Posted on 07/14/2005 5:42:53 PM PDT by Sabramerican
Bush waives restrictions on Palestinian aid
WASHINGTON, July 14 (Reuters) - President George W. Bush formally waived U.S. restrictions on providing direct assistance to the Palestinian Authority on Thursday in a move that set the stage for spending $50 million on projects in the Gaza Strip.
The announcement came on the same day that a fragile Israeli-Palestinian cease-fire was imperiled, threatening disruptions to Israel's planned evacuation of settlers from occupied Gaza.
Israel launched a fourth air strike in the space of an hour in the Gaza Strip on Friday, witnesses said, hours after an Israeli woman was killed in a deadly rocket attack.
On May 26, during a visit to the White House by Palestinian President Mahmoud Abbas, Bush said the United States would provide $50 million in aid to the Palestinian Authority.
On Thursday, he issued a directive to Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice formally waiving restrictions on providing money to the Palestinian Authority. He also notified the U.S. Congress of his decision.
The money is to be used for housing, roads, schools and health clinics in the Gaza. The administration had faced opposition to providing direct aid to the Palestinians from some members of Congress.
A senior Bush administration official said Bush determined the waiver was important to U.S. national security interests.
"Direct assistance at this crucial time directly supports the president's June 24, 2002, vision of two democratic states -- Israel and Palestine -- living side-by-side in peace and security and promotes our wider interests in the region," the official said.
Excellent response.
Only if Jews are not human and therefore can not be victims
_+___Stop the paranoia...the US has been steadfast in its support of Israel.
Remember Christians don't serve politicians only God. And remember what happened to candidates Bush Sr. and Dole. Go the centrist moderate route and Christians stay home or seek an alternative.
__There isn't going to be any alternative. There are not enough conservatives to elect a President. Face reality.
Just don't pretend you're a conservative. You are nothing more than a groupie who is unable to tell the difference between legitimate criticism and "bashing." Go back to drawing hearts and "I luv Bush" in your notebooks and quit trying to convince anyone that you even know what conservatism is, much less that your idol President Bush stands for it.
++I'm an American before I'm a conservative.
tired of the GOP talking like purveyors of limited government while doing the exact opposite right after the oath has been sworn in.
___"Limited government" is a political loser. The public doesn't want it. Remember how
Xlinton cleaned Gingrich's clock over the government shutdown?
The people want government services, but these services and benefits should empower the people not make them dependent. That's the difference between Bush and the Democrats.
That's difficult.
You know about us Jews: big nosed, control all the banks and paranoid.
Take me. My paranoia stirs eveytime I read something by you. Why would you think that occurs?
It couldn't be because you implied in my post that I was criticizing the US when I was criticism what you wrote.
It couldn't be because you take a similar opportunity to inference anti Americanism to anyone who questions an American policy concerning Israel.
I know, you are a Bush supporter and you jump to his defense- except when you don't. Then you go and admit that you are not so much a Republican as an American firster. That's compared to us American fifth or sixers.
Oh, my paranoia. It tingles.
I was sure as heck, and many of my friends were not going to vote for Dole.
_____Congrats! Another 4 years of Clinton...hope ya liked it!
Truth is, conservatism is only valid insofar as it helps the country and "limited government" is not always the right approach.
And the public doesn't want smaller goverment, it wants more effective government.
couldn't be because you implied in my post that I was criticizing the US when I was criticism what you wrote.
It couldn't be because you take a similar opportunity to inference anti Americanism to anyone who questions an American policy concerning Israel.
____Calling a US President an appeaser of terrorists is not criticism, it's vile slander.
America has always been a good ally of Israel and indeed Israel might have lost the Yom Kippur War without emergency American aid, so I have every right to be indignant when the President is maligned.
Yes, it's my fault Clinton was elected because the GOP decided to move to the center. It's what you centrist get, crap either way.
Sorry I don't vote for crap if it's either coming from a democrat or moderate Republican. My standards are higher when it comes to politicians spending my money.
Don't you think you've worn out the word "slander" by now? Move from the dictionary, that doesn't help you, and attempt to tackle the Constitution of the US. You may learn that citizens are allowed to criticize the President.
Speaking of education, I don't know how to break it to you but Bush was not President in 1973. And whether the US has always been a friend to Israel is debatable.
Now don't cry and go using that word slander again. Particularly when you mean libel. LOL
And whether the US has always been a friend to Israel is debatable
___I think that says all we need to know about your views.
My standards are higher when it comes to politicians spending my money.
___There's more to the idea of government than that.
I am not a centrist, but I recognize political reality...only
a center/right coalition can win national elections.
It also says I have a knowledge of history and implies I'm educated.
I wish it also said I was good looking, and really good in bed. Maybe you'll infer that from some future post.
He isn't worried about re-election...he can now do and say anything he wants, and to heck with those who voted for him.
Why did Bush senior have a hard time in '88 against a liberal
___The voters thought they were voting for a third Reagan term and Dukakis ran an inept campaign.
and then get embarrassed by someone who only got 43% of the vote in 1992?
____Because Perot drained off the white male vote that traditionally goes Republican.
Why did Dole lose after the Republicans launched it's list of very conservative rightwing promises that gave them both bodies of Congress? Oh I forgot, they moved to the center while ignoring the promises made which gave the GOP Congress to begin with.
____Bush is not a centrist, but a straight conservative campaign would have ended up electing a Democrat...indeed, without the Waron Terror issue, Kerry would have won...Americans are NOT conservatives...why can't Freepers
get that through their heads??
Silly me, and I thought 60 million voters who elected GWB would at least get some taste of private accounts from SS. No more getting suckered again by these Republican wimps until they prove and fight for what they promise.
_____The public doesn't seem to understand private accounts and Bush can't seem to make them...so the GOP pols are looking at 2006 and worrying that it will be a repeat of 1986 when social security gave the Senate back to the Democrats,
7
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.