High level dispute

With 7 days to go until he is out of office, I thought george bush would content himself with his faux-victory lap, giving interviews and press conferences to press his version of history, full of all the lies, denial, and spin he can manage. I even found one thing to be grateful for: that he did not start a war with Iran which, as recently as 6 months ago, I was moderately sure he would do. It does seem that Robert Gates and Condi Rice have been able to neutralize some of Cheney's most aggressive intentions.

But his self-congratulation goes too far, and CNN's Campbell Brown challenged his claim that his administration's response to Katrina was not too slow, as had been almost universally acknowledged:

"Mr. President, you cannot pat yourself on the back for that one," she then said. "We will debate the war in Iraq, debate national security, the economy, and the rest of your legacy. Those debates will continue for years to come. But on how you handled Katrina, there is no debate."

Now, in his last week, we have a big international flap of who's telling the truth at the highest levels of the U.S. and Israel. It concerns the U.N. resolution calling for immediate cease fire in Gaza that Condi Rice and the British and French ministers had introduced, haggled with Arab leaders over wording, and finally worked out a compromise that was about to be voted on.

Here's what Reuter's News Agency is reporting this morning:

Arab ministers said after the U.N. vote Thursday that Rice had promised them the United States would support the resolution, but then made an apparent about-face after talking to Bush.

A few minutes before the scheduled vote at the United Nations, Rice's staff told reporters she would make a few brief comments beforehand, but then abruptly canceled her press appearance, saying she would instead speak to Bush by phone.

The vote was delayed while other ministers waited for Rice to finish the call. She then entered the U.N. Security Council chamber, huddled with Arab ministers who shook their heads as she spoke to them.

Immediately after the vote, Rice left for Washington without talking to waiting reporters. Her spokesman did not return repeated calls and e-mail over why Rice had reneged on her promise to Arab leaders to back the vote.

On Monday, Israeli Prime Minister Ehud Olmert released a statement saying that he had called Bush and "demanded" to talk with him with only 10 minutes to spare before the vote and that Bush then called Rice and told her not to vote for it. If reports of Olmert's statement are correct, he seemed to be gloating that he was able to control the U.S. vote. "He [Bush] gave an order to the secretary of state and she did not vote in favor of it -- a resolution she cooked up, phrased, organized and maneuvered for. She was left pretty shamed and abstained on a resolution she arranged," Olmert said.

On Tuesday, White House spokesman Gordon Johndroe issued a denial, saying that the reports were "inaccurate."

"Inaccurate" is a politician's waste basket that can be a diplomatic way of saying the other person is flat-out lying -- or it can be a dodge of the truth based on an incomplete or slightly misworded quotation. We may never know.

What is undeniable, it seems, is that there was a last minute change in the U.S. position. And someone is trying to cover up what happened. When both the Arab leaders and the Israeli Prime Minister tell the same story, I'm inclined to believe them rather than the White House's weak denial.

It's not over 'til it's over.

Ralph