Posted on 01/30/2008 8:13:35 AM PST by jdm
The State Department reacted angrily to the appearance of UN Ambassador Zalmay Khalilzad on a panel at the Davos Economic Forum, along with two members of the Iranian government. The US restricts diplomatic contacts with Iran and requires prior approval for any such interaction. Apparently, Khalilzad took it upon himself to make that decision:
An appearance by America's U.N. ambassador, Zalmay Khalilzad, on a World Economic Forum discussion panel — alongside two Iranian officials, Foreign Minister Manouchehr Mottaki, and a close aide to President Ahmadinejad, Samare Hashemi — was unauthorized by the State Department and angered Secretary of State Rice, Washington sources said yesterday.The panel, titled "Understanding Iran's Foreign Policy," took place in Davos, Switzerland, and dealt mostly with Iran's nuclear policy, just as Security Council diplomats — including America's U.N. mission headed by Mr. Khalilzad — began to forge a new resolution that would impose new punitive measures on Iran for its refusal to suspend its uranium enrichment program, as demanded by the council. ...
The Bush administration policy, however, calls on all American officials to seek an authorization from the State Department before conducting dialogue with Iranian officials. The only person exempted from that restriction is the American ambassador to Iraq, Ryan Crocker, who can discuss Iraq-related issues with Iranian officials on a regular basis, according to a State Department official in Washington who spoke on condition of anonymity.
Mr. Khalilzad's participation on the Davos panel was "not authorized," the official told The New York Sun yesterday, after a videotaping of the event was posted on the Web site YouTube and made the rounds among diplomats at the United Nations.
According to Power Line, Khalilzad not only defied American policy, but let slide an opening comment that insulted his predecessor, John Bolton. The moderator noted in his effusive introduction of Khalilzad that among his outstanding qualities was "the further, really formidable advantage of having a name that is not John Bolton." Regardless of whether Khalilzad had prior authorization, allowing the insult to Bolton to stand unchallenged represents an insult to the United States and a lack of testicular fortitude on the part of his replacement.
Some have offered Khalilzad as a Secretary of State in a future Republican administration. I'd say this scotches that as a possibility. If he can't follow the rules and represent the foreign policy of the US, then he doesn't deserve the appointment, and may not deserve the one he has now.
The video itself can be seen here:
http://youtube.com/watch?v=I0tUweJy6mk&rel=1
I find it interesting that the Davos Economic Summit now makes its panel discussions public via YouTube. Three years ago, when Eason Jordan accused the US military of having a policy of assassinating journalists in war zones, Davos couldn't be bothered to publish the video or audio of the actual remarks of the then-CNN vice president. I guess they find it easier to publish insults towards the American government.
Does anybody else wonder why we still support the UN?
It tries to undermine the Constitution of the USA and would love to cripple our Constitutional Republic.
In over 60 years No major politician has ever tried to get the USA out of the UN.
16 out of 17 of the AMERICANS that were involved in creating the U . N. were later identified, in sworn testimony, as secret communist agents.
The first (Titular) Secretary General was the AMERICAN Alger Hiss.
Alger Hiss served time in prison pursuant to his involvement in a Communist spy ring.
Many of the other AMERICANS that were involved in creating the U . N. fled the country, to avoid prosecution.
The ONE AMERICAN, that was involved in creating the U . N. and was NOT later identified, in sworn testimony, as a secret communist agent, was Dean Acheson.
Dean Acheson’s law firm was the legal representative of the Soviet Union, in U. S. courts.
If the AMERICANS that were involved in creating the U . N. were Communists, what do you think we got from the rest of the world?
John Bolton was the best ambassador the US for a long time. I hope Khalilzad gets canned.
Those with names like: Khalilizad, Hashem Islam, and Barak Hussein Obama, should not be allowed positions in our government until the War on Terror is over.
Can’t watch the video at work ... but I must say Khalilzad is a rocking name. Sounds like a Bond villain — or an islamic terrorist version of a Superman villain from the Phantom Zone.
“KNEEL BEFORE KHALILZAD!!”
H
Didn’t take him long to buddy up to the Islamofascists. Did we call that or what?
So fire him.
It is clear he has an identity crisis
Bolton should disappear. He is one of the reasons for the ascendancy of the Democrats.
LMAO, that was great.
Bolton should disappear? Why? Because he has balls? Because he would die rather than see our sovereignty compromised? Because he knows Islamofascists cannot be dealt with absent one-sided appeasement?
How so?
Why do you say this?
Check Wikipedia on Bolton. He is part of Bush’s 33% approval, hence the rise of Democrats.
I wonder if John Bolton is interested in running, we could use him—he*s bold and fearless on top of his vast knowledge and reason on the world scene. Oh and I see where he is an NRA member.
Who’s the dumb f%ck that appointed Khalilzad?
Really, really, dumb reason to lose Bolton.
If we got rid of everything that pissed off the left, where would that leave us?
since you don*t come up with more detail, I assume you mean that Bush cringed when Bolton spoke his mind, and the truth, and Bush saw criticism by various UN rats coming his way.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.