Free Republic
Browse · Search
Topics · Post Article

Skip to comments.

Bush won't label Arafat a terrorist
Washington Times ^ | Tuesday, April 2, 2002 | By Bill Sammon

Posted on 04/01/2002 9:37:25 PM PST by JohnHuang2

Edited on 07/12/2004 3:52:18 PM PDT by Jim Robinson. [history]

President Bush, who has long equated terrorists with those who harbor them, yesterday carved out an exception for Yasser Arafat because the Palestinian leader "has agreed to a peace process."

Asked what is preventing him from labeling Mr. Arafat a terrorist, the president replied that the Palestinian leader has agreed to peace plans proposed by CIA Director George Tenet and former Senate Majority Leader George Mitchell, Maine Democrat.

(Excerpt) Read more at ...

TOPICS: Foreign Affairs; Front Page News; Israel; News/Current Events
Tuesday, April 2, 2002

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

1 posted on 04/01/2002 9:37:25 PM PST by JohnHuang2
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | View Replies]

To: JohnHuang2
Well, so much for the Bush Doctrine on Terrorism:
If you support terrorists, you are a terrorist.

I'm getting more disillusioned with Dubya all the time.
I fear he is becoming a Republican equivalent of Clinton!

(I know I'll be slamed for this, but what can I say???)

2 posted on 04/01/2002 9:43:02 PM PST by rundy
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: rundy
I think Bush is buying time for Sharon to get the job done on the terrorist. We will be able to tell about all of this after we see what finally happens. Bush is keeping his hands clean, but is giving Sharon a very wide swath to clean out the terrorist havens.
3 posted on 04/01/2002 9:45:04 PM PST by scratchgolfer
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 2 | View Replies]

To: JohnHuang2
But that's all Arafat's ever been!
4 posted on 04/01/2002 9:50:09 PM PST by Uncle Miltie
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: JohnHuang2
I think I've figured the State Departments policy,you see once upon a time there was mr rat and mr bunny,now mr rat and his friends wan't some land back from mr bunny that they lost in a sand pit fights in 1948,1967 and 1973 and mr rats friends have lots of honey that mr bear and mr eagle need so they cant be too unfriendly to mr rat despite the fact that mr rat lived in a bombed out shoe and had so many children the only thing to do was to blow themselves up at mr bunnys house so that mr rats family can make lots of money,not that he needs it because as discovered today he can print mr bunnys money anyway,now last year mr rats friends flew some planes into mr eagles house and mr eagle was unhappy so he attacked one of mr rats friends but only after he cleared it with all his other friends and its all very embarassing because mr eagle trained all mr rat and his friends but they're partners for peace with mr bunny so....this is pretty much as Bush explained it earlier today.
5 posted on 04/01/2002 9:57:23 PM PST by Governor StrangeReno
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: scratchgolfer
Scratchgolfer, you've got it right. Bush knows that he doesn't need to call Arafat a terrorist, he just doesn't criticize Sharon when he says it. Bush is smart to keep Arab anger focused on Israel, rather than having more suicide bombers sent over here. As long as the Pali's think that we're the only hope of reining in Israel, they will keep us off the target list. But as soon as that changes, the orders go out to Israel---go get 'em, wipe them off the face of the earth!

Most Americans have come to realize that Israel is on the front lines in the Western world's battle against the false religion of Islam, its our President's job to keep them on the front lines, until we're completely ready to join them there. Late entry into World Wars I and II did not hurt us in the outcome, it won't on WW III, either.

6 posted on 04/01/2002 10:28:20 PM PST by hunter112
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 3 | View Replies]

To: JohnHuang2
Bush won't label Arafat a terrorist

Bush won't label Arafat a terrorist YET

Bush doesn't want to rush into the Middle East and start saying things he can't possibly take back. He's moving in slowly, like a vise, but Arafat is beginning to feel the pressure!

7 posted on 04/01/2002 11:56:32 PM PST by xm177e2
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: rundy
Bush is giving Sharon a free hand to smash the PLO right now. He's standing solidly behind Israel, more than any other country in the world that I know of.
8 posted on 04/01/2002 11:57:26 PM PST by xm177e2
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 2 | View Replies]

Comment #9 Removed by Moderator

To: rundy
No, I fear you are right, Bush is sort of becoming a joke. And the reaction to that statement might indeed prove that it is an attrocious truth. Newsmax says Zini wants UN troops there:

So they want UN troops on territories managed by free nations like Israel, but not on the axis of evil nations. It used to be the UN was used to fight dictatorships like North Korea. Now we use them to destroy ourselves and the credibility of democracies. Kuddos for new grounds in stupidity.

How can we pretend to arabs that we can have jurisdition 3000 miles away there when we deny Israel jurisdiction 10 miles away? We are setting ourselves up for a global revolution against US forces stationed abroad. It's over, we fell in the trap of giving ammo to those aiming to unite against what they will term a "unipolar imperialist America".

U.S. Troops Needed in Mid. East, Say Experts

U.S. Troops Needed in Mid. East, Say Experts

Dave Eberhart, NewsMax
Tuesday, Apr. 2, 2002
Looking to free-up more combat troops for the War on Terrorism, Defense Secretary Donald Rumsfeld told Congress just a month ago that he would like to slash the U.S. commitment to the Multinational Forces and Observers (MFO) that patrols the Egypt-Israel border from about 900 American troops to less than 30. Since the accelerated Israeli-Palestinian turmoil, however, no more has been heard on the proposed reduction.

Furthermore, Gen. Anthony Zinni, the U.S. special envoy to the Middle East, has been telling Congress and anyone else who will listen that any eventual cease-fire between Israel and the Palestinian Authority must be monitored by an international peacekeeping force -- supplemented by what Zinni has reportedly described as "a very limited number” of U.S. troops.

It is unclear at this point if any of those proposed U.S. peacekeeping troops would be drawn from the cadre already in the Sinai as part of the MFO.

Recently, Egyptian political commentator Gehad Auda said that Arab concern over the American pro-Israeli stance in the now stalled mediation counter-indicates any withdrawal of U.S. troops from border duties in the Sinai. "That would give a dramatic and bad signal…the United States is not committed to peace,” Auda argued.

Egypt, which blames Israeli Prime Minister Ariel Sharon for the current turmoil, has resisted efforts to reduce the American presence in the Sinai, maintaining that having international forces on the border promotes stability in troubled times. Conversely, Israel has signaled no difficulty with a U.S. withdrawal.

The MFO was set up by Egypt, Israel and the US to monitor the 1978 Camp David peace accord. The force patrols the Sinai, a triangle of desert, which Egypt lost to Israel in the 1967 war and regained via a U.S.-brokered peace treaty with Israel in 1979. Israel withdrew from the Sinai three years after the treaty with Egypt. The MFO, which flies a distinctive orange flag, was then fielded to ensure the peace.

11 Nation Force

The American contingent to the MFO presently accounts for about half of the total 1,836 soldiers, sailors, pilots and other uniformed members of the 11-nation Multinational Force and Observers.

However, The Washington Times reported recently that the Army School of Advanced Military Studies’ plan for enforcing a Palestinian-Israeli peace accord would require about 20,000 armed troops scattered throughout Israel and any Palestinian state. Among the troops duties would be to make sure Palestinian terror suspects were detained and were not quietly released afterward.

Sen. Joseph R. Biden Jr., D-Del., recently said he would consider U.S. troops as peacekeepers in the Middle East -- after a lasting cease-fire was established. "In that context, yes, and with European forces as well,” said Biden.

Those "European” forces described by Biden, however, might well be peacekeepers from such unlikely nations as Fiji and Colombia, which presently contribute the largest contingents to the Sinai’s MFO -- after the United States.

Fiji has traditionally been very Gung-ho about its role in the Sinai, perennially winning many of the competitive field events held as part of joint military exercises.

Last month in Budapest, General Janos Isaszegi, All Army Command Post Commander, bid farewell with great ceremony to a group of Hungarian army and police officers, departing to serve a one-year term with the MFO in the Sinai. The group of 12 soldiers and 6 police officers joined the Hungarian contingent of 41 members on duty along the Egyptian-Israeli border.

Sharing the Burden

The U.S., Egypt and Israel provide the lion’s share of the Sinai force’s $51 million annual budget -- sharing the burden equally. Japan, Germany and Switzerland also contribute.

Last month Vice President Dick Cheney visited with U.S. troops of the MFO as he toured the Middle East. Despite the stated intentions of the secretary of defense to emasculate the U.S. detachment, Chaney declared, "This region is both the site of many conflicts and one of the critical centers of American interest - economic, military and political.”

Rumsfeld told Congress that much of the present U.S. MFO contingent duties, consisting of patrols, manning checkpoints and reconnaissance, "can be done by others with our help and encouragement.”

In commenting about the Egyptian reluctance to let the Americans depart the MFO, John Hirsch, vice president of the New York-based International Peace Academy and a former adviser to U.N. peacekeepers in Somalia, said, "I sort of understand the Egyptian concern, but I personally believe that more and more of the burden rests on the countries involved.”

Read more on this subject in related Hot Topics:

10 posted on 04/02/2002 3:26:08 AM PST by lavaroise
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 2 | View Replies]

To: JohnHuang2
I think the author (Bill Sammon) of this article is a liberal disruptor.

Disregard, and move on. Nothing here it see...

11 posted on 04/02/2002 3:29:07 AM PST by Jethro Tull
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: xm177e2
Bush will discover that if he hedges on this, no-one will ever take another pronouncement from him seriously.

The war is about good vs. evil? Not anymore. There's no such thing as a good terrorist? Not anymore. You're either with us or the terrorists. Not anymore.

Trust is the coin of the realm. And Bush is spending all of his to defend a butcher.

12 posted on 04/02/2002 3:31:58 AM PST by mewzilla
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 7 | View Replies]

To: Jethro Tull
Bill Sammon, a liberal disruptor?????

Uh, no.

13 posted on 04/02/2002 3:32:48 AM PST by mewzilla
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 11 | View Replies]

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.

Free Republic
Browse · Search
Topics · Post Article

FreeRepublic, LLC, PO BOX 9771, FRESNO, CA 93794 is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson