Bush Doctrine Begins to Blur

The Washington Post ^ | 3 April 2002 | Dan Balz and Dana Milbank

[Kermit]

In the days after Sept. 11, President Bush outlined a global war on terrorism that was striking in its moral clarity, summed up in his Sept. 20 speech to Congress when he said: "Every nation in every region now has a decision to make. Either you are with us, or you are with the terrorists."

[Kermit]

Even the Wash comPost recognizes Bush's waffling on Palestinian terrorism. That's something.

[bybybill]

Here we go, the perfect chink in GWB`s armor. No matter what he does, no matter what he says or when he acts, he is wrong. He will be either pro Israel or pro Palestinian or totally even handed, doesn`t matter. The liberal media now has their new toy, the middle east, to `get` GWB. They will drag out every failed advisor Carter and El SICKO had and they`ll pick and pick and pick.

[MJY1288]

Just because he doesn't call Arafat a terrorist, doesn't mean the Bush doctrine is a blur. I would ask the Washington post and all of it's liberal elite's how they would deal with the situation over their. My guess is they would cow-tow to the suicide bombers by holding town meetings and focus groups and send over their best liberal shrinks to see what politcally correct compromising position they can put our troops in over there.

Nobody has been able to solve the problems over there for the past 2000 years. But now it's Bush's fault...GO FIGURE

[Kermit]

It's not only that he won't call Arafat a terrorist, he's calling for a Palestinian State, arguably rewarding terrorism. He's calling for restraint rather than the destruction of the terrorists and those who harbor the terrorists. He's calling for negotiation with terrorists, did he negoitiate with the Taliban or Osama Bin Laden? Why should anyone else negotiate with terrorists?

In the week after 9/11, the terror attacks stopped against Israel, while Arafat was scared to death at the US reponse. Arafat went so far as to give blood for the people injured in America and he shut down the Palie celebrations and organized demonstrations in sympathy with the losses at the WTC and the Pentagon. The terror started up again, soon after Bush announced his support for a Palestinian State, I believe the first time a US President said that. There's your green light.

It's a bungle. It's a waffle. It's weak. Face the truth.

[xm177e2]

No matter what he does, no matter what he says or when he acts, he is wrong.

It's a shame our Middle Eastern foreign policy is so muddled, but that's not Bush's fault. I think he's handling this situation about as well as could be expected.

He doesn't want to rush out and call Arafat what he is (a terrorist madman totally disinterested in peace, a coward and a bald-faced liar) because 1) that would be way, way too fast a shift from previous policy 2) that's not something he could ever take back and 3) the hysterical Euroweenies would have a fit and the smug ones would make fun of him (not that Bush really cares what they think).

So Bush is proceding very slowly. But he has been tightening up his rhetoric. It's like he's got Arafat in a vise, and he's spinning the handle. He's putting a lot of pressure on Arafat, even though things don't seem to be moving very quickly. He hasn't directly criticized Israel much at all, and his anti-Arafat rhetoric has been increasing every day now. And time is on Bush's side, it's not like Arafat is going anywhere!

Calling upon Arafat to denounce the terror "in Arabic" is just the beginning. All he's asking Arafat to do is renounce the terror. If Arafat won't do that, the vise will get tighter. Things have to be getting very tight for Arafat in his "panic room" now with the Israelis releasing all sorts of evidence of his malfeasance. They will only get tighter over the next few days.

[xm177e2]

I would ask the Washington post and all of it's liberal elite's how they would deal with the situation over their

When you ask left-wing morons what their solutions are, they just tell you the terms of a just peace. "It would be great if Israel would get this, and the Palestinians would get this and this, and if the settlements were taken down, and..."

Of course, that's not the question. The question is, "what would you do if you were the Prime Minister of Israel," not "what's the solution, if we were living in a perfect world." There is no answer they can give.

[Reagan Man]

More back seat rhetoric from the Bush haters in the media elite. Why am I not surprised.

The Bush administration is acting with extreme caution, and is working behind the scenes with Isreal. So far, Bush and company have been skillfully handling this situation and playing their cards just right. The Bush administration isn't running at the mouth and isn't employing overblown rhetoric, that could worsen the entire situation. This is serious stuff. The President isn't flying off half cocked, like some would have him do.

Bush isn't naive about Arafat and the PLO. Let's not forget, this is Isreal's problem, for the time being and not America's problem. America isn't at war with the Palestinians, or Yassar Arafat. Even Benjamin Netanyahu thinks it would be wrong for the US and Israel to openly and actively join forces. That would be playing right into the hands of the Arafat and the PLO. Let's not turn America's war on terrorism into an American/Israeli war on the Arab/Muslim world.

[MJY1288]

If you think for one second that every public statement made by this administration wasn't discussed before hand by the U.S. and Israel, you are dreaming. The Israeli intellegence meets with the State Department and the White House on a regular basis. I know this because my brother works for the State Department. What you are reacting to is what the media feeds you. there is so much more going on behind the scenes that none of us no about.

If the middle east was to end up in an all out war, it would have devistating effects on our economy. What's going on is pure politics in the BEST INTEREST for our country. Just what the President is supposed to do. Look out for our best interest. The only thing the middle east is good for is oil. So our best interest is to make sure it keeps flowing until we convince the liberal environmentalist that we shouldn't rely on these diaper heads for oil and produce our own.

[cartoonistx]

I find GW's position vis a vis the middle east to be entirely consistent with the WOT. In Afghanastan we used local talent to dispatch the Terrorists and their Taliban protectors. In this conflict we are using the IDF to do the same thing in much the same way. Just because we aren't on the ground in Isreal doesn't mean we aren't directing the action, if only through our remote support and funding mechanisms!

[eureka!]

Yep. I think you are spot on. This operation is much like that in Afghanistan when you look at it. Destroy the compounds (nee terror camps), gut the infrastructure, kill/capture the capos, take the intel. Israel had to finally do it, and is doing it right, IMHO....