Posted on 04/01/2002 8:35:41 AM PST by 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.
Well it takes one to know one. But you have ignored the internal machinations of Israel and what is actually happening and just make your statements. If Clinton was in office would Arafat be surrounded now?
But you go ahead and make your simplistic statements while you ignore everything else. I am just pointing out your simplistic notions.
That's what you and your buddies are known for, D1.
Has the Bush administration declared Hamas to be a terrorist organization? Hamas is separate from Arafat, and is responsible for nearly all of the recent bombongs. Hamas has shown no signs of cooperation. This would be more significant.
Uh it looks like you are the one who is confused. I called him on his made up headline in one of the first few responses of this thread.
Blind loyalty devoid of all objectivity emotes irrationality
Coming from you, I nominate that quote as the most ironic of the day.
68 posted on 4/1/02 10:59 AM Pacific by Dane
Fair enough. And we'll nominate you for the most moronic. The President stood there in fear of offending someone, and simply refused to say, "Yes he is a terorist." Kindof makes you want to hugg the guy doesn't it. If this is your idea of walking tall, nuff said.
Mewzilla, is this what you heard? Read the last paragraph and tell me what you think.
With all due respect, list those avenues. Every one of them have failed. The pie in the sky hopes for peace are nothing but that. What will it take for you folks to accept this? And in light of that acceptance, what is to be gained from refusing to admit what Arasplat is?
What is happening is that we are telegraphing a double standard. Other nations will never take us seriously if we're going to equivocate over such an obvous fact.
Dane, here in a nutshell is my problem with what Bush said:
The President has (and rightly so) couched the war on terrorism in stark terms of good and evil. He has assumed the moral highground for our fight. If Bush refuses to call Arafat a terrorist, quibbles about the definition of Arafat's terrorism, or starts making exceptions, then the President cedes the moral highground in the battle. And I don't think that territory is something we could or should give up. We need it to win. More importantly, it the moral postion to take.
Arafat is a terrorist. Bush ought to say so, and then if, for reasons he should clearly articulate, he still wants to negotiate with Arafat, he can still do so from that moral highground.
Condemnation of Arasplat has been neary non-existant until the last week, when it became obvious even for Bush and Powell that Israel could not be
damanded to remain inactive any longer. But still they admonished Israel to think of the ramifications. The very gaul of these two. Frankly Dane, you've got
an idiot for a President when it comes to Yasser Arasplat.
Well it takes one to know one. (1st grade level pot shot) But you have ignored the internal machinations of Israel and what is actually happening and just make your statements. So you're saying the endless stream of admonishments to Israel eminating from Powell and Bush never took place? Is this yet another admission that you don't know what the hell reality is? If Clinton was in office would Arafat be surrounded now? Ah yes, yet another example of a BushBot changing the subject. And a great example I might add. Are you saying that Clintonian behavior is okay when your god does it?
But you go ahead and make your simplistic statements while you ignore everything else. I'm refering to actual events. Bush did not classify Arafat a terrorist when directly asked. Spin that bud. I am just pointing out your simplistic notions. Yes, reciting actual events and making a statement regarding them is about as simplistic as it gets. Despite this, the tactic has evidently been too deep for you to keep up with.
That's what you and your buddies are known for, D1. Thank you.
81 posted on 4/1/02 11:15 AM Pacific by Dane
Whatever D1, you sit on your soapbox and be an armchair quaterback, ignore everything else.
BTW, what is even more ironic about this thread is your amazing 360 on Arafat, Doughty, since the person you voted for and proudly proclaimed on FR and even held a fund raiser for, Pat Buchanan, is probably seething at the "terrorism"(my terminology of Pat from his previous writings) being perpetrated by Sharon and the Israelis.
Your "daily" politcal core is showing, IMHO.
But Bush accepted the reporter's assertion that they weren't calling Arafat a terrorist by a)not disputing it, and b)by giving Arafat's supposed wilingness to negotiate as the reason why.
As for the last paragraph, the President's assertion that Arafat has accepted Mitchell and/or Tenet was news to me, and I suspect was news to the Israelis. I don't recall ever seeing the PLO agree to that in writing.
That assertion sounds familiar. It was the line Liberals took in declaring that the "Arab street" would come down upon us in all its fury if we used military force in Afghanistan. Did it? The "entire Arab/Muslim world" will not move in lockstep toward any objective.
Or someone had their computer clock set incorrectly. Is Japan gone to daylight saving time? Or someone discovered how to travel faster than light... :-)
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.