If not, then you would agree that the war on terrorism should be abandoned?
Second, true, Bush did rein in Israel a couple of weeks ago, but TODAY'S statement by Powell had a much different tone. If this represents the "new" policy, then it means that as always, Bush gives you ONE CHANCE to "straighten up and fly right," then he clobbers you. He gave Arafat his chance.
But third, you and all other American conservatives (like Rush) need to get something through your heads: Israel is DIVIDED on the "proper" policy, and they booted Netanyahu OUT. I think they should boot the Palestinians out, but it isn't my country. Until Israel, and the vast majority of liberal Israelis (imagine New York City in the Middle East!) decide that they cannot negotiate with the Palestinian terrorists, neither Bush nor all the upset conservatives in the world can do one thing. This is Israel's call, REGARDLESS of what Bush or the U.S. says.
Do you realize that Israel can tell us to stick our $3 billion in aid? They haven't because they like that aid. But when they come to the point that they see their security is more important than that money, then they can truly say that we have "let their people go." At that point, God help the Arabs, because Allah sure won't.
#2---No, I would not give up the war on terrorism. But there are other options on how to manage it besides the one you outlined.
#3---Bush and Powell talk "new" policies all the time. It's called talking out of both sides of your mouth. We never know where our two most important leaders of state stand, nor does anyone else.
#4---Don't blame the Israeli people for the fact that their leaders (Netanyahu included) are always giving in to the "peace talkers". Their leaders have betrayed them on down through the years by talking one way and then governing another.
What is your source for this contention. I did a google search on this and ended up at the Hoover Institute's web page and they wrote in there that "President Ronald Reagan’s Tax Reform Act of 1986 . . . reduced the top marginal rate of tax from 50 percent to 28 percent." Here is the link. Now maybe what you are saying is that Reagan made the tax code simpler by eliminating various tax deductions in return for lowering marginal rates. But is it really fair to call that a tax increase?