diplomacy

So I start my morning peruse of the blogosphere and see this at Glenn Reynolds’ site:

BRITISH: “Special Relationship” with U.S. Is Dead.

UPDATE: Reader Paul Jackson writes:

Who could have foreseen that the president who follows Obama will have to hit the reset button…..with Great Britain and Israel!!! And the list may grow longer, he’s only been president for 14 months. India anyone?

Yeah, so far this “smart diplomacy” thing isn’t living up to the promises.

OBAMA DID IT! Surely that’s what the article points out – isn’t it?

In an apparent rebuke to Tony Blair and his relationship with President George W Bush, the report says there are “many lessons” to be learnt from Britain’s political approach towards the US over Iraq.

They are talking about the strain on U.S/British relationships caused by Bush. Get that Glenn? It’s the 7th paragraph down in that article.

The Guardian is reporting that the Obama team has signaled they may open some low-level diplomacy with Hamas:

The incoming Obama administration is prepared to abandon George Bush's ­doctrine of isolating Hamas by establishing a channel to the Islamist organisation, sources close to the transition team say.

The move to open contacts with Hamas, which could be initiated through the US intelligence services, would represent a definitive break with the Bush ­presidency's ostracising of the group. The state department has designated Hamas a terrorist organisation, and in 2006 ­Congress passed a law banning US financial aid to the group.

The Guardian has spoken to three ­people with knowledge of the discussions in the Obama camp. There is no talk of Obama approving direct diplomatic negotiations with Hamas early on, but he is being urged by advisers to initiate low-level or clandestine approaches, and there is growing recognition in Washington that the policy of ostracising Hamas is counter-productive. A tested course would be to start ­contacts through Hamas and the US intelligence services, similar to the secret process through which the US engaged with the PLO in the 1970s. Israel did not become aware of the contacts until much later.

It seems like it was only two weeks ago we heard how Iraq was the "central front in the war on terrorism". Oh wait - it was! That's what John McCain and Sarah Palin told us, while trying to paint Obama as dangerous threat who didn't understand the wars we are in.

Well now we got the chief spook saying the same thing:

CIA Director Michael V. Hayden said yesterday that al-Qaeda remains the single greatest threat to the United States but that Iraq is no longer the central front in the broader war on terrorism.

"Today, the flow of money, weapons and foreign fighters into Iraq is greatly diminished and al-Qaeda senior leaders no longer point to it as the central battlefield," Hayden told an audience at the Atlantic Council, a bipartisan group that deals with international affairs. But he warned that al-Qaeda remains "a determined, adaptive enemy" that is resilient and operating "from its safe haven in Pakistan's tribal areas."

"If there is a major strike on this country, it will bear the fingerprints of al-Qaeda," he said. While law enforcement and diplomacy have their place, Hayden said, "this war -- and no one should mistake it as anything else -- is far from over.

Our side has been saying this for the past few years now and we were always chastised for it. Perhaps Hayden is saying it just so he can maybe keep his job, but there's also the chance he had been lying and is now speaking the truth. That's why we need new eyes and minds in the intelligence sector.

And give a Power Point presentation of all these secret nuclear facilities in Iran?

In an echo of the intelligence wars that preceded the U.S. invasion of Iraq, a high-stakes struggle is brewing within the Bush administration and in Congress over Iran's suspected nuclear weapons program and involvement in terrorism.

U.S. intelligence and counterterrorism officials say Bush political appointees and hard-liners on Capitol Hill have tried recently to portray Iran's nuclear program as more advanced than it is and to exaggerate Tehran's role in Hezbollah's attack on Israel in mid-July.

The struggle's outcome could have profound implications for U.S. policy.

President Bush, who addresses the U.N. General Assembly on Tuesday, has said he prefers diplomacy to stop Iran from acquiring a nuclear weapon, but he hasn't ruled out using military force.

If you just switch the N in Iran with a Q, you got 2003 all over again. In fact there is very little change. In 2003, Bush kept saying the same thing about "wanting diplomacy to work", right up till the first bomb dropped in Baghdad. Since then we have all learned that no matter what, Bush was going to war with Iraq.

Here's the question. If this Iran threat is so urgent, then why isn't the rest of the world helping to lead this fight? Why is it the U.S. has to once again be in charge. I believe the answer is very simple - because the U.S. is the only country run by such war mongers.

Well things are really heating up with Iran. You can tell that Bush's approval ratings are in the crapper and they really need something else to divide this country. What a better way to do this then to get Cheney out there opening his mouth (from the WAPO)

Though Lavrov said it was too early to discuss U.N. sanctions against Iran, Vice President Cheney had already issued a blunt threat that Iran will face "meaningful consequences" if it fails to cooperate with international efforts to curb its nuclear program.

OK. Now remember last summer when Cheney was running his mouth about Kim Jong-Il? He said he was the worse leader in the world and this of course upset the North Korean leader and he even broke off talks on the nuclear stand off between us and them. Well Cheney's motor mouth is doing it again (from the AP).

Iran threatened the United States with "harm and pain" Wednesday for its role in hauling Tehran before the U.N. Security Council over its nuclear program.

What does Cheney not get about the word diplomacy? I guess he is just following the normal suit for this entire administration. When numerous other countries disagreed with us on Iraq then we acted like a pack of spoiled brats and even said "whaaa we won't call them French Fries anymore".

It has become obvious how this administration operates. Bush is the spoiled brat that has to always get what he wants. Cheney is the big bully that helps George out so when George needs something its Cheney to the rescue. What will it take to get these two to go on a hunting trip together?

White House press secretary Scott McLellan said today that
Bush could appoint John Bolton as UN ambassador for a recess appointment. This
would be nothing less than a detrimental blow diplomacy as we know it.

John Bolton has been the center of a heated, long time
debate in Senate. Rightfully so, his past tactics are less than diplomatic. He
has been accussed of being an abusive employer and resorting to harsh
obscenities and language to his subordinates. Even a Republican Senator that I
am very familiar with would not recommend him. That Senator is George Voinovich
from Ohio (my state).

One thing that could prove very interesting in this
appointment is the involvement of Bolton in the Valerie Plame case. It has been
reported that he has testified before the grand jury, which is something he lied
to Senate about. There is already speculation flying around the internet that he
is one of the key players in leaking out the identity of the former convert
agent. I myself have been one to agree with this theory. John Bolton has a
history that is a far cry from being exemplary.

Also one must not forget that John Bolton was one of the
authors of a report by the Project for a New American Century that said in 2000
we would need a Perl Harbor like attack in order to gain support to invade Iraq.
Either Mr. Bolton is psychic or there is more to this than everyone knows. I
don’t think he is any competition for Ms. Cleo so I will let you decide.