Bush Is Criticized for Mideast Role

New York Times ^ | Tuesday, April 2, 2002 | DAVID E. SANGER and MICHAEL R. GORDON

[JohnHuang2]

WASHINGTON, April 1 — President Bush, under rising criticism for his handling of the growing violence in the Middle East, expressed frustration today that Yasir Arafat, the Palestinian leader, has failed to denounce what he called the "constant attacks" of suicide bombers. Continues.

=============================================================

The 'Who-Gives-A-Hoot?' Democrats

Sooner or later, it was bound to happen. To some observers, the wonder isn't that it's happening, but that it took so long to begin with.

In Washington, partisan politics has reared its ugly head, yet again. This time the tussle concerns volatile events in the Mideast -- the Israeli-Arab crisis, specifically.

Democrats and their media surrogates are probing for ways to take political advantage of the situation. The wave of deadly suicide bombings and Israel's robust military response have dominated the news of late, even as Afghanistan has fallen off the pages: Clearly, Democrats see it as an opening for them to take potshots at the Bush administration.

So far, they're calling on Bush to 'get more involved', a stealthy way of suggesting the crisis is Bush's fault, without actually saying it and without tendering detail plans nor initiatives of their own.

"I think there needs to be something dramatic done", Sen. Joseph Biden, chairman of the Senate Foreign Relations Committee, told CBS' Face The Nation. "The President has to step up his involvement", he added.

Sen. Joseph Lieberman, who is mulling a run for president himself, told Fox News Sunday that Bush should "ask Secretary Powell...to go to the Middle East".

Terrorists inevitably interpret such fickleness as a green light to continue doing what they're doing. 'Keep bombing crowded Pizzerias and Discotechs, and wait for the Joe Bidens of the world to cave like cheap suits'. The torrent of suicide bombing attacks that have recently rocked Israel are, for terrorists, a pressure tool -- the means by which they hope to extract further concessions from the beleaguered Jewish state.

But for Joe Biden partisans, and Democrat mouthpieces like the New York Times, politics takes precedence over patriotism, any day of the week -- America's or Israel's security be damned.

For partisan Democrats, 'if our words of appeasement send the wrong message -- who gives a hoot?'

'Mr. President, send Colin Powell to wring more concessions from Israel, and if terrorism is ultimately rewarded -- who gives a hoot?'

'Mr. President, have Gen. Zinni exert pressure on Israel, and if suicide bombers are vindicated -- who gives a hoot?'

'Mr. President, offer a bold, new peace initiative, get on your hands and knees and beg chairman Arafat to accept it, and if bloodshed and carnage by Palestinians is validated thereby -- who gives a hoot?'

You've heard of 'Yellow Dog Democrats'. We'll call these the 'Who-gives-a-hoot?' Democrats.

With midterm elections drawing closer, and President Bush's approval ratings still straddling the stratosphere, Democrats are growing increasingly desperate. They do know one thing for sure: Bush's sustained popularity is an obstacle to recapturing control of the House and preserving their 1-seat plurality in the Senate.

But the boiling crisis in the mideast has given Democrats, at least for now, a glimmer of hope. They see it as a chance to undermine public confidence in Bush as a leader, and knock his popularity down to earth. At every opportunity, Democrats will try to link Bush to every mideast "setback", big or small, and call it a colossal "failure" of his policies. And if it gives aid and comfort to cold-blooded terrorists -- who gives a hoot?

There's only one itsy-bitsy problem with this "strategy": It won't work. But Democrats are too blind, too partisan, too hateful, too bitter, too vicious, too petty, too spiteful, too angry, too desperate to know it just yet. But it'll dawn on them, eventually -- give it time.

My two cents...
"JohnHuang2"

[JohnHuang2]

Tuesday, April 2, 2002

Quote of the Day by liberalism=failure 4/1/02

[JohnHuang2]

Gotta run...see y'all soon.

[LarryLied]

Many on this forum agree with Biden and Lieberman.

[HockeyPop]

McConnel(R) and Feingold(D) took the opposite position.

Nice commentary!

[lavaroise]

Many on this forum agree with Biden and Lieberman.

NOT!!!!

thanks again for defining anything according to your own liking.

[DoughtyOne]

Thanks for the post John.

The last thing I want is for the Left to be able to find a criticle wedge aspect of this issue that will really hurt Bush.  The fact is, Bush may be handing them one.  So far the Dimocrats have tried to play the, "he's not involved enough" card.  That won't work.  But if he continues to refuse to label Arasplat a terrorist, I don't care how dumb the Democrats are, sooner or later they're going to latch onto the issue and Bush will be playing catch up from there.

The man better wake up and smell the roses cesspool.  If the Democrats were to come out calling Arasplat a terrorist and damning Bush for equivocating, there wouldn't be a damn thing he could say to defend himself.  From that moment on, Bush would be unable to erase the impression that he had to be drug kicking and screaming to the point that he'd label Arasplat for what he is, and support Israel unconditionally for what they have to do.

Now, you folks may think this is exactly what I'd like to see, the Dems gaining leverage on Bush.  Frankly it isn't.  And frankly you shouldn't either.  The whole reason I've been trying to urge this issue upon Bush, is because I think he's wide open for a frontal assault on this issue.  If the guy doesn't get off the pot and take action, he's going to pay for it big-time.

Arasplat is a terrorist Mr. President.  You damn well better get that through your head before someone else gets out front on the issue.  Back Israel in no uncertain terms in it's battle against unbriddled agression.  It's okay to say you wish it were different over there, as long as you state that until the bombing stops, those who are perpetrating those bombings should and will be stomped!  And whatever you do, quit urging Israel to play the wimp, and for God's sake trash those that do!

Nobody with half a brain is going to damn you for backing Israel in a just cause.  But if you don't wake up, millions are going to be quite disgusted that you didn't.

[ThePythonicCow]

Not me either. Fool me once, shame on you. Fool me twice, shame on me. Fool me ten thousand times, color me a liberal (or whatever the word of the decade is for misguided souls who have lost their faith and moral compass). Yasser Arafat and his thugs have shown, ten thousand times over, that their interest is in the tyrannical preservation of power, not the well being of their fellow beings. Those with a moral compass know evil when it is manifest, and have the courage to fight it.

Ask yourself this. If the terrorism had stopped, fully and completely, would Israel have continued and furthered its armed invasions of the Palestine territories. No. But if Israels armies had put down their arms, would the terrorism and effort to push Israel into the sea and kill its citizens continue. Yes. One side will not stop until the other is dead. The other side will not stop until there is law and order and a chance for peace and prosperity for all.

I don't normally cut off living pieces of my flesh. But if one part is cancerous, and that is the only remedy available to me, then I ask only that the knife is clean and used with as much skill as can be mustered to avoid cutting on healthy flesh nearby.

[ThePythonicCow]

If a lead Democrat did take the upfront position that Arafat was a terrorist, plain and simple, with whom one could not negotiate, then

1. I'd be quite surprised, and
2. Bush could come out and say that yes he agreed and thank the Democrat for his clarity of thinking.

No harm done, indeed a chance to reach across the aisle one more time.

[DoughtyOne]

Eh, if you think the media would report it as you state, I think you're underestimating the damage that could be done. The report would mention months of violence and Bush's refusal to term Arafat a terrorist all this time. Course if you think they'd spin this for the Republicans then I could be wrong.

[LarryLied]

thanks again for defining anything according to your own liking.

Huh? You on the same forum I am? On nearly every thread there have been comments agreeing with Biden and Lieberman that Bush is not doing enough. Some freepers have gone much further and said Bush thinks oil is more important than Israeli blood, Bush is in the pocket of Arab campaign donors, Bush won't allow Israel to defend herself etc.etc.

[quimby]

"When the United States is hit by terrorist attacks, you have a choice," Mr. Rumsfeld said. "You can say, `Gee, that's too bad,' or you can go try to find the terrorists and do something about it. And it seems to me that in our case, which I know a good deal more about than I do that case, it seems to me it's a pretty clear answer."

Thanks for your comments, John.

If the authors had read your and rumsfeld's comments, they wouldn't have had much of an article.

[ThePythonicCow]

Granted, the liberal press won't spin it for the Republicans. But that's nothing new. The question is whether their biased complaints will connect with the great middle. I doubt that the average American would get all bent out of shape about Bush not labeling Arafat evil soon enough or that Bush didn't abandon attempts to use diplomacy earlier.

My sense is that Bush's political advisors are more concerned with avoiding being a lightning rod for something that would antagonize the average voter, than they expect to pick up many hard core Democrats. In other words, I don't see the Demos getting much traction here.

[Cincinatus' Wife]

There's only one itsy-bitsy problem with this "strategy": It won't work. But Democrats are too blind, too partisan, too hateful, too bitter, too vicious, too petty, too spiteful, too angry, too desperate to know it just yet. But it'll dawn on them, eventually -- give it time.

And Bush is too open, too realistic, too transparent, too smart, too feeling and too honest to be drawn into being the "star" of the conflict by ringing a bell and holding the principle parties at bay. This time the referee is not ringing the bell to give the appearance that something is happening or to elevate the ludicrous notion that Arafat is doing something to stop the terror.

Let the world see how much they want peace. Let the world consider how this would have been played out if the situation had been reversed. How patient would Arafat have been year after year after year, if it was his people being terrorized by stone throwing, bomb wearing Israelis and he had the ability to move in and stop it?

[shrinkermd]

A realistic complaint can be raised. Why have two policies on terrorism? Seemingly, we have one for the Afghanistan and the rest of the world and one for Israel. It is crazy and weak to have two contradictory policies.

[LarryLied]

It is crazy and weak to have two contradictory policies.

This isn't High School. This isn't about being "fair" and treating everyone alike. This is doing what is in America's best interest. We treat countries differently all the time. If we have to muscle Israel a little to protect America, so be it. Israel would do exactly the same to us (in fact, it does).

Even Netanyahu thinks acting together right now is playing into the hands of the Arabs. He warned this weekend that the worst thing which could happen is for America's war on terror to become an America/Isreali war on Arabs.

We can't turn a switch and fight a war. We have 8 years of Clinton to fix. We have munitions expanded in Afghanstan to replace. A build up is needed before we go all out.

The Arabs don't want us to have that time. Neither do Democrats. Lieberman and Biden are urging action now because they know it will get messed up and they will have an issue. somthing they haven't had since 9/11.

[RamsNo1]

Of course, I care how Bush handles this whole situation but there is alot more to think about than just his reputation right now. It scares me to death to think of how Jews are suffering not just in Israel but now in Europe because of Muslim aggression which is the new Nazism. The US can't sit by and allow another holocaust.

[Brian Allen]

..... Democrats are too blind, too partisan, too hateful, too bitter, too vicious, too petty, too spiteful, too angry, too desperate .....

Psychopathological Projection Syndrome is kept alive and well in and by the party of institutionalized envy.

[Thank you John}

[Brian Allen]

Well said. Watch what he does, not what he says.

[I think he learned about the politics game by watching "DemocRATS"]

[mystery-ak]

If you watched Chrissy Matthews and Howard Fineman last night, they all but blamed the whole crisis in the ME on GW....said he doesn't have a clue or a ME policy.....it was sickening!