What Part Of Not Authorized Did Khalilzad Not Understand? (DES moderator slams John Bolton on video)

Captain's Quarters ^ | Jan. 30, 2008 | Ed Morrissey

[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.

[luvadavi]

Probably Condi Rice?

[jedward]

Presidential Appointment...just a hunch.

[Sir Gawain]

The Democrat Congress has a lower approval than the pres. How does your theory work with that little fact?

[luvadavi]

That figures, more appeasement of the enemy.

[jedward]

I’ve made no bones about not being a Bush fan. I figured what the answer was, I just wanted to hear someone say it (lol)

[luvadavi]

Well, we*re realists! Look at all the wailing and teeth-grinding now after the Florida vote—this is only a part of Bush*s legacy.

[jedward]

Good point. He’ll be remembered and perceieved by each person...however they want to perceive him. I believe in partisianship as we have a bi-cameral system. Being partisan is only natural. But, when things like common sense, the pulse of the american people and other important things start getting trampled on, I tend to get pissed. And it doesn’t matter to me one bit if they’re a Republican. Being a “compassionate conservative” Republican in clothing only, simply aggrevates the already frustrated realist. You’re right IMO, we’re realists. I think that is a good thing.

[Cuttnhorse]

I hope Khalilzad gets canned.

Me too! Fat chance, even though Condi Rice is angry; I'll bet that has Khalilzad shaking in fear.

[luvadavi]

I still think John Bolton would make us a great President . what do others think?

[jedward]

Not sure about that, but I would say that serious consideration given to Condi for VP would be a hell of a good way to plug the Foreign Policy hole that the Republicans have right now. If the let the liberal media dictate the race as having its focus on Domestic Policies, then we’re screwed. Foreign Policy (and Conservatism) is what gets Republican elected. Always has. I even took swipes at Condi here on the board, but I’m also not naive to the fact that she has a boss. Things change when bosses change.