Skip to comments.
Bush 'Deeply Troubled' by Israeli Strike
AP ^
| 06/10/03
| SCOTT LINDLAW
Posted on 06/10/2003 7:37:43 AM PDT by Pokey78
click here to read article
Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first previous 1-20, 21-40, 41-60, 61-80 ... 181-182 next last
To: MoJo2001
I"m "deeply troubled" that President Bush is "deeply troubled" over this.I'm deeply troubled about the Israeli strike as well. I'm deeply troubled because the strike didn't involve a high-yield nuclear weapon!
21
posted on
06/10/2003 8:00:16 AM PDT
by
FierceDraka
("I am not a number - I am a FREE MAN!")
To: Pokey78
I don't like Bush using Daschlisms, but the Dems can't attacking him using those words. The hoots would be deafening.
BTW, I'm deeply sadded that the Israelis ........... missed.
22
posted on
06/10/2003 8:01:21 AM PDT
by
playball0
(Fortune favors the bold)
To: Pokey78
With all the good technology out there, why are the Israeli's still blowing stuff up? If they could start using some nice food additives, sound wave devices, accidents in the home, killer prostitutes, and such, things would go a lot better for self defense.
But I guess then Hamas would just blow themselves up to still keep territory sentiment at a high insanity level? A day without a jew delivering some injustice toward a Palestinian is like a day without sunshine.
23
posted on
06/10/2003 8:02:00 AM PDT
by
blackdog
("Hey Lhama, how about something for the effort?")
To: Pokey78
Bush 'Deeply Troubled' by Israeli Strike But not by the 4 Israelis killed? Which triggered the strike?
Remarkable!
Strange, even.
24
posted on
06/10/2003 8:02:25 AM PDT
by
Publius6961
(Californians are as dumm as a sack of rocks)
To: FierceDraka
Easy to say when you are upwind by ten thousand miles!
25
posted on
06/10/2003 8:03:33 AM PDT
by
blackdog
("Hey Lhama, how about something for the effort?")
To: Pokey78
warning that such a strike "does not contribute to the security of Israel." .............
WANNA BET!!! Matter of fact Israel killed a Hizbuallah big shot back in 1989 with a helicopter rocket to his car, and it greatly changed events
26
posted on
06/10/2003 8:04:11 AM PDT
by
dennisw
To: dennisw
If Hamas isn't destroyed, then there will be no peace.
Who's going to do the job?
Not Abbas. Israel is going to have to do it.
27
posted on
06/10/2003 8:05:54 AM PDT
by
tomahawk
To: FierceDraka
Wait! President Bush is actually "deeply concerned" and actually "deeply troubled" over this. LOL! Talk about wording! I'm just more annoyed by all of this, but your point is right on th mark. Woohoo!
28
posted on
06/10/2003 8:05:57 AM PDT
by
MoJo2001
To: tomahawk
There will be no peace regardless.
29
posted on
06/10/2003 8:08:27 AM PDT
by
Jason_b
To: MrsEmmaPeel
But Israel really screwed the pooch on this one, though. IMHO, Israel should have been able to take out the Hamas leader without so much collateral damage (bystanders). Now, most are very bad, but one of the casualties is an 8 year old girl now with brain damage. There was not much collateral damage. 2 dead?? Anyway I'm in mourning for the Jews killed by such Jihadist filth in the past week.
You want some freaking collateral damage go check out those who get maimed and traumatized by the next suicide bomber
30
posted on
06/10/2003 8:08:34 AM PDT
by
dennisw
To: Pokey78
I am deeply confused by President Bush right now.
31
posted on
06/10/2003 8:09:46 AM PDT
by
rintense
(Thank you to all our brave soldiers, past and present, for your faithful service to our country.)
To: tomahawk
Yup, Israel has to do the dirty work that Mazen will get assassinated for trying to do. That's if he cares to try which I doubt. Just the tired old good cop/bad cop routine by the Pallies. Hamas very bad so give away the store to Araft/Mazen the moderate Jew killers.
32
posted on
06/10/2003 8:11:15 AM PDT
by
dennisw
To: hchutch
I used to harbor the same theory you do on this subject. I have since come to realize that the oil embargos create severe hardships for the states imposing them. They have become accustomed to the major cash flow oil sales generate, and when that cash flow is interrupted, they actually do feel it severely.
As for cutting our dependence, I think every new home in this nation should be self-sustaining, with other homes converted at the earliest opportunity. In my opinion we have allowed the power producers to subsidize an insane policy that sees them able to demand large fees when we would be better served if by different policies.
This would not only bring our energy problems under control, it would insulate us against attack on our major energy resources.
To: Pokey78
President Bush scolded Israel on Tuesday for a helicopter attack on a senior Hamas leader that killed a bystander and a bodyguard, warning that such a strike "does not contribute to the security of Israel." Bush then said, don't miss next time...
To: dennisw
You mis-read my post. I just said that the press will play up the 8 year old girl with brain damage and not ask the obvious question: "why was the attack necessary?" It would have been better had Israel just taken the Hamas leader out.
To: Frank_Discussion
If I were Israel I would set a date when terrorism was going to stop or else. I don't care what that date is, but if terrorism didn't stop I'd move the entire west bank population out of there. I would deport them and never allow them to return, end of story!
I can't imagine a condition where I would accept terrorism from a people sworn to destroy me without adopting such a policy. Irael either has a right to exist or it doesn't. I think it does. And I know I wouldn't put up with what they have.
To: DoughtyOne
If I were Israel I would set a date when terrorism was going to stop or else. I don't care what that date is, but if terrorism didn't stop I'd move the entire west bank population out of there. I would deport them and never allow them to return, end of story! I really think that is the only solution. I've often fancied a snatch and grab on Arafat, drop him off in Antarctica barefoot with a day's worth of rations.
To: Pokey78
There is a complicated game afoot here, something along the lines of good cop / bad cop.
It would be politically unwise at this time for the President to laugh out loud about the Pallies getting their a$$es kicked again.
IMHO, the game GW is up to involves giving the enemies every possible opportunity to redeem themselves by behaving as civilized people, which he knows (as does everyone else involved) they will not.
And once the olive branch has been refused, burned and broken one too many times, we will be justified (by world opinion) in allowing Israel to finish them off once and for all.
It's the old game of giving one's adversaries just enough rope to hang themselves.
If I'm wrong, then god help us all.
38
posted on
06/10/2003 8:24:36 AM PDT
by
FierceDraka
("I am not a number - I am a FREE MAN!")
To: DoughtyOne
I agree with you. I'm just saying that the US Foreign Policy stance only makes sense if there is something else going on behind the scenes that we aren't privy to.
The issue with not angering OPEC is a non-starter for me. We have oil here, and we'll go get it, if need be. And if push comes to shove, Iraq has some reparations that can be addressed handily by it's oil. We will not be bent over on the oil issue.
39
posted on
06/10/2003 8:27:31 AM PDT
by
Frank_Discussion
(May the wings of Liberty never lose a feather!)
To: Mr. K
"The president is concerned that this strike will undermine efforts by Palestinian authorities to bring an end to terrorist attacks,..." What a crock of $h!t
Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first previous 1-20, 21-40, 41-60, 61-80 ... 181-182 next last
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.
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson