U.S. Ambassador Susan Rice and Russian Ambassador Vitaly Churkin have exchanged a series of highly personalized attacks against one another in the past 24 hours, signaling a sharp deterioration of U.S.-Russian relations at the United Nations over the response to the Arab Spring.

But the exchange reached a new level today when Rice's spokesman, Mark Kornblau, while watching Churkin insult his boss, Tweeted an edited picture of Churkin inside the face of the "Grinch Who Stole Christmas." The U.S. delegation had previously shared the photo with the Security Council, including Churkin, last year when the Russian envoy resisted Rice's efforts to convene a Security Council meeting with the world's youth. He apparently laughed then. Not clear if he thought it was funny this time around.

The latest diplomatic row has sharpened since the Russian envoy has begun pressing for a U.N.-backed investigation into allegations that NATO killed civilians during its air campaign against forces loyal to Muammar al-Qaddafi.

It comes as Russia has frustrated U.S. and European efforts to use the Security Council to ratchet up political pressure, through the threat of sanctions, on Syria to compel President Bashar al-Assad to halt a violent crackdown on protesters.

Rice suggested that the real intent of the Russian initiative was to divert attention from Syria's conduct. "Oh, the bombast and bogus claims," Rice said on Wednesday, after listening to Churkin speak outside the council. "Welcome to December. Is everybody sufficiently distracted from Syria now and the killing that is happening before our very eyes?"

Regarding Libya, Rice added: "Now, obviously, the United States and NATO partners regret any loss of civilian lives, but we also know that these are being already investigated, including by the Human Rights Council Commission of Inquiry...we welcome that. We note that neither the Libyan government nor the majority of members of the Security Council expressed any interest in any additional investigations. And, frankly, I think it's not an exaggeration to say that this is something of a cheap stunt to divert attention from other issues and to obscure the success of NATO and its partners -- and indeed the Security Council -- in protecting the people of Libya.... So...let us see this for what it is: it is duplicitous, it's redundant, it's superfluous and it's a stunt."

Churkin organized its own press briefing today to respond to Rice's comments, maintaining that the United States and its European partners are seeking to use the council to bring about regime change in Syria, and that their refusal to support a negotiated settlement of the Syrian conflict has exacerbated tensions, driving the country into an increasingly violent civil war.

But the briefing quickly got personal, as Churkin recalled what he described as a "rather unusual outburst" by Rice.

"This is not an issue that can be drowned out by expletives. You might recall the words one could hear: bombast and bogus claims, cheap stunt, duplicitous, redundant, superfluous, stunt," he said. "Oh, you know, you cannot beat a Stanford education, can you," said Churkin mocking Rice's alma mater.

"We here that the Obama administration wants to establish a dialogue with the international community in the United Nations, and in the Security Council," he added. "If that is to be the case, if this is the intention, really this Stanford dictionary of expletives must be replaced by something more Victorian, because certainly this is not the language in which we intend to discuss matters with our partners in the Security Council."

What did Rice have to say about that?

"Happy Holidays to my good friend Amb Churkin, who's clearly had a long month as Sec Council president," Rice wrote in a Tweet after the briefing. "Hope he gets some well deserved rest."

Follow me on Twitter @columlynch

 

WALTSWRONGWITHTHISPICTURE

9:38 PM ET

December 23, 2011

ummmm. reset what? eh mr obama?

gee that new kinder softer multilateralism is sure workin eh?

 

SUMMAR007

10:25 AM ET

December 24, 2011

good

Dec. 17, 2008 - It has become an annual tradition for America’s Scrooges to attack Christian symbols and traditions. This year, the flash point has been Washington state where Governor Chris Gregoire has allowed a group of atheists to post a sign that reads in part that “religion is a myth and superstition that hardens hearts and enslaves minds” in the capitol rotunda next to a Christmas tree and a Nativity scene. The governor claims she couldn’t object because of the right to free speech, but that only proves she is the world’s largest Christmas fruitcake. It is the atheists whose belief system constitutes an extremely rigid religion of its own that hardens hearts. If the Jews of Washington had a menorah in the rotunda, would the goofy governor have given the American Nazi party a thumbs-up if they had wanted to display a copy of Mein Kampf? -BP

I never thought I’d live to see the day that Christmas would become a dirty word. You think it hasn’t? Then why is it that people are being prevented from saying it in polite society for fear that it will offend?

Schools are being forced to replace “Christmas vacation” with “winter break” in their printed schedules. At Macy’s, the word is verboten even though they’ve made untold millions of dollars from their sympathetic portrayal in the Christmas classic, “Miracle on 34th Street.” Carols, even instrumental versions, are banned in certain places. A major postal delivery service has not only made their drivers doff their Santa caps, but ordered them not to decorate their trucks with Christmas wreaths.

How is it, one well might ask, that in a Christian nation this is happening? And in case you find that designation objectionable, would you deny that India is a Hindu country, that Pakistan is Muslim, that Poland is Catholic? That doesn’t mean those nations are theocracies. But when the overwhelming majority of a country’s population is of one religion, and roughly 90% of Americans happen to be one sort of Christian or another, only a damn fool would deny the obvious.

Although it seems a long time ago, it really wasn’t, that people who came here from other places made every attempt to fit in. Assimilation wasn’t a threat to anyone; it was what the Statue of Liberty represented. E pluribus unum, one out of many, was our motto. The world’s melting pot was our nickname. It didn’t mean that any group of people had to check their customs, culture or cuisine, at the door. It did mean that they, and especially their children, learned English, and that they learned to live and let live.

That has changed, you may have noticed. And I blame my fellow Jews. When it comes to pushing the multicultural, anti-Christian, agenda, you find Jewish judges, Jewish journalists, and the ACLU, at the forefront.

Being Jewish, I should report, Christmas was never celebrated by my family. But what was there not to like about the holiday? To begin with, it provided a welcome two week break from school. The decorated trees were nice, the lights were beautiful, “It’s a Wonderful Life” was a great movie, and some of the best Christmas songs were even written by Jews.

But the dirty little secret in America is that anti-Semitism is no longer a problem in society; it’s been replaced by a rampant anti-Christianity. For example, the hatred spewed towards George W. Bush has far less to do with his policies than it does with his religion. The Jews voice no concern when a Bill Clinton or a John Kerry makes a big production out of showing up at black Baptist churches or posing with Rev. Jesse Jackson because they understand that’s just politics. They only object to politicians attending church for religious reasons.

My fellow Jews, who often have the survival of Israel heading the list of their concerns when it comes to electing a president, only gave 26% of their vote to Bush, even though he is clearly the most pro-Israel president we’ve ever had in the Oval Office.

It is the ACLU, which is overwhelmingly Jewish in terms of membership and funding, that is leading the attack against Christianity in America. It is they who have conned far too many people into believing that the phrase “separation of church and ” actually exists somewhere in the Constitution.

You may have noticed, though, that the ACLU is highly selective when it comes to religious intolerance. The same group of self-righteous shysters who, at the drop of a “Merry Christmas” will slap you with an injunction, will fight for the right of an American Indian to ingest peyote and a devout Islamic woman to be veiled on her driver’s license.

I happen to despise bullies and bigots. I hate them when they represent the majority, but no less when, like Jews in America, they represent an infinitesimal minority.

I am getting the idea that too many Jews won’t be happy until they pull off their own version of the Spanish Inquisition, forcing Christians to either deny their faith and convert to agnosticism or suffer the consequences.

I should point out that many of these people abhor Judaism every bit as much as they do Christianity. They’re the ones who behave as if atheism were a calling. They’re the nutcakes who go berserk if anyone even says, ?In God we trust? or mentions that the Declaration of Independence refers to a Creator with a capital “C.” By this time, I’m only surprised that they haven’t begun a campaign to do away with Sunday as a day of rest. After all, it’s only for religious reasons — Christian reasons — that Sunday, and not Tuesday or Wednesday, is so designated.

This is a Christian nation, my friends. And all of us are fortunate it is one, and that so many Americans have seen fit to live up to the highest precepts of their religion. Speaking as a member of a minority group — and one of the smaller ones at that — I say it behooves those of us who don’t accept Jesus Christ as our savior to show some gratitude to those who do, and to start respecting the values and traditions of the overwhelming majority of our fellow citizens, just as we keep insisting that they respect ours.

thanks
professional web design

 

AFRIDI

11:01 AM ET

December 25, 2011

good

wow this is a really a good reply

 

WILDTHING

9:21 PM ET

December 27, 2011

What do we standfor???

The new Rice to follow the mushroom clouds on the horizon Rice isn't much better as we extol more civilian casualties to save civilian casualties or shock and awe ourselves at how great we are taking a defeated country starving under UN sanction.

Then we use UN authorization to mean air support for a civil war we probably covertly instigated to begin with. All because Gaddaffibowed to normalize nrelations so we could over-run the country with covert operatives.

Seems like the credibility factor is going to the Russian side of the Security Council as we promote more insecurity by regime change and now have the next of the axis of evils greatest hits listed countries Syria and Iran lined up in the que... so that more people can die for lies... make you wonder what does stanford stand for?

 

Longtime Washington Post correspondent Colum Lynch reports on all things United Nations for Turtle Bay.

Read More