Bush Middle East Speech Discussion Thread

[RCW2001]

Bush Middle East Speech Discussion Thread

[kristinn]

And ? After being condescended to and insulted on this thread, he gave it back to those who've been insulting the likes of him, Rush and Sean. He said so, himself. He held the mirror up to this site. Ugly view isn't it ?

[maro]

I would go W one better: let's wait until we have new Palestinians, too.

[Deb]

I think he's underestimating Bush, which surprises me.

Of course he (Bush) knows a Palestinian state will be hostile, murderous and terror-generating. In my opinion, he (Bush) is setting up the perfect political trap for the Palestinians that will never allow one to happen. And he's done it from the very beginning.

If they don't stop the terror (which they won't)...fine. No state.

If they don't hold elections and dump Arafat (which they won't)...fine. No state.

If they don't accept israel's right to exist (which they won't)...fine. No state.

THERE WILL BE NO PALESTINIAN STATE...EVER. But, hey, our president gave them every opportunity to have one and they blew it. go get 'em, Ariel.

That's the way I heard the speech. As a huge hand of peace and goodwill from George Bush and the American people, to the peace-loving muslims of Palestine. See world? See Arab states we need for our war? We tried in good (cough) faith.

What more can we do.

Mark seems to think that there's no such thing as diplomacy and that Bush is selling out if he doesn't nuke gaza.

I think he's wrong. I still love him and think he's one of the most brilliant conservatives we have, but I think he's wrong.

[truthkeeper]

Looks like to me Mark threw the first punch.

I know you aren't talking to me, Howlin...but go back and read the first line of the previous post ("If you would try to think a bit more clearly...").
In all honesty, don't you find that tone "condescending?"

[Miss Marple]

Did you really read the thread? He started out by posting an attack on the President. When people disagreed, he started the name-calling. I am too tired to go grab all the posts, and it would be redundant, anyway. Go read the thread for yourself.

[Lady In Blue]

To: Spiff

How about posting your resume so we can compare it to SOS Powell?

We are waiting!

You know something? I think that as old as Powell is,he could still take on Spiff and his other critics on FR! Powell is still very strong.I can see him with one hand around somebody's neck and the other hand around another guy's neck! hehehe!

[Amelia]

Were you the one telling me the story about the bully getting beat up the other day?

[Howlin]

For the love of god, we really needed that Fred. I should be surprised, but I'm not.

[A Citizen Reporter]

"Ugly view isn't it ? "

Why? Because he/they don't like what's being said about them? Rush's answer to that was to post an ignorant picture of the typical freeper on his website. Did you support that? I'd wager that Keyes and Klayman don't like what's being said about them on this website either, but such is life in the big political world. Some don't seem to be up to it, IMHO.

[DaughterOfAnIwoJimaVet]

Yeah, that was me.

[kristinn]

"If you would try to think a bit more clearly, you'll see that he is paving the way to a democratic Middle East.One that will not pose threats on a geo-political scale.The Bush Doctrine is alive and well, and sneaky too.He is offering hope to those under a jackboot of thugs, whether in Israel (PLO), Iraq, Iran and the rest.What is between the lines is that the US cannot afford to have these nations remain as they are.How many times does he need to say this before you get the point? Those regimes are toast.

Bush pulled a fast one, again."

OK, my friend, no condescension here, LOL!

[LarryLied]

It's holdonnow? Oh God. What a hothead.

If a rock solid conservative such as "holdonnow", who is not a neocon, is saying that about Bush, I think you better revise your projection of how much of a shift to the GOP there will be among Jewish voters.

I've been predicating little or no shift. Certainly not in the fall and probably not in 2004. I hope I am wrong and you are right by a wide margin.

[Miss Marple]

Yes, kristinn, the phrase "if you would think a little more clearly" is equivalent to calling someone a "little puke."

Try again.

[hchutch]

I think the big problem here is that we have a situation where I believe that one of the strengths conservatives have had (a strong moral and ethical center based on principles) is causing some serious dissention among them as to METHODS used to obtain goals.

There appear to be two general camps. In one camp are people who do not want to see compromises made when a principle is involved. And there is another camp that asks the question, "What good will we do for our principles if we cannot get our guys elected?"

I tend to be on the side that goes for getting people elected. I'm willing to fight for principles, but I also operate under the same orders given to a naval commander on the eve of a decisive naval battle:
"In carrying out the task assigned....you will be governed by the principle of calculated risk, which you will interpret to mean the avoidance of exposure of your force to attack by superior enemy forces without prospect of inflicting, as a result of such exposure, greater damage to the enemy."

I have no problem with a fight on principle, provided it will do one of three things:

1. It has the probability of getting good legislation passed (definied as legislation advancing my agenda).

2. It has the probability of getting more conservsatives elected (by firing up the base).

3. It has the probability of defeating Democrats (by pulling swing voters to our side).

If the answer to any of those three questions is YES, then I'm all for a battle. If not, then I'd rather cut a deal and neutralize the issue until we get better poltical terrain on that issue down the road.

Quite frankly, I'm of the opinion that we ought to pick our battles carefully, and when we do decide to engage in battle, we need to plan carefully, and make plans for responding to various attacks that might come in that battle. And I am not above taking a few pages from the Clintonista playbook if it means defeating the left.

The fact is, as I see it, there are some here who are more oriented towards results, and others are touchy about the methods used to get the results. I have recently finished reading "Killing Pablo" by Mark Bowden (author of "Black Hawk Down"), and to be very blunt, I bet that if some conservatives knew exactly what lengths we went to in order to take Pablo Escobar down hard, they'd be madder than a stuck rhino. Our guys pretty much threw out every rule in the book, and probably bent a few laws to take Escobar down.

The thing is, Escobar had to be stopped. He had become that dangerous. But to stop him, we had to set the principles aside, and simply fight dirtier and nastier than he could. The question is, how many of us really have the stomach to do what it takes to defeat the Democrats and to get ourselves on the way to clear conservative majorities in the House and Senate, and a conservative in the White House?

The other thing we have to recognize is some of us just might have a different interpretation of how things ought to be, and that will be reflected in the positions we take. I recently had a debate with Huck over the proper procedure for terminating a treaty.

I've not been perfect at avoiding name-calling, but we need to decide right now whether we're ready to let our enemies take advantage of our internal disagreements and possibly translate that into electoral gains. Let's work the real problems (the Democrats) first. I was angry at those who put knives in the back of Ollie North and Bret Schundler (John Warner and Donnie DiFrancesco) over disagreements, and I will have just as much anger at those who will do the same from the right.

Let's save our anger at the left. Right now, I bet some of the DU crowd are getting a kick out of this, so let's shape up, make up, and start showing those left-wing so-called "progressives" what REAL progress is. I'll work with any conservative, Republican, or moderate who wants to get things going in the right direction. I will endeavor to keep the Eleventh commandment, and I promise from this point on, that I will do my best to avoid starting any name-calling.

But I'm getting sick of the infighting. The fact is that Mark is doing a stand-up job in taking on the NEA's little shenanigans, and if he wants help from me in this task, I will be happy to assist him in any way possible. Similarly, Rush did a great job for us in the past, and I'm not going to burn bridges with him, either, especially over a disagreement in tactics. Sean Hannity and Alan Keys have also made contributions.

One other thought: If we are burn too many bridges, we run the risk of losing elections. In a way, each of the groups claiming that they won the election for Bush in 2000 is right. It turned out that we needed ALL the votes we could get in 2000, and we came way too close for losing for my comfort.

Now, are we going to fight each other, or are we going to fight the left? Because the bridge burned today just might be needed tomorrow.

[toenail]

"Has cut off all forign aid to family planning that includes abortion"

When will this Clintonesque lie die....?

[Amelia]

And ? After being condescended to and insulted on this thread, he gave it back to those who've been insulting the likes of him, Rush and Sean. He said so, himself. He held the mirror up to this site. Ugly view isn't it ?

kristinn, are you going to discuss the actual topic of this thread, or are you going to spend the next 300 posts whining about how poor little Mark got his feelings hurt, started calling names like an elementary school student, and then got more insulted when people told him he was acting childish?

Poor little Mark. He has strong opinions and he expresses them forcefully. It shouldn't be surprising, and he shouldn't be insulted, when someone expresses strong opinions back at him.

But his name-calling was childish and uncalled for, and I don't know what you're trying to accomplish by carrying on about how "badly" he was treated.

[Darlin']

"Where is it infered by TG that Bush is the anti-Christ "

"To: Amelia; babylonian; 2sheep; Jeremiah Jr

I watched and recorded the speech. It was the same old rhetoric. Either he believes in this utopian Pali state (if he does, he ought to be committed), or he's as duplicitous as his Arab friends. Bush is crafty alright. Who is like Bush? Who can make war with him?
213 posted on 6/24/02 3:25 PM Central by Thinkin' Gal

From Revelations, 13:4, "And they worshipped the dragon which gave power unto the beast: and they worshipped the beast, saying, Who [is] like unto the beast? who is able to make war with him?".

[habs4ever]

If you notice, the addition of the farm bill, CFR and vouchers in his reply didn't have anything to do with todays announcement ,did they? Seems "Mark" couldn't stay on message, but needed to get other shots in while "he" had a chance.

[kristinn]

Rush and others have had a chance to meet some of us in person. They know that all FReepers aren't like the bullies and "our guy or noone" people that populate these threads.

[LarryLied]

Notice how Mark lists all the things Bush has done in the past which are not conservative. But he says it now. He wasn't on here complaining about the Education Bill or the Farm Bill that I recall. It is all about Israel. It always is. Republicans cannot win when it comes to Israel. Eisenhower didn't, Nixon didn't, Reagan didn't.