Replies

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?

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.

Enjoyed your post.

Its funny, but many people seem to develop patterns. With the Clintons it was watch out whenever they accused someone of wrongdoing, because that meant that they were about to be outed for committing the same sin. With GW Bush, it seems like he always takes a bit to methodically assess the situation, publicly gives the opponent a chance to make right, before bringing down the hammer. Oh sure, the conditions may be so high and difficult that he knows going in that they won't choose to meet them, but it publicly shows that he isn't acting rashly, and that he gave them a chance. Remember how he gave Afghanistans conditions that would avoid war? When it comes to major decisions, he often frames it where the opposition is forced to chose, and we are simply reacting to that choice.

Too bad the Axis of Eeyores around here routinely fail to discern this. Or do they chose not to?

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.

Sir,
Please read my reply in #535 of this thread. I am reasonably confident I've clearly presented my own opinion with regard to the President's policy announcement today. And aside from your insult to me, I'm reasonably confident in my understanding of what President Bush announced today.

[Snippity doo dah !}
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.

By opening the door to negotiate with barbarians who use terrorism as a barganing chip, that in of itself lends credance to the use of terrorism as a negotiation tool in the first place, imo.

You seem to desire to make President Bush a liar before the fact, based on former domestic policy switches.

I have no such desire, Sir. Again, aside from your insult to me Sir, my desire is for the survival of Western Civilization and the prosperity of America.

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.

There is no sneer from me, Sir.
Again, I see no need for you to insult me.
I made several REQUESTS to several different people to reply to my question in #375 of this thread.

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.

Sir,
Unless I am mistaken, one of the purposes of this forum is to civilly discuss and debate politics and policy. Today a major policy announcement was made by President Bush. I (and I suspect [perhaps wrongly] others) have questions and opinions about that stated policy announcement. Some of those opinions (my own) appear to be at variance with others. My question was asked to several people to assist me in understanding their opinion. If that is "bashing" as you call it, so be it. However, rather than repetitively insulting me, you might want to reconsider your next reply to opinions at variance with your own and reply to the question itself.
Respectfully,

Pyx
Mumbling to the wind: All y'all screamed for civility. And your response to it is ?