U.S. Withdraws Ambassador From Syria

[ODShowtime]

6 minutes ago White House - AP Cabinet & State

By BARRY SCHWEID, AP Diplomatic Writer

WASHINGTON - The United States has recalled its ambassador to Syria amid rising tensions over the assassination of former Prime Minister Rafik Hariri of Lebanon.

Before departing, U.S. Ambassador Margaret Scobey delivered a stern note, called a demarche in diplomatic parlance, to the Syrian government, said the official, who spoke on condition of anonymity.

State Department spokesman Richard Boucher, announcing the U.S. move, said that it the Bush administration's "profound outrage" over Hariri's assassination.

The administration had earlier condemned Monday's killing in Beirut of Hariri, the billionaire construction magnate who masterminded the recovery of his country and insisted that Syria comply with a U.N. resolution calling for the withdrawal of Syrian troops from Lebanon.

Hariri, like most Lebanese politicians, walked a thin line between criticizing Damascus and deferring to the country that plays a dominant role in Lebanon's affairs.

He resigned four months ago in light of tensions with Syria but was weighing a political comeback. A Sunni Muslim, Hariri was on good terms with Lebanese Christians and was especially close to French President Jacques Chirac, who has called for an international investigation into the assassination.

The Bush administration did not directly support Chirac on his call for an international inquiry, but the White House on Monday said those responsible for the bombing of Hariri's motorcade must be punished.

"The United States will consult with other governments in the region and on the Security Council today about measures that can be taken to punish those responsible for this terrorist attack, to end the use of violence and intimidation against the Lebanese people and to restore Lebanon's independence, sovereignty and democracy by freeing it from foreign occupation," White House press secretary Scott McClellan said.

McClellan said it was not clear who was responsible for the bomb attack and refused to speculate whether Syria or Iran, was behind it.

http://news.yahoo.com/news?tmpl=story&u=/ap/20050215/ap_on_go_ca_st_pe/us_syria


Hey, what the hell? This sounds like a good enough reason to invade!

[kentuckyklira]

Wow, the US administration condemning a foreign occupation of an independant country!:eek:

I thought Americans didn´t know how to use irony!:confused:

[Warham]

Let's just nuke em.

[ODShowtime]

Originally posted by Warham
Let's just nuke em.

Now what would your hero Clinton say about that kind of talk?

[Warham]

Are you talking about the same Clinton that bombed an aspirin factory to divert attention away from the Lewinsky scandal?

[Nickdfresh]

Originally posted by Warham
Are you talking about the same Clinton that bombed an aspirin factory to divert attention away from the Lewinsky scandal?

Yeah, trying to kill Osama Bin Laden was just a ploy to throw-off the blowjob police.

[Warham]

Yeah, he really showed bin Laden!

How many terrorist attacks did we have on our turf or military in the 90's and did nothing about them? U.S.S. Cole and the WTC '93 bombings come to mind. I'm sure others come to mind.

[BigBadBrian]

Originally posted by Nickdfresh
Yeah, trying to kill Osama Bin Laden was just a ploy to throw-off the blowjob police.

HUMINT couldn't confirm he was there or anywhere at any one time for a Tomahawk strike. That was akin to trying to kill a jackrabbit with a cannon. Yes, wag the dog it was...no matter which way you slice it.

:gulp:

[Nickdfresh]

Originally posted by BigBadBrian
HUMINT couldn't confirm he was there or anywhere at any one time for a Tomahawk strike. That was akin to trying to kill a jackrabbit with a cannon. Yes, wag the dog it was...no matter which way you slice it.

:gulp:

Sort of like invading Iraq to cover for the 52 warnings issued between April 4, 2001 and September 10, 2001. Action is the illusion of progress. Funny how that works, oh yeah, we're "liberating" the Iraqis now, eh?

[ODShowtime]

Originally posted by Warham
Yeah, he really showed bin Laden!

How many terrorist attacks did we have on our turf or military in the 90's and did nothing about them? U.S.S. Cole and the WTC '93 bombings come to mind. I'm sure others come to mind.

WOW! Welcome to retard land. That's the dumbest thing I've ever read from you. Your Clinton monomania is driving you insane, much like my displeasure with gw&friends. Look what you said 13 minutes before:


Originally posted by Warham
Are you talking about the same Clinton that bombed an aspirin factory to divert attention away from the Lewinsky scandal?


So when Clintontakes action against Bin Laden and there's a mistake, you make fun of him when you know he was only depending his intelligence services and military.

But then you make fun of Clinton for doing nothing against Bin Laden.

Reconcile yourself

[Warham]

Answer my questions, and I'll answer yours.

What did Clinton do about those terrorist attacks? I hardly find it retarded, OD. You might, but I don't find 500 dead Americans retarded, and find that Clinton bombing an aspirin factory in retaliation, especially after the scandal is hardly getting back.

[FORD]

Clinton got closer to killing Bin Laden than Junior ever did.

But then Clinton wasn't Osama's business partner either.

[BigBadBrian]

Originally posted by FORD
Clinton got closer to killing Bin Laden than Junior ever did.

But then Clinton wasn't Osama's business partner either.

You're deluded, FORD. Has the BCE hacked your computer again?

[Warham]

Clinton killed all his business partners in the past. Perhaps he should have gotten into business with bin Laden.

[Nickdfresh]

Originally posted by Warham
Answer my questions, and I'll answer yours.

What did Clinton do about those terrorist attacks? I hardly find it retarded, OD. You might, but I don't find 500 dead Americans retarded, and find that Clinton bombing an aspirin factory in retaliation, especially after the scandal is hardly getting back.


How many times are we going to rehash this shit? Clinton killed hundreds of Al-Qaida operatives and their family members. You conveniently out the fact that he also blasted an Al-Qaida camp the same day. In fact I'll argue that the relentless investigations by Ken Starr hindered the War on Terror under Clinton. But hey, the hard right wanted a witch-hunt, and they got one. But his Administration tried to kill Osama no less than four, and possibly as many as six-times, only to be thwarted by a hesitant DofCIA, Tenent.

The chips of the 9/11 Commission clearly fall we're they may, on the side of the Bush Administration. Which ignored warnings, and did almost nothing action-wise. Condi was to busy looking good and doting over her husband to care.

[Nickdfresh]

Jesus Warham, what's with a avatar? You are seriously creeping me out!:confused:

[Nickdfresh]

Originally posted by Warham
Clinton killed all his business partners in the past. Perhaps he should have gotten into business with bin Laden.

Perhaps Bush could have infiltrated Al-Qaida, becomes the CEO, and made it fail.;)

[Cathedral]

You know, debates in here get started over valid points of view, but then they vanish and it takes a nose dive into insults.

For one, we need to understand that the amount of terror warnings we get on a daily basis are many. It isn't always easy to spot the real threats.

I also think Bush made a mistake by assuming that threats of flying jets into the twin towers was not possible.
I didn't think it was possible for the level of destruction caused, and i was wrong.
Of course Bush is pissing me off with his lack of attention to the borders which makes a repeat of 9-11 all to possible.

But lets also put a % of the blame where it is due.
I read in this thread that Clinton tried to kill Bin Laden 4-6 times but missed....So why was Bin Laden not picked up when he was gift wrapped for us in....damn i forget the country, was it Syria?

I don't buy this idea that he was actually trying to kill Bin Laden when after the fact Clinton doesn't bother to go get him when he was basically delivered to the Clinton Admin.
"We got him, Do you want him?"
I am still waiting for the answer to why we didn't get him, because chances are if we had, there quite possibly wouldn't have been a 9-11 in the form which we experienced it.

Bush may have ignored warnings that he shouldn't have, but Clinton ignored attacks and in some cases altered his foreign policy which only proved to empower the terror cells.

People make mistakes, and sometimes people die for them.
Clinton and Bush are both equally responsible for what happenned in Sept, 2001.
And i say that because both of them had to engage the same enemy during their Admins.

The threats and the goals of the terrorists did not change because of a change in the guard here, but both Presidents are rsponsible for the citizens of this country, so they both have the blood of our brothers and sisters on their hands.

There will be no passing of the buck here, they both screwed up, period.

I'll say this about Bush though, he didn't ignore the attacks and quite frankly it was time for us to flex our military muscle or risk getting hit harder here at home next time.

Hindsight is 20/20, but to say that Bush is solely to blame is silly...They both ignored the threats because they, as we all did, though that since Pearl Harbor we could never be hit on our shores.

They both screwed up, but at least Bush showed some balls and stood firm on the fact that we were finally going to face terrorism head on and not ignore it any longer.

Questions:
If not for Iraq how long would it have been before we learned that N.Korea and Iran were running full steam with nuclear programs?

Maybe, just maybe we wouldn't have found out until a mushroom cloud formed over a major city.

Hell, N.Korea hasn't even tested a nuke yet, so how do we know for sure they even have one?
we do know that they could level large portions of S.Korea with conventional weapons, which is why military action against N.Korea is not an American option right now.

China will play the major role in disarming N.Korea because they are the one's that have the power to put the squeeze on them.
If that doesn't work, then things are going to get very heated very quickly.

[Warham]

Let's put the blood on the hands of the real killers: al-Queda.

[Nickdfresh]

Envoy insists Syria cooperating with U.S.

Syrian ambassador responds to recalling of U.S. envoy, tensions

Wednesday, February 16, 2005 Posted: 12:54 PM EST (1754 GMT)
U.S. Ambassador to Syria Margaret Scobey


WASHINGTON (CNN) -- Syria's ambassador to the United States said Wednesday his country has worked diligently to ease tensions with the United States.

Imad Moustapha was responding to the withdrawal of his U.S. counterpart from Syria over what U.S. Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice said was "a growing list of differences" between Washington and Damascus.

Rice recalled Margaret Scobey for "urgent consultations" after Monday's assassination of former Lebanese Prime Minister Rafik Hariri in Beirut.

Moustapha responded on CNN's "American Morning", saying his country has routinely strived to cooperate with the United States during the last 18 months.

"Whenever the United States came to Syria asking us for assistance ... we immediately engaged with the United States," Moustapha said.

"This has included our support for the elections in Iraq, our securing the borders. We have done everything possible to secure the borders between Syria and Iraq."

Syria has 13,000 troops in Lebanon, which officials say are there for peace-keeping reasons.

Moustapha also said that the most recent message he delivered to U.S. officials was that "Syria has the political will and desire to constructively engage with the United States and to improve relations with the United States."

Ambassador recalled

Rice had said she summoned Scobey home to discuss a "growing list of differences with the Syrian government."

Hariri was killed in an explosion Monday in which 16 other people died and 137 were wounded.

Scobey met with Syrian Foreign Minister Farook al-Shar'a for undisclosed reasons Wednesday before her scheduled departure.

In other top diplomatic talks, U.S. Assistant Secretary of State William Burns met Wednesday with Lebanese Foreign Minister Mahmoud Hammoud, calling for the implementation of a U.N. resolution passed last October that calls for the immediate withdrawal of the 13,000 Syrian troops that al-Shar'a says are stationed in Lebanon.

The troops' objective, according to Syria and the pro-Syrian Lebanese government, is to help maintain security.

Common interests, not united front

Wednesday, Syrian Prime Minister Naji al-Otari met with Iranian Vice President Mohammad Reza Aref in Tehran. Iran is also locked in a diplomatic confrontation with the United States over its nuclear power program and what President Bush says is its support for terrorism.

Earlier, the Iranian and Syrian officials pledged to cooperate in facing any threats, according a Reuters news service report.

But Wednesday Iran's foreign minister downplayed coordination between Iran and Syria, saying countries must cooperate to solve problems facing the entire Middle East.

At a news conference following talks with German Foreign Minister Joschka Fischer, Iranian Foreign Minister Kamal Kharazi said: "Iran and Syria have some common interests; that does not mean we are going to establish a united front.

"But we have to help, to cooperate with each other, from the Europeans, from countries in the Middle East, to solve problems the whole Middle East is facing."

Syria's troops

Rice did not accuse Syria of involvement in Hariri's death, but she said Syria's refusal to withdraw its troops was a factor.

"There is no doubt the conditions created by Syria's presence there have created a destabilized situation in Lebanon," she told reporters Tuesday. "That is very clear to everyone."

Moustapha dismissed the argument that Syrian troops could have stopped Hariri's assassination by a massive bomb in downtown Beirut."Our troops are not in any major Lebanese city," he said.

"Definitely not in Beirut. They have been out of Beirut for at least two years."You have 150,000 troops in Iraq and you can't stop acts of terrorism. We have 13,000 troops (in Lebanon)."

Moustapha said that if Lebanon's government -- the current one or the one to be elected in May -- asks Syrian forces to leave, "We will leave immediately. We will not blink an eye."
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Reuters contributed to this report.
Story Tools
____
____
Click Here to try 4 Free Trial Issues of Time!


http://www.cnn.com/2005/WORLD/meast/02/16/us.syria/index.html