Posted on 03/31/2002 4:04:26 PM PST by ATOMIC_PUNK
Edited on 04/29/2004 2:00:20 AM PDT by Jim Robinson. [history]
WASHINGTON (CNN) -- With violence in the Middle East escalating, two leading Senate Democrats said Sunday the Bush administration should ratchet up the level of U.S. diplomacy by getting Secretary of State Colin Powell more directly involved.
"I think there needs to be something dramatic done, and that means the president has to step up his involvement," said U.S. Sen. Joseph Biden, D-Delaware, chairman of the Senate Foreign Relations Committee, on CBS' "Face the Nation."
(Excerpt) Read more at cnn.com ...
"Laurie Dhue asked Henry Kissinger about this today on Fox .. it was a great question and Kissinger had a great answer."He said Powell shouldn't go over there unless there were concrete results that could be obtained and that it wouldn't do American prestige any good to have the Secretary of State travel to the Middle East and spin his wheels. In short, it made a lot of sense."
I'm glad I found your post Colonel, before repeating it. I think I'll repeat it anyway! lol!
Kissinger did make a LOT of sense. If Powell goes without having a concrete objective that he knows has been worked out ahead of time, he'll only look weak and ineffective.
It's obvious that the time for talking is passed, imho.
All you guys have found the truth about this! The Democrats know that this is just a quagmire. They want to damage Colin Powell because they see him as an able adversary on the nationaly political scene. [ Even if we are not too fond of him! :) ]
The Democrats would also like to damage Bush.
The U.S. may send diplomats over, but it should be done only at the behest of Israel at this time. Israel has made the call that diplomacy is OVER, at least with this clown, Arafat. It is their call.
It's interesting to watch the talk shows on this. Everyone knew that Arafat was a front man for the terrorists. Everyone knew that Israel accepted him only because (1) he was the only one talking rather than chucking bombs [supposedly], (2) they had no idea who is replacement might be, (3) they had a knife in their back from the liberals in the international community [yes, it was more than just Clinton] who kept telling them to negotiate.
Israel has now said: "Enough of the charade". Arafat has clearly not negotiated in good faith. He has not given reasonable consideration to mammoth concessions regarding ceding land to the Palestinians. He has not made a good faith effort to bring known terrorists to justice.
Everybody knew it was a charade, except possibly our media!
Anyone who believes that Arafat is not part of the problem [by that I mean OUR problem as well as Isreal] should remember that they had just opened a museum to the terrorists in the Palestinian controlled area. It depicted a very recent suicide bombing in a very positive light. It was designed to glorify this activity. After Sept 11, and after Bush came out so strongly against terrorism, the museum was quietly closed.
Folks, it's all a game of charades.
I Couldn't agree more. Declaring Arafat a terroist and putting reward on his head would be a good start.
Egypt, for instance, clearly does not have a really great civil rights history towards Christians and Jews. However, they have been keeping the pressure on the radical Muslim groups internally in order to preserve order. These same moderates recognize the external threat posed by the likes of Al-queda.
However, if Bin Laden can characterize the struggle as an Isreali issue, then these same moderates will not be able to retain power unless they vigorously side against U.S. actions.
This is why domestically, arguments to the effect that the U.S. brought Sept 11 on itself by its support of Israel, is such a dangerous argument. It attempts to paint those terrorist attacks as merely an extension of the Arab-Israeli conflict.
Bush, on the other hand, needs to be able to portray the events of Sept. 11 by Al-Queda, and those like it, as being a direct attack against the West in a bold attempt to destroy the West. This is fairly easy to do, since that is the Muslim rhetoric.
What will make Bush's life so difficult is these people are masters of holding the olive branch in one hand and the bomb in the other behind their backs. This is the model which has worked for years with Arafat as the front man. Unfortunately, we have a media filled to the gills with Quislings and Chamberlains who gobble it up. Sharon was being grilled today on American TV as if he were persecuting the "peace-loving" Arafat. [ and what is to become of "negotiation"??? sob, sob ]
Psst, Colin... your owners are calling you...
He is an American. Most Americans no longer know what it means to serve in the military to defend their nation and neighbors. As a result of the September 11th attacks on our nation we need a new generation of patriotism in the war on terrorists, similar to World War II.
Having said that... YOU have violated a freerepublic protocol here. No use of Laurie's name, without PICTURES. GET IT?
DON'T let it happen again.
That's all.
Well with half of the Moslem states voting that Palestinians blowing up supermarkets and pizza parlors is not terrorism I do not think that there is much "moderation" in the Islamic world. They can't even agree what terrorism is, how can we make them "partners". Trying to make a coalition with Islam is like inviting enemy into your backyard as you fight out the front. Stupid.
Naah .. my pictures are boring. :)
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.