Report: Bush to deliver MidEast speech

UPI ^ | Monday, June 24, 2002

[JohnHuang2]

WASHINGTON, June 23 (UPI) -- President George W. Bush is tentatively scheduled to deliver a speech Monday unveiling his administration's new Middle East policy, Ha'aretz reported, citing White House officials.

Bush was scheduled to deliver the speech last week, but decided to postpone following the two suicide bombings in Jerusalem, in which 26 people were killed and the subsequent Israeli reaction.

The president spent the weekend conferring with advisers on the timing and details of the much-anticipated speech, which will outline new American proposals to end the Middle East conflict.

The newspaper reported in its Monday edition that aides want Bush to make the speech before heading to Canada on Tuesday for a three-day summit of the Group of Eight industrialized nations.

Palestinian Authority minister Nabil Sha'ath called on President Bush to declare his support for a Palestinian state that would be created within two years.

Sha'ath told "Fox News Sunday" he hoped Bush "will set a timeline of not more than two years" in his call for the establishment of Palestinian state.

"Of course we would like to declare a state that would be in effect legally bound with the borders of 1967," he said. In practice, however, "the borders will be negotiated... We don't mind some minor modifications on the '67 borders on a swap basis."

Bush is expected Monday to call for formation of a state of Palestine with permanent borders within three years. The new U.S. policy is expected to call for the early creation, perhaps within a year, pf a Palestinian state with temporary, or provisional, borders.

Once a state is established, Israel would be asked to halt incursions into Palestinian areas, freeze settlement building and be willing to negotiate with the Palestinians, the newspaper said.

The president's proposal for a temporary Palestinian state was met with caution Sunday by lawmakers who realize that achieving peace between Israelis and Palestinians will not come easy.

"The quite frank fact is there has been such a deterioration in the Middle East that there is no ground on which the Palestinians and the Israelis can talk to one another," said Sen. Trent Lott, R-Miss., on CNN's "Late Edition with Wolf Blitzer."

"I think he's right now the only man with a plan. I hope it will work," said Lott, of Bush's controversial proposal. "But one of the things you have to understand about Israel today, Israel will have freedom and it will have peace in that order and on their own terms."

Sen. Barbara Boxer, D-Calif., told CNN the president "has to be careful that we don't get a signal that violence and suicide bombings or homicide bombings as I call them, are going to be rewarded."

Copyright © 2002 United Press International

[hchutch]

My first concern is dealing with Iraq. Right now, Saddam is a threat, and he could at any point give al-Qaida or some other terrorist group a chemical, biological, or nucelar weapon for use against the U.S. or Israel.

Dealing with him is a priority.

Second of all, we have to free ourselves from MidEast oil. The energy deal with Russia we're working on (rintense and Miss Marple have been following that more closely than I have) does that. That removes the one card the Arabs have over us - the threat of an oil embargo. That will take a couple of years to implement.

Bush is moving patiently to give us the freedom to back Israel fgully, but we have to buy a little time to do so. Sorry, but I did not put him in there to just rush to the sound of the guns. I want him to fight smart.

I cannot help it if you consider me or him a sell-out for that method of doing things, but again, what good can we do for our principles if we cannot win elections?

[KC_Conspirator]

Thats the stupidest thing I ever heard. All that is just illogical Christian bashing. I don't hear the Pope and his Cardinals calling for new crusades to eviserate and purge non Christians. However, the Wahhabism of Saudi Arabia was a catalyst for the terrorism of the current day.

[TLBSHOW]

member since April 27th, 2002

[carton253]

Why don't we hear what Bush has to say first before...

[Miss Marple]

You do a fine job of explaining strategy and tactics, but for some people it's just more fun to shout angrily whenever the President doesn't do something they like (which is most of the time for some of them).

Foreign policy and warfare is a great deal like chess. Those who see things as a checker game are bound to be unhappy because they only see one or two jumps ahead, and can only envision two types of moves, forward or backward.

Chess players, on the other hand, understand encircling the opponent, sacrifice maneuvers, sideways feints, and such. They must, of necessity, look many, many moves ahead in order to be successful.

The goal is the destruction of the world-wide terror organizations and the national regimes that support them. Everything depends on this success, including Israel's safety.

[jriemer]

JH2,

I am looking forward to Bush’s Mid-East Peace Proposal Speech for a reason that has nothing to do with Israel or the Palestinians. You see, I believe that the President’s presentation will have nothing to do with solving the conflict between these warring people but will instead have more in common with Reagan’s “We begin bombing in five minutes quip” this time towards Iraq.

I came to this conclusion by observing the frustration of our President by being distracted by the Isreali-Palistinian conflict. The Europeans and the American hand-wringing liberals longed for “peace” but they wailed, “That none could be found in this troubled, occupied land.” In this political environment, it is difficult to plan defeat Saddam’s regime while the chattering classes of Europe clamored for American leadership in finding peace. Unfortunately after the Clinton administration disembowelment of our Armed Forces, we still require foreign military support so that we can protect the “homeland”, meet treaty obligations, maintain containment of known hostile nations, and most importantly project military power.

In a feat of diplomatic jujitsu, it is my operational theory that the Bush administration has used the world’s expectation that the US solve the Israeli-Palestinian crisis to form a worldwide distraction for the Left so that the US could return to original aim of defeating of Saddam under this cover. As the tragic events continued to evolve in Israel, Bush could still faithfully say that we, as a nation are interested in working on the Middle East issue but behind the curtain, the main goal was still to crush Saddam. As more time passes without a solution to the Mid-East problem, more world attention is naturally drawn to this part of the globe instead of Iraq. This plan gives the Administration the time and the cover to act without Leftist meddling so that Saddam will be completely surprised instead of receiving a wake-up call from Peter Arnett et. al. prior to attack.

I would appreciate your thoughts.

jriemer

[Scott from the Left Coast]

Aye, but it is a sad enough day when the person quoted who makes the most sense in an article is Barbara Boxer.

Makes me think we have come to the end of days.

[JohnHuang2]

You see, I believe that the President’s presentation will have nothing to do with solving the conflict between these warring people but will instead have more in common with Reagan’s “We begin bombing in five minutes quip” this time towards Iraq.

You nailed it. Bull's-eye.

I couldn't have said it better myself, friend.

[JohnHuang2]

Check out #48 -- spot on.

[Huck]

Hold on to your wallets.

[Huck]

Abortion, gun rights, and SCOTUS nominees. But hey, it's early. Be parient.

[rintense]

There is more going here than we see. For example, when we liberated Afghanistan (still on-going), we eliminated the threat to the United States and her allies. When- and note I say when- we attack Iraq, we will also take out not only the threat to the US and her allies, but we'll also free the Iraqis subjected to Saddam's oppression for years. With the right influence from the US and allies, Iraq could potentially be the first true budding democracy in the Mideast, watched closely by us, naturally.

Palestine isn't any different. Eliminate the threat and let those who are left enjoy freedom. In the Palestinians case, since most of them support the terror attacks, many probably won't remain to enjoy a vision which they have dreamed.

The startegy seems to be very simple- eliminate the evil so that freedom and good can prevail. And with the always present threat that, 'yes, you too could be next', it wouldn't surprise me in the least to see many other Middle Eastern countries fall into line. There will be no place for groups like Hamas, Al-Qaida, etc to run if we put the right squeeze on. And the country we need to squeeze the most is Saudi Arabia.

Add to the mix the potential lessening of dependence on Middle Eastern oil, and you potentially make THEM the slaves to us. Again, the Russian infrastructure won't support massive exports for at least 4-5 years. But when we loosen the 'oil' rope around our necks, we give them more rope to hang themselves. They need us a heck of a lot more than we need them.

Of course, this will take a long time and will require patience. But I am highly optimistic that this will happen.

[Miss Marple]

You both have freepmail.

[rintense]

Iraq will be the example for all the Mideast to see.

[jriemer]

jh2,

Coming from you, that's a mighty fine compliment. Monday's starting to look better already. 8^)

jriemer

[JohnHuang2]

Thanks =^)

[upchuck]

I really hate to keep sounding like Johnnie One Note, but...

Memo to President Bush:

What part of "The Palis won't be satisfied until they have killed all the Jews" don't you understand. End of memo.

Now I've got a question. How can a state be "provisional"? Seems to me it either exists or it doesn't. Don't understand why we keep fooling around with the Palis. Liars and murderers.