Replies

In my opinion he had no right to do so. The mayor does not own the theater, the people do. He acted like a dictator. Further, Arafat was here, as much as I hated it, on the invitation of our President, which means it was the official policy of our government that he be treated as a guest.

The heck he doesn't.

Arafat was here to speak to the UN. That doesn't give him and his cohorts the keys to America.

The City of New York was hosting a private reception, invitataion only.

Arafat was not invited. Deliberately, he wasn't wanted.

IMO that's clearly in the purvue of the Mayor, since he was elected by the people.

Who I might note if the do in fact collectively own the theatre, opera I believe, don't get free access either.

Arafat showed up in the company of several UN officials, he was asked to leave since he wasn't invited, and he did.

Same as you or I.

That's not making foreign policy.

The $10 million, you seem to have some thing about the "people", as a mob like collective who must approve each executive decision.

He's the mayor, if the "people" don't like his decision, they can throw him out. My impression, the decision was rather popular.

Arafat showed up in the company of several UN officials, he was asked to leave since he wasn't invited, and he did.

Thanks for that clarification. I had not heard the full story before, and was left with the impression that Guiliani had overstepped his bounds. I'll make sure not to use that as a negative example in the future and to correct anyone who does use it as such.

I looked, but could not find the law passed by the new york city legislature that gives the mayor the right to ban Arafat from a public building.

But let me ask, if he was a flaming liberal who hated the war, and he threw Prime Minister Howard of Australia out of the theater, would you be praising it as the act of a strong leader?