High-level, bilateral diplomatic meetings for me, but not for thee

May 3, 2007

Following up on an item from yesterday, the White House excoriated House Speaker Nancy Pelosi for engaging with Syrian officials a month ago, which is why today’s meeting between Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice and Syrian Foreign Minister Walid al-Moallem was so interesting.

Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice held talks Thursday with Syrian Foreign Minister Walid al-Moallem, the first such high-level contact in more than two years between the Bush administration and a government it has denounced as a state sponsor of terrorism.

“We talked about Iraq and bilateral relations,” Moallem said as he was mobbed by reporters after the 30-minute meeting on the sidelines of an international conference on Iraq at this Red Sea resort. […]

According to the Syrian Arab News Agency, the official mouthpiece of the Damascus government, Rice and Moallem met “in the presence of members of the Syrian and U.S. delegations.” It said the talks “dealt with the situation in Iraq and the necessity of achieving stability and security” there. The two sides also “reviewed the bilateral relations between Syria and U.S.A. and the importance of developing them to serve peace, security and stability in the region,” the news agency said.

So, how is it that Pelosi’s meeting with Syrians bordered on treason and was the subject of a massive White House p.r. offensive, while Rice’s meeting with Syrians is worthwhile diplomacy?

White House Press Secretary Tony Snow explained in today’s press briefing. Well, at least he tried to explain.

From the transcript:

Q: The Secretary of State met with the Syrian envoy this morning. How is that not bilateral? How is it not formal?

SNOW: Because — I’ll let them do the readout, but again, that was a pull-aside conversation where —

Q: What’s the distinction?

SNOW: Well, the distinction is, if you have a set aside — a meeting that’s set aside, and somebody says, okay, we’re going to schedule a meeting, we’re going to sit down and do this….

Q: I know, it’s your characterization that I’m still — how’s it — I mean, they sat down, they had formal discussion, and there were two of them there.

SNOW: No, they didn’t. I’m not sure that they had formal discussions; I’m not sure it was just two.

Q: Maybe a limited range of subjects, but —

SNOW: No, there was — limited range of subject, like one.

Q: That’s still informal and not bilateral.

SNOW: It’s a conversation. Yes, it’s a conversation. In fact, conversations happen. It’s a good thing.

So, when Rice and Moallem have a discussion, it’s not diplomacy, it’s a “pull-aside conversation.” When there are only two delegations present — our and the Syrians — that’s not bilateral because, well, just because.

And when Pelosi talks to Syrians she’s engaged in what Dick Cheney calls “bad behavior,” and when Rice talks to Syrians it’s a “good thing.”

Baghdad Bob hasn’t gone away; he’s just changed sides.

Why do reporters keep asking Snow questions? They must be idiots.

  • C’mon CB, “So, how is it that Pelosi’s meeting with Syrians bordered on treason and was the subject of a massive White House p.r. offensive, while Rice’s meeting with Syrians is worthwhile diplomacy?” Anyone to the left of Lil’ Georgie is a traitor and should be hung simply because they exist! They certainly shouldn’t engage in the holy prerogatives of BushCo. 😉

  • Pelosi had to walk over the Hill and then come back and say no lions over there, so Rice could then feel it was ok to go over the Hill. Thanks Pelosi…at least their talking. Rice is the “talker” girl who reports to the “commander” guy in the world of kindergarten diplomacy. How embarrassing.

  • Don’t insult Baghdad Bob by comparing him to the Condi-liar. We could laugh at Baghdad Bob.
    Medical research shows that extented exposure to this form of Rice causes elevated blood pressure & almost uncontrollable rage. Well, for 70% of the American people, at least. A higher percentage of people internationally are similarly affected. A proposed antidote of a certain type of toxic Kool-aid is suggested to prevent the ill effects, but most people concur that the cure is worse than the symtoms.

  • Some interesting dribbles from Tony Baloney’s presser. First he defines “acceptable level of violence”. Turns out it means “any amount that doesn’t bring down the government”.

    Q Do you, today, have a definition of what an acceptable level of violence would be in Iraq?

    MR. SNOW: You know, I think what you’ve managed to do is to try to get your — we’re now playing the adjective game. The fact is, when you talk about an acceptable level, it is something that allows the government to exist independently. If you want to — the problem is, everybody says, oh, so you accept violence. You like — violence is okay. No, it’s not okay.

    …

    …What you’re trying to do is to address the kinds of violence that are designed to destroy Iraq — for instance, al Qaeda recent attacks that are designed not only to create a lot of bloodshed and to weaken the government, but also to reignite sectarian violence. That has always been the al Qaeda MO. That is something that you’re going to have to address.

    If there is — and so those are the issues, those that jeopardize the very existence of the government, those are the things that we want to address.

    Q So he wants to minimize violence to a nuisance?

    MR. SNOW: What you want to do is to be able to have the government in a position where it can stand by itself…

    He lets loose brain fart by saying he thinks a woman might enter the Republican presidential primaries…

    Q Will the President be watching the Republican debate tonight?

    MR. SNOW: I don’t know. That’s a good question. I have no idea.

    Q How much of an issue do you think he should be in this debate?

    MR. SNOW: I don’t — you know, it’s one of those things that — I have a feeling that there will be attempts to goad people into talking about it. On the other hand, each of these people is running for President on his own merits — there may even be some “hers” getting in here. Who knows?…

    Then he explains why Bush’s best buddy isn’t really even involved in the investigation of Stuart Bowen…

    Q The White House is investigating Stuart Bowen. How did this investigation get going? And can it have credibility, or will it look just like a political retribution against somebody who was very critical–

    MR. SNOW: Well, two things: First, the White House is not investigating Stuart Bowen. And it’s very important to correct that.

    Q — led by Clay Johnson.

    MR. SNOW: No, Clay Johnson actually is — what you have is the President’s Council on Integrity and Efficiency — this was created by an executive order in 1992…

    Blah blah blah… fillibuster, blah blah…

    …So it’s very important to be — to draw the distinction there. Clay obviously does chair the President’s Council on Integrity and Efficiency.

    Q Who does Clay work for?

    MR. SNOW: He works for the President, obviously. But on the other hand, you have inspectors general who operate independently of the agencies, and they’re the ones who are actually conducting it. So, again, I know you want to try to set up the narrative, but Clay is not, in fact, involved in the process, nor was he involved in the referral…

    “I know you want to try to set up the narrative”?

    Tony Baloney doesn’t ever do that.

    lies, more lies, and more lies.

  • Haik is right. What kind of self-respecting human would go into the White House Press Room everyday to be spoon fed that line of crap.

    If a guy just stands there and lies to you, what kind of corrosive effect must it have on your soul and intellect to “report” it. Isn’t that kind of like watching people die in Iraq and doing nothing about it? Of yeah, they’re doing that too.

    Yeah Free Press!! You’re doing a heckuva job there reporters!

  • Yes, the sheer actions by this Administration over the course of the past 6 years have led to disrespect for the law, and disrespect in general toward others and their particular positions within any particular institutional setting. We no longer seemingly are able to relate our views without disparaging the views of others. We have lost our way. My personal many thanks to the self-proclaimed uniter. -Kevo

  • We’re a laughing stock. It’s that simple. The fact that this bumbling bunch of oblivious bozoz still get pampered by the press, still have the nerve to insult our intelligence, still operate with impunity against the will of the people; along with a congress that is still playing politics (obviously timid and still too worried about ‘image’) makes me sick. Impeachment is the only answer for these usurpers of democracy. Anything less is a slap on the hand with a get out of jail pass. Congress needs to find it’s balls. The only way you can deter a bully is to punch him in the face. Bu$h is ripe for just that, and I can’t understand why it hasn’t happened.

  • #7-Kevo: “We no longer seemingly are able to relate our views without disparaging the views of others. We have lost our way….(T)hanks to the self-proclaimed uniter.”-Kevo.

    How true that statement is; thanks Kevo: Instead of actually uniting the country, President George W. Bush and his cronies have, by their actions and deeds, divided this country’s citizens and promulgated disrespect for the constitution and the laws of this land. Such malfeasance by those currently in office should be subject to accountability for acting criminally.

  • “conversations happen”

    Thanks Tony, but I think the expression is “Sh*t Happens.” Conversations don’t just happen as “pull asides” when one of the parties, Condi in this case, has to fly halfway around the world to say, “Walid al-Moallem, funny I should run into you while I’m shopping for shoes in Damascus.” Tony’s little dance is really, really sad.

  • I miss McClellan.
    Come back to us, Scott!
    We miss your wincing angst.
    You had the decency to be embarrassed by hypocrisy.
    It was quite endearing.

    • Comments are closed.