Elliott Abrams behind Pelosi attacks?

[babylonsister]

http://thinkprogress.org/2007/04/09/elliot-abrams-behind-pelosi-attacks/

Elliott Abrams behind Pelosi attacks?

Jim Lobe writes, “There is little doubt among Middle East analysts here that Abrams is playing a lead role in White House efforts to discredit Pelosi for meeting with Assad,” just as he did in a similar incident in 1987.

UPDATE: “At the one and only meeting between Imad Moustapha, the Syrian ambassador to the United States, and a White House official, one of President Bush’s closest advisers, Elliot Abrams, said the administration saw no good reason to ‘reward’ Syria by opening discussions.”



http://www.ipsnews.net/news.asp?idnews=37281

Elliott Abrams and Déjà Vu All Over Again
Analysis by Jim Lobe

WASHINGTON, Apr 9 (IPS) - It has an all too familiar ring to it.

A crisis area -- in this case, the Middle East -- finds itself in desperate need of a peace process capable of tamping down the forces of violence and destabilisation which the United States itself has played a central role in unleashing.

Regional efforts at diplomacy -- in this case, led by Saudi Arabia -- gain some momentum but are frustrated by die-hard hawks in a U.S. administration. While increasingly on the defensive both at home and abroad, they are determined to carry through their strategy of isolating and destabilising a hostile target -- in this case, Syria -- despite its oft-repeated eagerness to engage Washington and its regional allies.

Sensing an increasingly dangerous impasse, the Democratic Speaker of the House of Representatives -- in this case, Nancy Pelosi, backed by a growing bipartisan consensus that the administration's intransigeance will further reduce already-waning U.S. influence in the region -- tries to encourage regional peace efforts by engaging the target directly.

But, worried that her quest might actually gain momentum, administration hawks -- in this case, led by Deputy National Security Adviser Elliott Abrams and Vice President Dick Cheney -- accuse the speaker of undermining the president and, working through obliging editorial writers at the Washington Post, among other sympathetic media, including, of course, the Wall Street Journal, attack her for "substitut(ing) her own foreign policy for that of a sitting Republican president."

If that scenario sounds familiar, your foreign policy memory dates back at least to 1987, when, despite intensified regional peace-making efforts for which Costa Rican President Oscar Arias won that year's Nobel Peace Prize, the Ronald Reagan administration was persisting in its efforts to isolate and overthrow the Sandinista government in Nicaragua.

more...

[acmavm]

1. Why would anyone who is promoting hostilities between

the US and ANY COUNTRY not be considered a traitor? Elliot Abrams is an old hand at acting against the best interests of the citizens of the United States.

I mean, if the chances of trying to solve the political problems between nations with discussion and reason are possible, why would any government official not take the opportunity and do exactly that?

[babylonsister]

2. They're all a bunch of traitors imo. No one in this admin has proved

to me they care one whit about diplomacy.

[blm]

5. Heh - none of them have shown any love for democracy, either.

.

[Vincardog]

11. Because they are a bunch of WAR PROFITEERS and traitors.

You can not judge these soulless greed monsters by any normal standard.

[blm]

3. Abrams and the rest of the Bush Family Fascists should have NEVER regained power.

They have never stopped interfering with democracy and truthseeking. Honest Democrats are their targets. We stand with you Speaker Pelosi.


http://consortiumnews.com/2006/111106.html

Democrats, the Truth Still Matters!
By Robert Parry
(First Posted May 11, 2006)

Editor's Note: With the Democratic victories in the House and Senate, there is finally the opportunity to demand answers from the Bush administration about important questions, ranging from Dick Cheney's secret energy policies to George W. Bush's Iraq War deceptions. But the Democrats are sure to be tempted to put the goal of "bipartisanship" ahead of the imperative for truth.

Democrats, being Democrats, always want to put governance, such as enacting legislation and building coalitions, ahead of oversight, which often involves confrontation and hard feelings. Democrats have a difficult time understanding why facts about past events matter when there are problems in the present and challenges in the future.

Given that proclivity, we are re-posting a story from last May that examined why President Bill Clinton and the last Democratic congressional majority (in 1993-94) shied away from a fight over key historical scandals from the Reagan-Bush-I years -- and the high price the Democrats paid for that decision:

My book, Secrecy & Privilege, opens with a scene in spring 1994 when a guest at a White House social event asks Bill Clinton why his administration didn’t pursue unresolved scandals from the Reagan-Bush era, such as the Iraqgate secret support for Saddam Hussein’s government and clandestine arms shipments to Iran.

Clinton responds to the questions from the guest, documentary filmmaker Stuart Sender, by saying, in effect, that those historical questions had to take a back seat to Clinton’s domestic agenda and his desire for greater bipartisanship with the Republicans.

Clinton “didn’t feel that it was a good idea to pursue these investigations because he was going to have to work with these people,” Sender told me in an interview. “He was going to try to work with these guys, compromise, build working relationships.”

>>>>>

[Supersedeas]

6. another name that will go down in Bushist infamy -- never forget

[blm]

8. And cousin of Dan Abrams - head of MSNBC news.

Gee - no wonder Dan always covered Kerry with contempt in 2003-4. Kerry's investigations showed his older cousin Elliot to be a fascist traitor to his country.

[nashville_brook]

10. whoa! i didn't know this -- Dan Abrams had an on-air meltdown during the anthrax scare

He was the legal correspondent during the Gore recount mess. i thought he covered that with a bit too much sour puss-ness.

[blm]

14. The over 2 decades-long media campaign against Kerry becomes apparent when

all the puzzle pieces start connecting.

This entire Bush2 administration is rooted in many of the scandals and crimes of office of past administrations and especially over the last three decades.

[gratuitous]

4. Elliot Abrams, beneficiary of the Midnight Pardons

In 1992, near midnight on Christmas Eve, George H.W. Bush faced a daunting future. He'd already lost the 1992 election to the upstart Bill Clinton, and now one of his best friends, Caspar Weinberger, was about to go on trial in the Iran/contra scandal. Prosecutor Walsh had the goods on Weinberger, and everyone knew it. In fact, the evidence at trial could very well show that Poppy was not "out of the loop" as he famously claimed on Iran/contra. His own hand-written notes would show that he had discussed the arms-for-hostages swap, and subsequent diversion of funds to the Contra insurgents in Nicaragua. In addition to Weinberger, Elliot Abrams and others were in big trouble, too.

What to do, what to do?

Using the unchallengeable power of the presidential pardon, with the stroke of a pen, Bush ended the Iran/contra investigation, keeping his pals out of jail for their crimes, and simultaneously ending all further inquiry into his own misdeeds. And now Elliot Abrams returns 14 years later to keep perpetrating the political hackery and skullduggery that got him in such trouble in the 1980s.

Thanks a lot, Mr. Bush. Burn in Hell for a while, would you? And once the dross of your inhuman proclivities is burned away, perhaps the teeny, tiny remainder can enter Heaven.

[underpants]

7. and the Venezuelan "coup" of 2002

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Elliott_Abrams

[blm]

16. Thanks for the rundown for those who still haven't connected why all of this

is still behind just about everything occurring today.

It's been one CONTINUOUS CRIME SPREE for the BFEE and their operatives.

[babylonsister]

9. kick!

[The Count]

12. Don't you mess with my wars!

Some great cartoon in here...

[bigtree]

13. good report

thanks! :hi:

[AuntPatsy]

15. Sadly I am even seeing some dems question her sincerity, I am at a loss

as to why they would even question her after all she has done;

[blm]

17. Fear, imo. Get too far from Bush's position and stick your own neck out and you'll

get the target drawn on you.

This is what has happened consistently throughout Bush's reign, during the 2004 campaign where many stayed closer to Bush than Kerry on terrorism and Iraq war issues, and still recently on Alito filibuster, censure, Iraq withdrawal vote last June, Lamont v Lieberman, and more.

They fear sticking up for their own even when they know they are right.