Bush Middle East Speech Discussion Thread

[RCW2001]

Bush Middle East Speech Discussion Thread

[habs4ever]

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.

[holdonnow]

I don't get this kind of thinking. Bush said Arafat has to go? Wasn't it Bush's secretary of state who said that we have to deal with Arafat, that we don't get to choose the Palestinian leader, and Israel has to deal with him, too? Powell is now headed to the Mideast. He will either deal with Arafat, or with an Arafat go-between. This is nonsense.

[pyx]

M'am,
I have and still do, respectfully solicit your opinion on a national policy decision announced today.
Please publically respond to the substance of my question in #375 in this thread.
Thank you

[Miss Marple]

Apparently the leadership of Israel does not agree with you.

He is telling them that they can have a state IF they hold elections and remove Arafat, IF they get rid of terrorism, IF they have a transparent and accountable economy.

You are misrepresenting the position of the President, and I would have not expected you to do so.

A terrorist state in Palestine is not possible IF the Palestinians renounce terror and get rid of Hamas, Hezbollah, and the rest. Please re-read the speech.

[July 4th]

From the speech:

As we make progress towards security, Israel forces need to withdraw fully to positions they held prior to September 28, 2000. And consistent with the recommendations of the Mitchell Committee, Israeli settlement activity in the occupied territories must stop.

This is what I was referring to. I should have said the settlers must not be happy instead of 'aren't happy,' although one of the Israeli commentators on TV did mention that this would be difficult for many to take. I am finding it odd though that there's not much from the Israeli websites on the speech yet. I'm looking forward to reading some of the commentary.

I hope you're right on Saudi Arabia and Iraq.

[Delbert]

someone , for the love of all that is good and decent, PLEASE RESPOND TO POST 375!!!!

[Fracas]

Jennifer Griffin has done such wonderful work. She is not rah-rah Israel or I-hate-every-Arab; she reports the facts.

She is so much better than Christiane Amanpour. She also has a one-year-old who lives in constant danger from the suicide bombs.

[hchutch]

This speech does not strike me as a concession, but instead, something different.

In the war on terrorism (and also in the political war with the left that Bush is fighting), he pretty much has told himself:
"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."

In terms of the war on terror, I want him to make sure we act quickly and decisively to halt threats, and he has done quite well on that front. I don't think there are many complaints, particularly from those who have a fair bit of knowledge on military matters.

On the domestic front, I, as a conservative, only want to see us engage when one of the following three questions will be answered yes:

1. Will engaging in this political battle probably result in the passage of legislation that reflects consevrative principles?

2. Will engaging in this battle probably help elect more conservatives to office?

3. Will engaging in this battle probably help toss Democrats out, even if it would elect a moderate Republican?

If the answer is yes to any ONE of these questions (the more YES answers, the better, of course), engage in the political battle, and go for it full-tilt. If the answer is NO to all three questions, then pull back, and live to fight a political battle another day.

Some people might see that as a sell-out. I prefer to think of it as making sure we don't fight and lose for nothing. What good will it do the principle wes both stand for if conservatives lose elections because we picked the wrong fight and/or didn't plan properly for the political battle?

[AlGone2001]

I have no intention of defending things I never said. How many times do I have to answer the same question? I answered accurately. I suspect the problem is, that you didn't like the answer. I have had enough of your accusatory, irritating posts. Have a nice day.

---

You need to find out who is using your screen name, then!

---

375 posted on 6/24/02 5:10 PM Eastern by pyx
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies | Report Abuse ]

---

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 4:25 PM Eastern by Thinkin' Gal
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 118 | View Replies | Report Abuse ]

---

Try again.

[holdonnow]

Boy, I get tired of the condescending tone of people like you. Every time Bush breaks a promise or principle, I'm supposed to accept some pathetic spin like the kind you spew. Bush is wrong about Israel. He's the first Republican president to support a Palestinian state. He refuses to stand behind his own doctrine, which tolerates no equivocation. But I suppose I shouldn't be surprised. He said he was against McCain-Feingold, then signed it. He said he was for limited government, then signed the biggest farm subsidy bill ever. He said he was for school vouchers, then dropped them in seconds after Teddy Kennedy objected. I could go on, but what's the point? Your knee is jerking all over the place.

[MJY1288]

Leave it you to find a cloud in the silver lining

[Miss Marple]

I DID respond. Apparently he is just posting this to everyone who supports the President.

[habs4ever]

You don't think they believe Bush? Tell that to the Pakistanis and Chinese, that have seem their alliance fade, or the French, that realize they must get on board or Pax Americana leaves them no room at the table.And Saddam's client, the PLO, that had its legs broken publicly today by the US. Syria is beginning to coo sweet words, but they are also in the US gunsite, but is your beef more with the progress than anything else? It takes a bit of time to re-order the world.God did it in 7 days, and Bush is expected to do likewise? Is Bush God?

[Centurion2000]

bump 4 later reading

[mel]

Gosh I wish I could have heard it. It is bizarre to think that Arafat won the Nobel Peace Prize...

[Skel]

Please publically respond to the substance of my question in #375 in this thread.
Just curious - do you sell life insurance or work in the tele-marketing industry?

[pyx]

Sir or Madam,
I have been fairly specific in who I wish to engage the substance of my question in #375 of this thread.
Thank you.

[AmericaUnited]

This means that the Israeli occupation that began in 1967 will be ended through a settlement negotiated between the parties, based on U.N. Resolutions 242 and 338, with Israeli withdrawal to secure and recognize borders.

Bush will have God's very severe judgment on his head, if he has anything to do with giving Jerusalem back to the Arabs, as in "pre-67" borders!!!