Bush "War On Terrorism" Now a Big Joke: "Arafat Is Not A Terrorist" (Japanese News Report Breaking)

In Japanese (Kyodo News, Tokyo) ^ | 2 April 2002 Japan Time | Kyodo News Service

[AmericanInTokyo]

Breaking. Japanese headling says "USA Government Does Not Consider Arafat a Terorrist"

Briefly attributes the stated policy to a 'high-level press spokesman' in the Bush Administration. (Probably Fleischer).

Short dispatch in Japanese just now. Breaking fast.

[foreverfree]

which will then allow Arafat to kill more Jews, his principal pleasure in life (other than pederasty).

Where did you read or hear that Arafat likes to mess with little boys?

foreverfree

[Whilom]

I respect your view (and I was wrong to imply that you are a Liberal because of that view), but I disagree. The Arab/Muslim world has far more centrifugal forces than centripetal ones. Suggesting that the Muslim "world" will unite against the West is as realistic as suggesting that the Christian "world" will unite against the East. Exactly like Muslim countries with other Muslim countries, Americans share some views with other "Christian" nations while, at the same time, having views that conflict with them. Conflict so drastically that we can, and frequently do, go to war with "Christian" nations. Just as Sunni and Shi-ite frequently go to war. Just as Iran and Iraq fought a bitter and bloody 8-year war recently. The "Arab street" did not unite in fury when we used military force in Afghanistan, and the "Arab/Muslim world" will not unite if, as it should, Israel uses military force to eradicate the PLO root and branch.

[Dane]

Okay. Let me get this straight: President Bush should allow his foreign policy to be shaped by a few disloyal and radical left-wingers in Sharon's cabinet -- rather than by America's (and Israel's) security needs?

What? You are saying that the US shouldn't respect the internal political sovereignty of an ally.

You NWO, UN sycophant.

[foreverfree]

Tokyo does not have Daylight Time. Is this the case 12 months a year, as is the case in AZ, HI and most of IN?

foreverfree

[DoughtyOne]

Well Dane, if you call support for Israel and condemnation of the Palestinians and Arasplat without qualifiers, following Bush's lead, even though he's not done this to date, so be it. It must be real cozy in that little box you've cornered yourself into. Reality is just within inches in either direction. Stay real still.

[browardchad]

World War III started September 11, 2001. I'd rather not wait for our blood enemies to develop weapons of mass destruction. If this be war, then let it be war. If the Arabs want some, let them come get.

And exactly how do we fight this war -- by going off half-cocked? By allowing the Muslim masses, oppressed by their own leaders in every Arab state, to target US troops with suicide bombers in their frustration? By giving Saddam an excuse to let loose with weapons -- against both Israel and his Arab neighbors? Maybe you'd like it spill over to Pakistan, and they can nuke India? And then North Korea can join in, and maybe China? Our European allies (not) would be waving the white flag within 24 hours, and forming alliances with the first Muslim nation they could contact. It's great to think of ourselves as Rambo, but we have to use our forces, and our weapons, wisely. The military's job is to kill people and break things, but if we get into a guerilla war of street-fighting and suicide bombing on a world-wide scale, how do they accomplish anything?

Do you think the escalation of suicide bombings was coincidental to Cheney's trip? The swarming masses in these countries may be illiterate puppets, but their leaders are highly skilled in the art of deceit, and the Palestinian issue is their dirty little weapon.

[mewzilla]

Well, put. And in any case, Dane, don't shoot the messenger.

And in a just-keeps-getting-better-and-better-related note, did anyone hear Dana Lewis on MSNBC just now whining about being shot at in their car by the IDF. Seems that Mr. Lewis and co. approached a checkpoint in Ramallah (I think) and were fired upon and only their bulletproof windshield saved their butts. The anchor was most concerned and demanded to know why the IDF would think to fire upon -gasp- journalists?! But we had our blinkers and headlights on, whined Mr. Lewis. Our car had news printed on it (or words to that effect). Mr Lewis whined on: they stopped and turned on their dome light and showed their hands.

Of course they were also motionless for about twenty seconds before attempting to back up (their own admission) before they started to back away from their approach to the checkpoint.

Can you believe this? What's the matter, Mr. Lewis? Think you're better than the soldiers? Think they should risk getting themselves blown up teying to verify the identity of someone approaching them in a car?

Mr. Lewis was also in high dudgeon about a CBS crew being thrown out of Ramallah. They have a duty, don'cha know? To mess with the IDF apparently.

Nice going MSNBC. You guys can sure pick'em.

[AmericanInTokyo]

Hey Daney, do me a favor?

Please go to this URL, will you? It's the Kyodo News Page which has now translated one of the headlines w/short text, which I provided in Japanese a couple of hours ago on Free Republic. Kindly just scroll till you find:

"U.S. DOES NOT REGARD ARAFAT AS A TERRORIST"

http://home.kyodo.co.jp/all/firstp.jsp?news=politics&an=#20020402020

When you come back, could you tell me what it says? Are they incorrect? What could explain this discrepancy? Would you be angry if CLINTON talked this way? Be honest now.

[OldDominion]

"We're declaring war against Terrorism. Anyone who isn't with us is against us!"

In general, I am a supporter of the president. But, I have been disappointed with the Administration lately in situations such as this. Why cannot the president simply admit to what everyone knows...Afafat is a terrorist. If Mr. Bush is not carefull, the above quote will be GWB's equivalent to "read my lips.

[Miss Marple]

If you will look at the statement by Fleischer, it explicitly states WHY Arafat is being treated differently, and it is because he entered into negotiations with Israel.

Now, let us say that we declare him a terrorist, for the purpose of your argument. Then you have said you will not negotiate with him, and in fact we will, by our definition, be obliged to attack.

Suppose Arafat is removed, either by accident or on purpose. Who will we have to exert ANY sort of leadership in an area riddled with Hamas and Hezbollah? Answer: we will have no one.

Meanwhile, off to the east, is Iraq, with a huge standing army, weapons of mass destruction, and the desire to look like the big cheese to the Arab world.

Can you guys not see that this situation calls for caution, finesse, and back channel negotiations? Bombastic rhetoric will only bring HARM TO ISRAEL. Personally, if I were an Israeli I would not like to have Bush shooting off cowboy comments to please the right wing of his party, but rather working firmly and behind the scenes to get something accomplished.

ALSO...regarding the Israeli government. Peres has threatened to withdraw from the government if Arafat is targeted. He can bring the government down by withdrawing, as they are a colation parliamentary government. It is sort of like Daschle's stranglehold on the Senate, except imagine Daschle getting to veto foreign policy as well, and also having the power to call an immediate election.

I don't for one minute think that Bush is naive about Arafat. You will notice he has yet to speak to the guy. Also, Bush has known Sharon since before he decided to run for the presidency.

[Brownie74]

"Suicide bombings in the name of religion is simple terror," Bush said.

Seems pretty straight forward to me.

[OldDominion]

Well, I don't believe Arafat is doing a thing to stop the bombings, and believe he is actually behind them. Therefore, another leader cannot be much worse.

Also, the Israeli government obviously knows what Arafat is. For the Administration to say that because Arafat talks a good game, he is not in the "Hard Core Terrorist" camp is not good policy, in my opinion. The president should simply say that Israel has evidence that Arafat is a terrorist and that the American policy is not to interfere in Israel's sovereign right to self-defence.

[LarryLied]

*We need to prosecute a war on terror, but can't attack everywhere at once.
*We want to go after Saddam next, and need some bases to do this. Therefore, we can't alienate the Arabs whose bases we need.
*We need to try to keep this Israel-Pale problem off the table until we are ready.
THIS MAY BE WHAT HE (Bush) IS THINKING, but it is dangerously wrong.

Netanyahu said virtually the same thing over the weekend. Some in the Muslim world want America's war on terror to become an America/Israeli war on Arabs. That perception will not help either of us one iota.

[AmericanInTokyo]

But Miss Marple, gee, I thought the President stated that 'we don't negotiate with terrorists.' Clinton stood for the same thing, too.

This reminds me of the movie "Platoon". The gum-chewing sergeant with a three day old stubble says "Excuses are like _________; everybody got one."

Excuses. Excuses. Now look what the foreign press reports. Imagine this in Israel and among others who have looked to us for an unprecedented, comprehensive attack on WORLD TERRORISM EVERYWHERE, as the centerpiece of the Administration and second to no other issue.

[AmericanInTokyo]

My gosh. The damned place is in a state of war. Can't any of the numbskulls out there get this concept into their heads?

[kidd]

With all due respect, list those avenues

They are not very promising. Arafat doesn't want peace. And he is not an effective leader. He is, however, a recognized figurehead. If he is killed or jailed, he serves as a rallying point.

The best role is to keep him as a hostage.

[Miss Marple]

You know what? Your refusal to understand the nuances of diplomacy and the danger for Israel and the entire world in this situation is absolutlely bull-headed.

Did you know that simply because Bush said that Israel had a right to defend itself, Hamas has put out a leaflet calling for all Arabs to attack embassies, businesses, military installations, and so forth?

We are not playing beanbag here. This is serious stuff. I trust Bush to do the right thing. I do NOT trust your foreign affairs expertise.

[AmericanInTokyo]

Of course. Because it appears you support Bush no matter what he would do on any given issue. He goes this way, you go this way. He goes that way, you go that way. This is classic definition of "Bushbot".

Now, granted, I might be mistaken on this; if you were to provide some substantive past material on where you ever opposed Bush in this FR forum on any issue, I'd be happy to retract that observation. Truly.

I have had my words of support for Bush from time to time; mostly post-9/11. A great majority of my posts on his performance are in opposition, though. I admit. My criticism of him is policy driven, not personality driven (either hatred of him, or on the other hand, blind allegiance bordering on cultism).

I'll give the man credit on the issues he deserves. Not much here, though, IMHO.

[LarryLied]

Exactly. Things are never what they seem on the surface and there is a strategical objective which overrides minor tactical moves or statements. Forming opinions on the mideast day by day, statement by statement makes as much sense as watching CNBC and investing in the stock market based on what somebody said that day.

[mv1]

If Bush doesn't do exactly as a certain group says, if he doesn't say "how high?" when they say "jump" then he is savaged by certain posters and so-called conservatives. I always thought our President's job was to look out for America's interests not some other nation's interests.