Bush Middle East Speech Discussion Thread

[RCW2001]

Bush Middle East Speech Discussion Thread

[Diddle E. Squat]

As opposed to the Eyores?

[ClancyJ]

Now we have the President saying Arafat must go, and the Secretary of State recently saying that Arafat is the legitimate leader of the Palestinians, who the U.S. and Israel must deal with.

Who is the president? Just now his policy was put on the air - what Powell said before was Powell talking before.

[holdonnow]

OOPS! I meant -- ultimatim.

[Howlin]

CBS characterizes the speech as "withdrawing all American support for the PA."

[hchutch]

We've got primaries to deal with that.

I see a difference, though, in points 2 and 3.

Point 2 probably paplies more to primary battles, although it can apply to general elections. Point 2 is about replacing a Roukema with a Scott Garrett.

Point 3 is aimed squarely at general elections. While Connie Morella, Olympia Snowe, Greg Ganske, and Susan Collins are not people I agree with much more then 50% of the time, the fact is, IMHO, the most important vote they cast is for Speaker/Senate Majority Leader, with the chairmanships that some with that.

Electing Connie Morella could keep John Conyers from running the House Judiciary Committee, Charlie Rangel from running House Ways and Means, and George Miller from running the Resources Committee, for starters. On the Senate side, it can be safely argued that there is a significant difference between Orrin Hatch and Pat Leahy as chairman of the Senate Judiciary Committee. That means we have to work with Ganske, Snowe, and Collins until we can get a enough votes so that a bloody primary challenge WON'T cost us the Senate, or put us at the whim of the next Jeffords.

Let me add another quote, dating about two weeks from the time the first quote was made.
"I did not feel justified in risking a night encounter with possibly superior enemy forces[.]"

The quote is from the admiral who the first quote was addressed to. Now, I defy anyone to tell me that the Battle of Midway was an American loss because Raymond Spruance pulled back after sinking or fatally damaging four Japanese carriers, and shredding their elite corps of naval aviators.

The fact is, we have to pick our spots, especially where the Senate is confirmed. We've got areas where we can make a principled stand that will resonate with enough people to get the Senate back (the death tax). But we have to pick our spots for now, and save fights on other areas until we have the margins where we can fight and win those battles.

Aagin, I'm not just going to pick a fight just to fight them. I define winning as getting conservative legislation passed, defeating Democrats, and replacing moderate Republicans with conservatives. Admittedly, success in the first relies on success with the other two parts.

We have to stand for principle, but we have to get conservatives elected first, and to do that, we have to win polticial battles - or at the very least, avoid losing them.

I cannot help it if you consider me a sell-out because I prefer to do things this way. But I do not see how our principles are served by burning bridges and allowing our avowed opponents to win because we picked the wrong fight.

[Miss Marple]

Cheap shots at Ronald Reagan? Please get a grip.

I think I must be better at debate than I thought.

[holdonnow]

And what explains your mental incapacity, you little puke. You think because you learned how to type with two fingers that you can take cheap shots at anyone who disagrees with you. Up your dosages, jerk.

[Dane]

And shame on you for the cheap shots against Ronald Reagan.

What cheap shots? The facts are that Reagan was a pragmatist who compromised with Congress.

I guess the fact that Reagan signed a raise to the Social Security tax is also a cheap shot.

BTW, I still consider Reagan one of the greatest Presidents.

[pyx]

My apologies to the sensitivities of Grampa Dave and all those who might recoil at typing erros. I admit I am not perfect and don't use a spelll checker in my replies.
The word "causse" in my post above should be "cause".
Thank you.

[MJY1288]

"CBS characterizes the speech as "withdrawing all American support for the PA."

That confirms it, the speech was a home run :-)

[Dane]

And what explains your mental incapacity, you little puke. You think because you learned how to type with two fingers that you can take cheap shots at anyone who disagrees with you. Up your dosages, jerk.

IMHO, you should lower your dosages.

[Diddle E. Squat]

I'll respond to your #375 with a question of my own: Since Ronald Reagan 'watered down' through compromising and made deals with the devil to fight the Contras and keep Latin America from falling like dominoes into Castro-style communism, was he wrong in doing so? Was preventing this threat worth it, or no? Or should Reagan have simply nuked Mecca, Havana, Panama, and Nicarauga?(That seems to be the knee-jerk answer around here for dealing with any country that fall short of our vision of a conservative/libertine/capital ist utopia.)

[pyx]

Oops. I forgot the requisite :) after erros above to denote its purposeful placement. My bad.

[Spiff]

No offense, but there is something ironic about someone named 'Spiff' calling the President a wimp.

I didn't call Bush a wimp. I called Powell wishy-washy. Sheesh! That's twice someone in this thread claimed I was being "anti-Bush". I came in here to applaud Bush's speech - I even asked for clarification on the scripture he quoted. I was happy to hear what he said today. But, still, I'm an anti-Bush, 3rd Party Orphan, whining weasel, untermenschen. This enforced political correctness here is freakin' stupid. What if I did call him a wimp, anyway.

And Spaceman Spiff is no wimp, by the way. He'd blast you into tiny bits if he heard you say that.

[ClancyJ]

Looks like he is putting the old wedge in action among the Palestinians now. We'll find out if the seed grows among Palestinians tired of the status quo. Those that like killing and hate will be against it. We can separate those interested in a peace and those not.

I wonder if after these groups shake out, there might be an offer to allow those that wish to go along with the plan to form the state themselves - leaving those that love terrorism and war behind. Then they will be merely terrorists outside the new state and handled as such.

[Jim Scott]

I have ONE question for those who claim this is not a capitulation to terrorism;

Since it is a FACT that President Bush has in past, comprimised on policies he has presented; Why do you NOT expect President Bush to water down through comprimise with vested interests, the conditions he uses in this latest Middle-East policy announcement?

No one can predict the future and what other people will or won't do but today, President Bush made the U.S. position regarding the Palestinian leadership clear - it has to go. I won't bother to retype the president's speech, you can read it again for yourself as you seem to have missed a lot.

Now, you can claim that as a politician, President Bush may change some aspects of the requirements he laid out today for U.S. support of a Palestinian state and castigate him all day for what he might do but most of us on FR, with the exception of the DU trolls and 24/7 Bushbashers, believe the simple requirements he put forth today will be held to. As was already pointed out, The President doesn't need to appease Democrats or anyone else with foreign policy positions.

My analysis is that this was a great speech that clearly laid out a 'path for peace'. I also fear that it will be ignored by most Palestinians. I seriously doubt the leadership of the Palestinians will change or that they will be able to stop the hard-core terrorists from continued suicide bombing of Israeli citizens. So be it. Israel will continue to defend itself. The door to real peace is open. Maybe things can change if there is hope and Bush offered that hope to the Palestinian people. Should they reject it, the onus is on them, not Israel, not the United States.

I don't see a lot of wiggle room for the Palestinians here. President Bush was forthright and clear in what is required but he made the point that ultimately, only the Palestinians and the Israelis can end the conflict. The Israelis have upheld every agreement they've made with the Palestinians. The reward was suicide bombings of innocent Israelis. Will this time be different? Well, the Palestinians are required to lose Arafat, form a new government and many other acts that have been foreign to them, up until now. That could change but if it doesn't Israel has the will and the power to destroy much of the terrorist organizations in their midst, and they will. Should the Palestinians 'choose death', as Bush so beautifully stated the truth, they will receive it and no help from the U.S.

You seem to desire to make President Bush a liar before the fact, based on former domestic policy switches. That's your option but this speech and what it laid out for peace was outstanding, no matter your reservations and asides and endless calls to 'answer' your loaded question. Why we need to respond to yet another anonymous Bushbasher is a mystery but in any case you've now been answered.

Of cousre I expect you to sneeringly disagree but at least stop those silly demands to 'ANSWER #375' as if you've discovered the President kissing Arafat and have pictures to prove it.

I must say the lame attempts to find something, anything, wrong with this speech or the Presidents position is sad on a conservative website but then, some folks seem to have a need for a Goldman every day of their lives. This is the wrong day to be bashing this good and reasonable President with snide comments but that never stopped the bashers in the past. After all, his name is Bush. That's about all it takes.

To the long-time G.W. supporters here, I thank you and join you when time and blood pressure allow. This is a good day for President Bush, the United States, Israel and possibly even the Palestinians. It's a bd day for Arafat.

I'm pleased.

[holdonnow]

Ok, brainiac. I'll defend Reagan as you wonder mindlessly into the darkness. Reagan made deals that promoted our agenda. He cut taxes like no other president in American history (25% over 3 years, as well as indexing). No 10 year plan. And he did so with a Democrat controlled House. Had his proposed budgets been adopted, federal spending would have been cut by 25% -- no so-called Reagan deficit. He massively increased defense spending, modernized the nuclear missile arsenal in Europe (despite the worldwide nuke freeze movement), initiated the Stategic Defense Initiative, defeated the Soviets and won the Cold War, forced the commies out of South America (Nicaragua in particular), forced the commies out of Afghanistan, and didn't share Bush's "vision" of a Palestinian state. Reagan didn't sign any bills to limit free speech, he didn't sign the biggest farm bill in history (in fact, he took great heat for trying to cut the farm subsidy program, the wasteful Food Stamp and school lunch programs). He also actually tried to abolish the Education Department (rather than joining with Ted Kennedy to massively increase federal spending), he actually shut down the federal government on at least two occasions due to too much spending, he vetoed liberal bills, and he appointed many conservative judges. I like Bush very much. But he's way off on the Mideast. And like the libs, you don't make a point well by diverting to another.