British Prime Minister Tony Blair and California Gov. Arnold Schwarzenegger are convening a series of high-profile meetings this week to discuss solutions to global climate change. Twenty-five chief executive officers of major corporations around the world will be in attendance, including the heads of BP, DuPont Co., and Goldman Sachs Group.

But there is one group that will be notably absent: the White House. Greenwire reports (sub. req’d):

The Bush administration’s top environmental adviser received an informal invitation to attend the California-UK event, but White House Council on Environmental Quality Chairman Jim Connaughton’s spokeswoman said he could not participate because of a scheduling conflict.

Connaughton’s spokeswoman, Kristen Hellmer, said the deal did not upset the Bush administration.

“This is just a wonderful amplification of the work that President Bush and Prime Minister Blair agreed to at the G8 last year,” she said. “This wasn’t a surprise.”

The meeting may not be a suprise, but it is an embarrassment for the administration. The agenda will focus on items that Bush pledged he would act on but hasn’t: 1) regulating carbon dioxide and 2) encouraging new, greener technologies.

Barry Rabe, a University of Michigan professor and an expert on U.S. climate policy at the state level, said the administration’s failure to attend sends the wrong message. “It suggests certainly in this instance the federal government is really conspicuous by its absence,” he said.

The ongoing violence in the Middle East, which the Bush administration has tacitly endorsed, has sapped support for the United States in Lebanon, according to a new survey.

The latest poll by the Beirut Center found that 8 percent of Lebanese feel the US supports Lebanon, down from 38 percent in January. [...]

“Look what America gives us, bombs and missiles,” says [Ghassan Farran, a doctor and head of a local cultural organization]. “I was never a political person and never with Hizbullah but now after this I am with Hizbullah.”

Analysts have noted that as the crisis grows, it “strengthens anti-Americanism worldwide and fuels radicalism in the Arab and Muslim world.” Assessing Arab media coverage, one found that in “the last few days, the main trend has been unmistakable: an increasing focus on the United States as the villain” of the conflict.

Pollsters have documented serious positive trends in Lebanese public opinion over the last several years. Favorable opinion of the United States jumped from 27% to 42% from 2003 to 2005. The number of Lebanese who believed terrorism could sometimes be justified dropped from 73 percent to 39 percent from 2002 to 2005, while the number who believed democracy could work in Lebanon went from 75 percent to 83 percent.

Condoleezza Rice today pledged to return to the region but won’t say when. By the time she gets around to it, the damage to America’s reputation may be entrenched.

In his meeting with President Bush today, British Prime Minister Tony Blair is expected to advocate for a U.N. ceasefire resolution:

Tony Blair will press George Bush today to support “as a matter of urgency” a ceasefire in Lebanon as part of a UN security council resolution next week, according to Downing Street sources.

Britain’s former ambassador to the U.S. has already “dismissed Tony Blair’s ability to sway George Bush” on the issue. He’s right. Despite having been a steadfast supporter of Bush’s endeavors in Iraq, Blair has received very little in return.

Here are some of examples of Blair’s sound advice that Bush has rejected or ignored –

GLOBAL CLIMATE CHANGE

Blair, who is hosting the G-8 summit, wants a strong international agreement that man-made pollutants are contributing to the problem and that mandatory reductions in carbon dioxide and other greenhouse gases are the prudent solution…but [U.S. officials] stopped short of embracing Blair’s solution. [Washington Post, 7/7/05]

POVERTY

Seeking billions in debt relief for Africa, newly re-elected British Prime Minister Tony Blair had to settle yesterday for extravagantly wrapped morsels of food aid and vague promises of more to come from U.S. President George W. Bush. [Toronto Globe and Mail, 6/8/05]

MIDDLE EAST PEACE PROCESS

[Blair] persuaded Bush to revive the Middle East peace process between Israel and Palestine that Bush had abandoned. The new “road map” for peace there was the principal concession that Blair wrested from Bush [for support on Iraq]. … But within the councils of the Bush administration that initiative was systematically undermined. [Salon, 11/14/03]

Richard Armitage dramatically broke ranks with his neoconservative allies yesterday, saying in a radio interview that he feared it was impossible to eliminate Hezbollah through airstrikes, and that by attempting to do so, “you’re going to end up empowering Hezbollah, and perhaps introducing an element into the body politic in Lebanon that will take some great period of time to recover from.” Armitage also criticized the Bush administration for refusing to talk directly to Syria.

According to a database search, no major media outlets have yet printed Armitage’s remarks. Listen:

Armitage was Assistant Secretary of Defense under President Reagan when the U.S. Embassy in Lebanon was bombed in 1983, and served as second-in-command at the State Department under President George W. Bush. In 1998, he signed the Project for a New American Century letter to President Clinton urging regime change in Iraq.

The Bush administration has thus far “giving a tacit blessing” to the escalating Mideast violence. During crisis talks in Rome yesterday, Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice bucked the “entreaties of nearly all of her European and Arab counterparts” to push for a ceasefire.

Full transcript: Read more

In 2005, the Bolton nomination passed out of the Senate Foreign Relations Committee but ran into a filibuster on the Senate floor. It appears likely that his re-nomination will proceed on a similar path. All indications are that Sen. Joseph Lieberman will play a crucial role in determining whether the Bolton nomination will ultimately pass the Senate.

Lieberman was part of “a tiny group” of Democrats who voted for Bolton to become Undersecretary of State in 2001. In 2005, Lieberman reportedly was “considering voting for Bolton” had a vote come up. His spokesman Matt Gobush elaborated:

Senator Lieberman remains undecided about Mr. Bolton’s nomination. As a general rule, he believes the president should have the latitude to choose his own Cabinet, except in the most extraordinary cases. The senator is studying the issues raised by the committee to determine whether this is one of those cases.

Reports indicate that the White House is “trying to take advantage of the current crisis in the Middle East to gin up support for Bolton, an aggressive defender of Israel, among Jewish organisations, despite the fact that most of their members traditionally vote for Democrats.”

A source tells ThinkProgress that Senate moderates will be looking to Joe Lieberman, a long-time advocate for Isreal, before deciding how to vote. A stance against Bolton could weaken the White House’s strategy and embolden moderates to fight the nomination.

Sixty percent of Americans believe the country is on the wrong track. The widespread discontent is popping up at high-profile political events. Yesterday, a protester interrupted the Iraqi Prime Minister’s speech to Congress. Today, a protester disrupted U.N. Ambassador John Bolton’s confirmation hearing. Watch it:

Transcript: Read more

In testimony to the Senate Foreign Relations Committee on Oct. 18, 2005, U.N. Ambassador John Bolton argued that diplomacy has to happen outside of the New York “bubble”:

Well, I think that’s why it’s so important to work not only in New York…but to work in capitals as well. It is the phenomenon that sitting up there at Turtle Bay, that you operate in a little bit of a bubble. …

So that’s why this effort, I think, really does require a lot of attention not just in New York. If we left it only in New York I think we’d have the bubble problem and trying to break through that bubble should be one of our main diplomatic efforts.

According to the U.N. Security Council (UNSC), there have been four UNSC trips since Bolton was recess appointed as ambassador in Aug. 2005 — to Central Africa, Ethiopia and Eritrea, Chad and Sudan, and to the Congo. He did not attend any of them.

In early June, Bolton passed up the delegation trip to Sudan because he had a “full platter here.” In reality, Bolton was giving a lecture at the Centre for Policy Studies, a right-wing think tank in London.

ThinkProgress repeatedly attempted to confirm Bolton’s foreign travel with his spokesman, Rick Grenell. Grenell insisted we were “wrong” — that in fact Bolton had attended UNSC trips — but refused to say where Bolton went with the UNSC. Grenell also told us if we publicized the fact that Bolton had not attended UNSC trips “we’ll just blast you out of the water.” ThinkProgress also sent an e-mail to Bolton’s press office with our request, but have not yet received a response.

Bolton’s confirmation hearing is tomorrow. Maybe a Senator could ask him about his foreign travel and Bolton could blast us out of the water himself.

Iraqi Prime Minister Nuri al-Maliki’s address to a joint session of Congress was interrupted by a protestor, Medea Benjamin of Code Pink. Watch it:

Benjamin shouted, “Iraqis want the troops to leave. Bring them home now.” According to a January poll, 87 percent of Iraqis support a U.S. timetable for withdrawal. The Iraqi President, Vice President, and National Security Adviser have all advocated a timetable for the withdrawal of U.S. troops. The latest USA Today/Gallup poll shows that 52 percent of the American people want a withdrawal within 12 months.

Iraqi Prime Minister Nuri al-Maliki has repeatedly refused to condemn Hezbollah for its role in initiating the Lebanon-Israel conflict. Yesterday, in a press conference with President Bush, he “criticized the ‘damage and destruction’ caused by Israeli attacks but said nothing on Hezbollah’s role.” Other Arab states, including Saudi Arabia, Jordan, and Egypt, have condemned Hezbollah for its role in initiating the conflict.

Sen. John McCain appeared on Fox this morning and falsely claimed that Maliki has “condemned Hezbollah.” McCain said that, as a result, Rep. Nancy Pelosi (D-CA) and others who have criticized Malaki for his position on Hezbollah are “not qualified to lead.” Watch it:

Transcript: Read more

Last year, President Bush circumvented the United States Senate and installed John Bolton as Ambassador to the U.N. with a recess appointment. This Thursday, the Senate Foreign Relations Committee will consider his nomination again.

Sen. George Voinovich (R-OH) opposed Bolton last year, delivering a powerful and eloquent indictment of the Bolton nomination. Now, Voinovich supports Bolton’s nomination. Today on Fox, Voinovich explained that Bolton needed to be confirmed because “the world, you know, is going wacko everywhere.” Watch it:

Transcript: Read more

Last weekend, the speaker of the Iraqi parliament, Mahmoud al-Mashhadani, described the U.S. occupation of Iraq as “butcher’s work.” Confronted with those remarks on Sunday, White House Chief of Staff Josh Bolten said he had met with al-Mashhadani privately and believes he has an “appreciation for the sacrifice so many Americans have made.”

If al-Mashhandi appreciates the sacrifices of Americans, he has a funny way of showing it. At a news conference, he said “I personally think whoever kills an American soldier in defense of his country would have a statue built for him in that country.” Also this:

Saying that the U.S. seeks to control oil fields in southern Iraq, Mashadani added, “America didn’t come to the country for our sake. America came with a pure Zionist agenda.“

Remember, the neoconservatives in the Bush administration promised us that invading Iraq and creating a democratic government would stabilize the Middle East. From Newsweek:

Last year’s invasion of Iraq and toppling of Saddam Hussein were supposed to bring prosperity and stability to the Middle East. “The road to Jerusalem,” the mantra went, led through Baghdad. Neoconservatives and other hawks within the Bush administration expected that the United States would win respect in the Arab world through a massive show of force, and that Israel would be more comfortable making peace with the Palestinians once Saddam was gone.

President Bush today will meet with Prime Minister Nouri al-Maliki and present an image of the Iraqi government as a strong ally of the United States. In reality, there are powerful forces in the Iraqi government who are completely at odds with U.S. interests.

It’s a reality that the White House and Josh Bolten prefer to ignore.

Disengagement isn’t just the Bush administration’s strategy for the Arab-Israeli conflict. At a recent press roundtable following her visit to Northern Uganda, Assistant Secretary of State for African Affairs Jendayi Frazer claimed that the U.S. is indeed committed to peace in Northern Uganda:

Question: Ambassador Frazer, you said in London that the Bush Administration was going to insure that the LRA [Lord's Resistance Army] rebellion ends by the end of the year. How do you think that is going to happen?

Frazer: What I was saying is that is our goal – that seems to be a good time frame in which we can focus our actions and that of other international partners and countries to try to end what are clearly the atrocities of the war.

Frazer further enumerated the importance of resolving a conflict that has displaced 1.5 million, abducted 38,000 children, and whose rates of violent death are three times higher than those reported in Iraq following the 2003 invasion:

I think that in terms of assisting the government of Uganda — President Bush has been trying to do that since 2001. I was sent here by Secretary Rice to look into the conditions in northern Uganda, so that I could come back with additional recommendations on how the president and she can assist in bringing this war to an end.

However, the State Department’s Uganda Desk Officer Barbara Yoder has confirmed that the US has no presence at potentially ground-breaking peace talks in Juba between the Lord’s Resistance Army and the Government of Uganda. Read more

As Congress is marching in lock step to approve the administration’s sweetheart deal that would allow India to rapidly ramp up its nuclear bomb production to about 50 new weapons each year, news comes that Pakistan is racing to match the Indian capability.

The Washington Post reports on new satellite photos that reveal construction of a plutonium production reactor that should enable Pakistan to punch out — surprise — 50 bombs a year.

It is not too late for Congress to stop this developing nuclear arms race in South Asia. All they have to do is approve an amendment that conditions the U.S.-India deal on an Indian agreement not to make any more material for weapons. This was part of the deal originally sought by Bush administration officials, but they caved in to India demands and dropped the idea.

Rep. Howard Berman (D-CA) says, “The Bush Administration conceded on almost every major point in negotiating this agreement with India. Even worse, the Administration essentially ignored the concerns of its own nonproliferation experts, and kept Congress in the dark until after the agreement was concluded.”

He and other legislators are trying to get amendments to the deal that would enable the U.S. to expand cooperation with India without allowing India to go on a nuclear weapons binge. One amendment would require India to halt production of fissile material, the main component needed to make nuclear weapons, in exchange for greater nuclear cooperation with the United States. A second important amendment would prevent India from transferring nuclear enrichment technology to other countries.

The Arms Control Association has more.

- Joseph Cirincione

Last year, Sen. George Voinovich eloquently made the case against the nomination of John Bolton, stating, “I’m afraid that his confirmation will tell the world that we’re not dedicated to repairing our relationship or working as a team.” Voinovich now intends to support Bolton, but his original concerns turned out to be well-founded.

In just over a year at the U.N., Bolton has managed to offend many U.S. friends and allies, demonstrating that he’s an ineffective diplomat:

Greece’s U.N. Ambassador Adamantios Vassilakis: “He is not an easy man to get close to. “¦ Some people have the possibility to build consensus. Others operate in other ways.”

Algeria’s U.N. Ambassador Abdullah Baali, after a disagreement with Bolton: “The U.S. stand that ‘you take it or you leave it is not helping the Security Council, and is not helping the cause of peace in the Middle East.’”

Peru’s U.N. Ambassador Oswaldo de Rivero: “He lives in another world, with this belief that he is morally superior and the U.S. is more moral than all the countries around the world. It is a pity.”

Read more

On Friday, the White House released a document entitled “Setting the Record Straight: President Bush’s Foreign Policy is Succeeding.” One section, headlined “Conservatives Stand Behind The President’s Policies,” contains just one example:

On Wednesday, Max Boot Wrote: “Our Best Response Is Exactly What Bush Has Done So Far – Reject Premature Calls For A Cease-Fire And Let Israel Finish The Job.” (Max Boot, “It’s Time To Let The Israelis Take Off The Gloves,” Los Angeles Times, 7/19/06)

So apparently, urging the Israelis to “take off the gloves” means you are endorsing the administration’s policies in the current conflict. Also, the Boot column that the White House views as an endorsement of their policies also calls on Israel to attack Syria:

Syria is weak and next door. To secure its borders, Israel needs to hit the Assad regime. Hard. If it does, it will be doing Washington’s dirty work.

Tim Russert confronted White House Chief of Staff Josh Bolten about the release on Meet the Press yesterday. Bolten claimed the Boot column “was sent around as a reflection of some of the conservative columnists’ support for Israel.” In fact, it was sent around explicitly as reflecting support for administration policy. Watch it:

(H/T: Alternet)

Transcript: Read more

The White House released a fact sheet yesterday entitled, “Setting the Record Straight: President Bush’s Foreign Policy Is Succeeding.” The sheet declares not once but four times that the administration “is rallying the world behind its policy,” and claims that “a consensus is building behind the President’s foreign policy approach.”

Actually, U.S. standing in the world has plummeted under the Bush administration, as John Bolton tacitly admitted yesterday. Asked who he would choose as Kofi Annan’s successor at the United Nations, Bolton acknowledged, “If I told you who I thought we thought the best candidate would be, it would probably be the kiss of death for that person.” Watch it:

As Jeffrey Laurenti writes in a new piece for Mother Jones:

It is fair to say that no one has done more to isolate the United States in world councils than Mr. Bolton, who has virtually alone opposed, time and again, the path-breaking reform initiatives that have passed the U.N. since he arrived.

Full transcript: Read more

This morning on the Today Show, White House Press Secretary Tony Snow argued that “nobody has been more diplomatically active than we have” in the Middle East, citing all the phone calls White House officials have made in recent days:

Watch it:

Real diplomacy requires more than just phone calls. Secretary of State Henry Kissinger famously went to the region and used “shuttle diplomacy” — meeting repeatedly with each party — to negotiate “disengagement agreements between Israel, Syria, and Egypt” following the 1973 Yom Kippur War. Similarly, in 1996, Secretary of State Warren Christopher spent “seven days shuttling between Damascus and Jerusalem” and successfully negotiated a “truce between Israel and Hezbollah guerrillas.” President Bill Clinton visited Israel in the midst of the 1996 terrorist attacks by Hamas to show U.S. support.

In contrast, the Bush administration has taken a “hands off approach,” and has derided diplomatic efforts as “naive and ineffectual.” Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice will finally visit the region next week, but has rejected calls to press for a cease-fire.

Full transcript below: Read more

Today, the Washington Times reports Israel is in a good position right now to take out Iran’s nuclear sites:

Israel is in the best position militarily in its history to mount air strikes against Iran, after a decade of buying U.S.-produced long-range aircraft, penetrating bombs and aerial refueling tankers. ["¦] “They have the capability to strike Iran,” said retired Air Force Lt. Gen. Thomas G. McInerney, a former fighter pilot who has trained with Israelis. [...] “I’m not worried about them hitting the targets. They will suffer losses, but they are capable of doing it.”

It doesn’t matter how much advanced weaponry they have. As Sen. Chuck Hagel (R-NE) and others have pointed out, conducting air strikes against Iran is “not a viable, feasible, responsible option.” Newsweek pointed out the dangers of such a strike earlier this year:

The Israelis admit they can only disable the Iranian program, not destroy it. “The real question is what you achieve if the best you can do is to delay the project for a few years,” says a senior U.S. administration official, speaking anonymously because it’s a sensitive topic. The cost to the region’s stability could be devastating.

American Progress nonproliferation expert Joe Cirincione has even warned that such a strike “would not, as is often said, delay the Iranian program. It would almost certainly speed it up. That is what happened when the Israelis struck at the Iraq program in 1981.”

(Read more from other experts who think there are no good military options in Iran HERE.)

This morning on Meet the Press, Newt Gingrich argued we have entered World War III and that the United States ought to engage the effort by “helping the Lebanese government have the strength to eliminate Hezbollah as a military force.” Watch it:

As Matt Stoller points out, Gingrich was also quoted today suggesting that President Bush should be framing the current violence as World War III for the benefit of the fall elections.

Full transcript: Read more

During a press conference today at the G8 summit in Russia, President Bush told President Vladimir Putin that Americans want Russia to develop a free press and free religion “like Iraq.” To laughter and applause, Putin responded: “We certainly would not want to have same kind of democracy as they have in Iraq, quite honestly.” CNN’s Ed Henry called it a “tough jab.” Watch it:

The exchange underscores how the war in Iraq has damaged the standing of the United States, to the point where even modest encouragement for democratic reform is met with ridicule.

Full transcript: Read more