story, i nearly had to run to the bathroom to regurgitate my coffee and bran cereal with fruit…
didja get that…?
“…quickly finalize an oil law…”
And, yes, I DO take it personally
February 19th, 2007 at 11:32 am#6, you didn’t get the quote quite right… what the article said was:
February 19th, 2007 at 11:37 am
Condi could have made it much clearer.
February 19th, 2007 at 11:37 amThe American people are realizing the complete utter failure of Bush’s invasion, occupation and “imperialisation” of the Middle East.
Iraqi government, get your golden parachutes ready.
Condi is useless. Full stop.
February 19th, 2007 at 11:39 am#5 – ” if Condi listens to AA Radio, then she’s one of the few.” Comment by Dale — February 19, 2007 @ 11:31 am
Dale, you forgot to complete your post.
It should read:
If Condi listens to AA Radio, then she’s one of the few that isn’t blinded by the right-wing biased MSM and rabid-neo-con news that permeates the radio.
There, I’ve corrected your mistake. No need to thank me.
February 19th, 2007 at 11:39 amCondi actaully said “an oil law that would distribute revenues evenly among Iraq’s population”?!?!?
Sounds like redistribution of income that the Republicans hate with a freaking passion!
I guess it’s the Republicans that are more like Communists now!
February 19th, 2007 at 11:42 amThe GOP is imploding – trying to have it both ways and realizing that their “con” is apparent. GOP speaks with “forked tongue” aka – outright, bold-faced lies – AGAIN!!
EACH DAY – ANOTHER LIE UNCOVERED! WHERE DOES THIS LEVEL OF CORRUPTION END?????
February 19th, 2007 at 11:51 am#10, ah yes, the old ‘right-wing biased MSM’. All part of the vast right wing conspiracy /sarcasm.
#11. Wrong, it’s only redistribution of income if you take from the rich and give to the poor. What Iraq will do is sell oil belonging to the country and divide the money equally amongst the citizens.
Unless you’re saying that Alaska, Kuwait, and others are communist?
February 19th, 2007 at 11:51 amSounds like the Repugs are now showing their commie roots?? Wasn’t Grandpa Bush a certificed, card-carrying member? It’s in the DNA!
I can’t quite figure out if it’s fascism or communism…or perhaps more accurately….a combination of the two “commi-fascism”.
February 19th, 2007 at 11:52 am#7 – Don’t be so smug, Dale. Here’s some more info on that “oil law” Condi’s so hot to get passed — for the good of the Iraqi people……yeah right.
“…the law will give Exxon Mobil, BP, Shell and other carbon cronies of the White House unprecedented sweetheart deals, allowing them to pump gargantuan profits from Iraq’s nominally state-owned oilfields for decades to come. This law has been in the works since the very beginning of the invasion – indeed, since months before the invasion, when the Bush administration brought in Phillip Carroll, former CEO of both Shell and Fluor, the politically-wired oil servicing firm, to devise “contingency plans” for divvying up Iraq’s oil after the attack.”
http://www.truthout.org/docs_2006/010807A.shtml
February 19th, 2007 at 11:52 amFirst we were “anti-communism” in Vietnam; Now we’ve “become them” – hah!
February 19th, 2007 at 11:53 amSounds like redistribution of income that the Republicans hate with a freaking passion!
Comment by Democrat Soldier
Yeah; and they were against nation building and high defecits just a few short years ago too.
February 19th, 2007 at 11:54 amIt means that American aren’t willing to send their people to get maimed or killed in a senseless war for a “government” of factions who are at war with each other.
February 19th, 2007 at 11:59 amIs it just me,or is anyone else getting tired of the press saying “[so an so] made a ’surprise’ visit to Iraq”?
Instead of admitting that it’s just too damned dangerous to declare our intentions,they act like our officials are going to a surprise birthday party.
SURPRISE!!!
February 19th, 2007 at 12:08 pmYeah; and they were against nation building and high defecits just a few short years ago too.
Comment by [B!]
Flip floppy bunch, huh?
But Republicans have never wavered on the goal spouted by Grover Norquist, to “drown the governement in the bathtub”. The destruction of our constitutional governement has never left their minds. This is evidenced today, by what they have done over the last 6 years.
February 19th, 2007 at 12:08 pmDale, in case you’re too busy to look at Zooey’s link, here is a sampling.
The new law allows the foreign oil companies’s to:
‘rake off up to 75 percent of all oil profits for an indefinite period up front, until they decide that their “infrastructure investments” have been repaid. Even then, the agreements will give the Western oil majors an unheard-of 20 percent of Iraq’s oil profits – more than twice the average of standard PSAs’
I’m glad to hear that you’re concerned about Iraqi citizens getting their fair share of the revenue.
February 19th, 2007 at 12:11 pm#15, This is something wanted by Iraqi officials.
BAGHDAD, Iraq: A new draft hydrocarbons law will pave the way for “transparent and fair” competition in bids to develop Iraq’s oil wealth, the oil minister said Sunday as he seeks to restore the confidence of global oil companies in the national industry.
February 19th, 2007 at 12:12 pmgood one, zooey… i was reminded of that as soon as i read prof marcus‘ comment… i confess i did not read through all the links before having to run an errand…
i’ve no doubt that condi is in a hurry to finalize those oil deals… dubya said as much in a recent speech also (SOTU?)…
3000+ US military have died to insure more oil profits…
how ’bout that, dale…
February 19th, 2007 at 12:16 pm#22 – Nice dodge, Dale.
Now address Condi’s REAL reason for wanting the oil law passed in #15. Margaret highlighted some more details in #21, if you need them.
February 19th, 2007 at 12:16 pmThat’s because Carl Levin is the man, I am glad he is my Senator!
February 19th, 2007 at 12:17 pmRice stressed to Iraqi leaders that “patience is not unlimited in the United States and that there’s a great deal of frustration,â€
Patience ?? . . . Frustration ?? . . .
February 19th, 2007 at 12:18 pmPretty strong and convincing words there Mandy err Condy I mean Chucky.
bah misspelled government in my post
I guess, according to MSM rules of US elections, like all democrats that misspeak or botch a joke, I can never run for president again.
Too bad the repukes don’t have the same rules, because we wouldn’t have Duffus in the white house.
“That makes sense to me, don’t it?â€
February 19th, 2007 at 12:23 pm~ George W. Bush, 6-6-06
[ ...."Sending the wrong message to Iraqis" !!!. The Iraqis don't need messages, and not waiting for a message from anybody to change their feelings about the current situation and the war. Tony Snow describes war...The Iraqis live it everyday
They can see the dead bodies laying on the streets in their cities,the morgue that is filled with dead bodies, and the daily destruction caused by war.
After losing 650,000 of their citizens, plus over 3 millions refugees, messages from Congress will not change the Iraqis minds about the war,which started 4 years ago.
They live it every minute in Iraq.
Tony Snow's words reflect how far he is from reality on the ground in Iraq.
Changing the course of war might be the only issue that the Iraqis are interested in right now,also the majority of Americans ;
and that is not what Tony Snow is talking about.
Tony Snow wants more of the same,more of escalation and more of this same.
February 19th, 2007 at 12:29 pm#21, #24, sorry, … the PSA’s have been removed from the hydrocarbon law.
February 19th, 2007 at 12:31 pmWayne:
Maybe Grover Norquist will ‘drown in the bathtub’.
February 19th, 2007 at 12:31 pm#21, #24, sorry, … the PSA’s have been removed from the hydrocarbon law.
Comment by Dale
#29 – Sorry Dale, the hydrocarbon law is not the oil law Condi is peddling.
February 19th, 2007 at 12:39 pmI would like to ask the White House who is really emboldening the enemy?
February 19th, 2007 at 12:44 pm“What signal does it send to the Iraqis in terms of steadfastness?â€
Since polls have shown that a sizable majority of Iraqis want the occupation ended, I would guess it sends a welcome message.
February 19th, 2007 at 1:09 pm#31, the references I’ve found call the same law “hydrocarbon law” and “oil law”
February 19th, 2007 at 1:17 pm#13 – “What Iraq will do is sell oil belonging to the country and divide the money equally amongst the citizens. ” Comment by Dale — February 19, 2007 @ 11:51 am
Riiiiiggghhhhttttt.. Just like how the US is going to bring peace to Iraq in a few short months. OK, maybe not a few months. OK, maybe not a few years. (OK, maybe not a few decades. . . .)
Socialism by any other name is still Republicanism.
February 19th, 2007 at 1:18 pm#31, And the in NYT piece that was quoted in #6, Sec Rice was calling for an oil law
.
Every reference I’ve found addresses this same issue. So which law(s) are you talking about Zooey? Are there two laws or one?
February 19th, 2007 at 1:22 pmThe oil revenues will never filter down to the common Iraqi citizenry. The Oil Cartel conglomerate is going to screw Iraq out of billions of dollars and steal as much of the oil as they can get way with. The only thing Condi Rice admits is that the invasion of Iraq was for the OIL > PERIOD.
February 19th, 2007 at 1:26 pm#35 – Dale, I’m talking about the oil law referenced in my link at #15 — the law that’s been in the works since the months before the invasion.
Apparently al Maliki has his own hydrocarbon law, which has been drawn up more recently.
Did you read my link at #15, Dale? It’s quite clear.
February 19th, 2007 at 1:28 pmEvery reference I’ve found addresses this same issue. So which law(s) are you talking about Zooey? Are there two laws or one? Comment by Dale — February 19, 2007 @ 1:22 pm
Perhaps you shouldn’t limit yourself to propaganda outlets like Fox News and Drudge, and you’d be better informed. It would help if you would learn to rely in sources that do journalism instead of prop up your stereotypes, and feed your unfounded hatred of liberalism.
February 19th, 2007 at 1:33 pm#37 – I stated that badly — do over:
Dale, I’m talking about the oil law [also referred to as a hydrocarbon law] referenced in my link at #15 — the law that’s been in the works since the months before the invasion.
[It appears] al Maliki has his own [version of the] hydrocarbon law, which has been drawn up more recently.
Please read my link at #15.
February 19th, 2007 at 1:36 pm#37, Zooey, the law that Condi is pushing *is* the one that Maliki and the Iraqi gov’t are working on. Re-read your own link. While Mr. Floyd does talk about the “carbon cronies”, the law he’s discussing in his article is the hydrocarbon/oil law. (albeit prior to the PSA’s being removed).
#38, thank you for your brilliance in knowing what ‘propaganda outlets’ I’m looking at. If you’d actually follow my links, they point to the NYT and the International Herald Tribune… not a single reference to Fox News or Drudge. You’re not real bright there, are ya fella.
February 19th, 2007 at 1:41 pm#37, I guess do-overs are allowed :-)
If what Chris Floyd states is true, that this law was ‘in the works’ since before the invasion, it still doesn’t point to a separate law. There is only one law ‘in the works’ in the Iraqi gov’t that concerns oil exploration/drilling/transportation/etc… (sans PSA’s).
February 19th, 2007 at 1:43 pmDale, you’ve stated numerous times that the PSAs have been recently removed from the draft of the oil law currently being considered. I read over your linked articles, but I can find no mention of the PSAs being removed. Could you please direct me to a location where this is explicitly stated? Thanks.
February 19th, 2007 at 2:04 pmDale, from your article:
I’m sure the foreign oil companies will be doing this from the goodness of their hearts. But I find nothing in your link regarding the PSAs being removed. Where are you getting that information?
It’s probably all a moot point, since the Iraqis will probably not agree to any version of the law.
http://www.guardian.co.uk/Iraq/Story/0,,1991321,00.html
February 19th, 2007 at 2:09 pmOops Trip, I didn’t notice you had already asked about the PSA info.
February 19th, 2007 at 2:10 pmsorry, had to do a little work today :-)
Here’s one link, the HuffPost (take note, Valiant, still no Fox News or Drudge links. Ready to admit you were wrong in #38?).
Still not the best deal for the Iraqi’s, but it’s better without the PSA’s.
February 19th, 2007 at 2:33 pm#43, well, Zooey, notice that the writer of this piece is NOT a member of the Iraqi gov’t… he’s an economics adviser.
FWIW, I hope the Iraq’s *do* push for the best deal possible.
February 19th, 2007 at 2:43 pmThanks for the link, Dale. The “elimination” of the PSAs does seem a rather tenuous assertion, however.
I need to get out of the house for a while. It’s been fun!
February 19th, 2007 at 2:45 pmMy apologies… here’s a correction to my last post:
Mahdi is an Iraqi and lecturer in Middle East economics at the University of Exeter
February 19th, 2007 at 2:46 pmZooey, I know you and I don’t agree, and probably will agree on very little. But I have to hand it to you; instead of calling names, or making wild, implausible accusations, you’ve presented yourself (and your case) in a calm manner. I’ve enjoyed it, thanks! :-)
February 19th, 2007 at 2:52 pmHelloooo, Valiant, nothing to say?
February 19th, 2007 at 2:54 pmDale,
Thanks for the link, although I’m not sure how far you read that article.
From the article:
So even if the PSA’s are stripped out (as you contend), it doesn’t look as if it will make any real difference, and Iraq will still be the wilderbeast corpse that the hyenas of Exxon Mobil, BP, Shell, etc. will be able to feast on unmolested (as Zooey contended).
In short, your point about the PSAs is interesting, but largely irrelevant.
February 19th, 2007 at 2:55 pmTMM, I did see that reference in the article (I actually read the whole thing :-).
The big difference it’ll make, I think, is that the oil companies won’t be able to ‘lock in’ their treatment for 30 years or more. So, removal of the PSA’s *will* make a difference (though I concede not as much as it could).
February 19th, 2007 at 3:00 pm#
So even if the PSA’s are stripped out (as you contend), it doesn’t look as if it will make any real difference, and Iraq will still be the wilderbeast corpse that the hyenas of Exxon Mobil, BP, Shell, etc. will be able to feast on unmolested (as Zooey contended).
In short, your point about the PSAs is interesting, but largely irrelevant.
Comment by TripMaster Monkey — February 19, 2007 @ 2:55 pm
#
TMM, I did see that reference in the article (I actually read the whole thing :-).
The big difference it’ll make, I think, is that the oil companies won’t be able to ‘lock in’ their treatment for 30 years or more. So, removal of the PSA’s *will* make a difference (though I concede not as much as it could).
Comment by Dale — February 19, 2007 @ 3:00 pm
Moderation (progress) is such a great thing.
Now, how does this small amount (16% of what we import) affect what Iran COULD export. Remember we can use CAN-DU type reactors in Iran and upgrade their infrastrucutre.
The Military has tested and used fischer tropsch fuel, albeit expensive, from coal. (note to oil producing countries.)
February 19th, 2007 at 9:17 pmhttp://www.eff.org/
EFF: Legal Guide for Bloggers
Updated April 20, 2006
Whether you’re a newly minted blogger or a relative old-timer, you’ve been seeing more and more stories pop up every day about bloggers getting in trouble for what they post.
Like all journalists and publishers, bloggers sometimes publish information that other people don’t want published. You might, for example, publish something that someone considers defamatory, republish an AP news story that’s under copyright, or write a lengthy piece detailing the alleged crimes of a candidate for public office.
The difference between you and the reporter at your local newspaper is that in many cases, you may not have the benefit of training or resources to help you determine whether what you’re doing is legal. And on top of that, sometimes knowing the law doesn’t help – in many cases it was written for traditional journalists, and the courts haven’t yet decided how it applies to bloggers.
But here’s the important part: None of this should stop you from blogging. Freedom of speech is the foundation of a functioning democracy, and Internet bullies shouldn’t use the law to stifle legitimate free expression. That’s why EFF created this guide, compiling a number of FAQs designed to help you understand your rights and, if necessary, defend your freedom.
To be clear, this guide isn’t a substitute for, nor does it constitute, legal advice. Only an attorney who knows the details of your particular situation can provide the kind of advice you need if you’re being threatened with a lawsuit. The goal here is to give you a basic roadmap to the legal issues you may confront as a blogger, to let you know you have rights, and to encourage you to blog freely with the knowledge that your legitimate speech is protected.
Please note that this guide applies to people living in the US. We don’t have the expertise or resources to speak to other countries’ legal traditions, but we’d like to work with those who do. If you know of a similar guide for your own jurisdiction or feel inspired to research and write one, please let us know. We can link to it here.
Table of Contents
or, see an index of all the questions » http://www.eff.org/bloggers/lg/questions.php
Blogger Legal Liability Issues
The Overview of Legal Liability Issues FAQ briefly addresses some common legal issues that affect you as a publisher, especially situations where you may face legal claims or threats based on the information you published on your blog.
The Bloggers’ FAQ on Intellectual Property addresses issues that arise when you publish material created by others on your blog.
The Bloggers’ FAQ on Online Defamation Law provides an overview of defamation (libel) law, including a discussion of the constitutional and statutory privileges that may protect you.
The Bloggers’ FAQ on Section 230 Protections discusses a powerful federal law that gives you, as a web host, protection against legal claims arising from hosting information written by third parties.
The Bloggers’ FAQ on Privacy addresses the legal issues surrounding the privacy rights of people you blog about.
Bloggers As Journalists
The Bloggers’ FAQ on the Reporter’s Privilege is useful to bloggers who report news gathered from confidential sources.
The Bloggers’ FAQ on Media Access can help bloggers who need to get access to public records and government meetings, as well as secure press passes to help with newsgathering.
The Bloggers’ FAQ on the Freedom of Information Act can help bloggers use open government laws to get information from the government.
Other Legal Issues for Bloggers
The Student Bloggers’ Legal FAQ addresses legal issues arising from student blogging. It focuses on blogging by high school (and middle school) students, but also contains information for college students.
The Bloggers’ FAQ on Election Law addresses the legal issues you may face blogging about political campaigns.
The Bloggers’ FAQ on Labor Law addresses legal issues with workplace blogging, including union organizing, protections for political blogging away from the workplace, and whistle blowing.
The Bloggers’ FAQ on Adult Material addresses the legal issues arising from publishing risque adult-oriented content, including obscenity law, community standards on the Internet, and the new 2257 regulations.
February 20th, 2007 at 6:31 amBRING IN THE BLURB PATROL!
February 20th, 2007 at 8:11 amI KNOW what he’s talking about and it STILL put me to sleep.
Sum it up in a quick tagline and PUSH it!
[...] a secret Iraq timeline, as Sen. Mark Pryor (D-AR) also proposed last week, would be pointless. The key purpose of a public timeline is to make clear to the Iraqi people and [...]
April 4th, 2007 at 11:25 am[...] a secret Iraq timeline, as Sen. Mark Pryor (D-AR) also proposed last week, would be pointless. The key purpose of a public timeline is to make clear to the Iraqi people and [...]
April 4th, 2007 at 12:28 pm[...] with the Iraqi government. In February, Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice used the “restiveness in Washington” as part of her diplomatic strategy to increase pressure on the Iraqi government. Last month, [...]
April 15th, 2007 at 10:53 amSell House Quickly
Can it be that your server is infected with a virus – I get an Virus warning when I open your site with Firefox – Just for your Info.
March 17th, 2008 at 1:23 pmJim Crow Laws Employment Law Us Supreme Court
I can not agree with you in 100% regarding some thoughts, but you got good point of view
April 8th, 2008 at 2:07 amneed relationship advice for teens
loving relationships
April 13th, 2008 at 11:13 am