Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

Skip to comments.

Bush Derides Clinton's Mideast Work
AP/Yahoo ^ | Fri Apr 5, 8:25 PM ET | Ron Fournier

Posted on 04/05/2002 4:52:17 PM PST by gumbo

Bush Derides Clinton's Mideast Work


Fri Apr 5, 8:25 PM ET

By RON FOURNIER, AP White House Correspondent

CRAWFORD, Texas (AP) - President Bush says the Mideast summit sponsored by former President Clinton resulted in a "significant intefadeh," or uprising, repeating an accusation his press secretary got in trouble for uttering.

"It wasn't all that long ago where a summit was called and nothing happened, and as a result we had significant intefadeh in the area," Bush told Britain's ITV network in an interview taped for his weekend talks with British Prime Minister Tony Blair

The Middle East crisis and Bush's decision to send Secretary of State Colin Powell on a peacemaking mission will dominate their talks.

During his last months in office, Clinton was heavily engaged in pressing Palestinian leader Yasser Arafat to strike an accord, but his intensive diplomacy — capped by the 2000 Israeli-Palestinian summit at the Camp David presidential retreat — failed.

White House press secretary Ari Fleischer, defending Bush against criticism that he had not played an active peacemaking role in contrast to Clinton, noted to reporters in February that the 17-month Palestinian uprising broke out during Clinton's presidency.

"In an attempt to shoot the moon and get nothing, more violence resulted," Fleischer said.

Clinton's former national security adviser, Sandy Berger, lodged a complaint with Bush's national security chief, Condoleezza Rice . She asked Fleischer to retract his comment, though advisers said at the time that Fleischer reflected the president's privately held views.

"No United States president, including President Clinton, is to blame for violence in the Middle East," Fleischer said in retraction.

Aides said Friday that Bush was not blaming Clinton, either, but rather Arafat for missing opportunities to make peace with Israel — both in 2000 and during Bush's presidency.

Without mentioning Clinton by name, Bush said in the British television interview that a U.S. president should not call a summit without a good prospect for success.

"The only time that's appropriate for a U.S. president to call a summit, when it looks like something can get done," he said.

"The problem is, the American president, when he calls a summit, better get it right," Bush said. "If a summit fails, if the president ... lays it out there and nothing happens, generally the ... follow-up is worse than the status quo."

Bush did not rule out sponsoring a Mideast summit down the line. "Someday you may say, `I remember when I talked to old Bush, and there he is, sitting there with a big summit.' But now is not the time for one. I've got a different strategy."


TOPICS: Foreign Affairs
KEYWORDS: bush; clinton; mideast
Didn't see this in a search. Apologize profusely and abjectly if it's been posted already.
1 posted on 04/05/2002 4:52:17 PM PST by gumbo
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | View Replies]

To: gumbo
"It wasn't all that long ago where a summit was called and nothing happened, and as a result we had significant intefadeh in the area," Bush told Britain's ITV network in an interview taped for his weekend talks with British Prime Minister Tony Blair

This isn't fair to Clinton. Arafat had the whole thing planned in advance anyway. What Clinton did wrong was to not condemn Arafat for his treachery.

2 posted on 04/05/2002 4:54:46 PM PST by xm177e2
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: gumbo
Re #1

I like this move. Kick him hard. Kick him good. No finesse. Go for the knock-out.

3 posted on 04/05/2002 4:55:25 PM PST by TigerLikesRooster
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

we had significant intefadeh in the area

And that's a new Bushism.

4 posted on 04/05/2002 4:55:29 PM PST by xm177e2
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: xm177e2
This isn't fair to Clinton. Arafat had the whole thing planned in advance anyway. What Clinton did wrong was to not condemn Arafat for his treachery.

One of the things which, in hindsight we can see, is that Clinton should have had some idea of whether a deal was possible with Arafat before holding a summit.

5 posted on 04/05/2002 4:57:47 PM PST by Tom Jefferson
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 2 | View Replies]

To: gumbo
Never forget that Clinton kept Arafat waiting as he was "serviced" by Monica.

Don't underestimate the impact of such an insult on the Arabs.

6 posted on 04/05/2002 4:58:12 PM PST by aculeus
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: xm177e2
The current war in the Middle East was started by Arafat but it was aided and abetted by Bill Clinton's fecklessness.
7 posted on 04/05/2002 4:58:21 PM PST by goldstategop
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 4 | View Replies]

To: gumbo
Clinton coddled Arafat. It sounds like Bush is, in fact, slamming Clinton, and he should. Clinton was pushing a "summit" for selfish reasons. He played Barak like a puppet, and Arafat STILL turned down the best offer he was ever going to get.

Now, he'll probably die.

8 posted on 04/05/2002 4:58:39 PM PST by sinkspur
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: xm177e2
Didn't the current intifadeh (however that's spelled) start right after the collapse of the last "summit," where Clinton tried to force Barak and Arafat into an agreement?

Some critics say Clinton's rushing the process (so as to get a legacy-enhancing PR coup before the end of his presidency) directly resulted in the disastrous chain of events.

9 posted on 04/05/2002 4:58:52 PM PST by gumbo
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 2 | View Replies]

To: xm177e2
"You gotchyer 'significant intefadeh" is not a Bushism it is a new strategery.
10 posted on 04/05/2002 4:59:13 PM PST by johniegrad
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 4 | View Replies]

To: gumbo
Didn't the current intifadeh (however that's spelled) start right after the collapse of the last "summit," where Clinton tried to force Barak and Arafat into an agreement?

Yes, but it wasn't really Clinton's fault. Arafat had the whole thing planned well in advance. He wanted the intifada, the peace deal was just a convenient place to launch it from. Clinton allowed himself to be used by Arafat, and he refused to criticize Arafat, but he didn't start the intifada (he just didn't do anything to stop it).

11 posted on 04/05/2002 5:09:56 PM PST by xm177e2
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 9 | View Replies]

To: xm177e2
Twice you excuse clinton for his summit failure and then cite about three major mistakes he made which caused it.

Funny, you should be defending clinton so eagerly. Whatsup wid' dat? Finding a way to disagree with GW that important to you?

12 posted on 04/05/2002 5:19:42 PM PST by hinckley buzzard
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 11 | View Replies]

To: xm177e2
Bushism du jour:"It wasn't all that long ago where a summit was called and nothing happened, and as a result we had significant intefadeh in the area"


President Bush sits in his pickup truck with British Prime
Minister Tony Blair after his arrival to the Bush ranch in
Crawford, Texas, Friday, April 5, 2002. Bush and Blair begin
two days of talk dominated by the rise of violence in the Middle
East. The war on terrorism, particularly Bush's plans for Iraq,
are also on the agenda as Bush hosts the America's closest ally
at his secluded Texas ranch. (AP Photo/Susan Walsh)

Well, if Arafat had it all planned, then Clinton played into his hand. So I agree with Bush (and Fleischer before he apologized): Clinton deserves blame.

13 posted on 04/05/2002 5:25:30 PM PST by gumbo
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 11 | View Replies]

To: hinckley buzzard
Really, I'm not defending Clinton, and I'm not hating Bush! Bush has shown he's a real leader, he's stood up to Yasser and his cronies in the EU/Arab world, something Clinton could never do. I just don't think those peace negotiations caused the terror, I think it was planned in advance. Peace negotiations with terrorists are no good, they only encourage terrorism. I think Clinton did encourage terrorism, I think he never made a firm stand against it. I just think it goes a little too far to say the intifadeh was Clinton's fault, because it was orchestrated by Arafat.
14 posted on 04/05/2002 5:28:44 PM PST by xm177e2
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 12 | View Replies]

To: xm177e2
I think you are right. Arafat knew what he wanted to do, and Clinton was a convenient tool. That's what it's like in the fast lane. Now, there is a different man in charge, not one who lusts for a legacy. That could be very dangerous to Mr. Arafat, and being a cagey survivor, that must have him pretty shook. Arafat has no wish to achieve anything other than his stated goal of the elimination of Israel. He's about to be called out I think.

regards

15 posted on 04/05/2002 5:47:20 PM PST by okiedust
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 14 | View Replies]

To: gumbo
White House press secretary Ari Fleischer, defending Bush against criticism that he had not played an active peacemaking role in contrast to Clinton, noted to reporters in February that the 17-month Palestinian uprising broke out during Clinton's presidency.

Only in Washington D.C. does speaking the truth cause such an uproar.

I really didn't get this as an insult to Clinton, anyway. My read on this was that he was responding to a dumba** reporter's attempt to smear Bush as being "not involved enough" by pointing out that when a President (the former one) was very involved, things didn't turn out any better. Which is true.

There is a lesson here. No matter what you do in terms of Arafat and the Palestinian problem, it will come up and bite you in the a**. You can't give people peace, you can't force peace upon them --- people have to be ready for peace. And, the Palestinians ain't ready.

16 posted on 04/05/2002 5:49:05 PM PST by LibertarianLiz
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: LibertarianLiz
Clinton got on Arafat's case in some book

Be curious to see what happens now concerning Clinton and any response
17 posted on 04/05/2002 5:58:44 PM PST by uncbob
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 16 | View Replies]

To: xm177e2
"it wasn't really Clinton's fault"

I disagree, it was very much Clinton's fault. He engineered (via Carville's campaigning) Barak's election, because Netanyahu wouldn't have any part of him. He then proceeded to ram through a "peace agreement," which everyone knew full well Arafat was not going to honor. I'll never forget Albright's tackling Arafat as he walked out of the meeting, she and slick Willie were so pathetically desparate to get the peace agreement.

Clinton's self-serving political grandstanding set the stage for the "intafada," since the PLO interpreted Baraks's offer as weakness and proceeded to wage a nasty little war with childen as weapons, and brainwashed young adults as human bombs. After his failure to get what he wanted, Clinton spent the remainder of his term lobbying for the Nobel Peace Prize.

18 posted on 04/05/2002 6:12:29 PM PST by browardchad
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 11 | View Replies]

To: browardchad
Clinton's self-serving political grandstanding set the stage for the "intafada,"

I agree, with the added comment that I believe that Bubba might actually have believed his own publicity enough that he thought the mere fact of his presence would charm the parties into a settlement.

I can't help but think of the rap on Bush during the campaign, that he had now foreign relations experience. Funny, but I can't think of any foreign heads of state rushing down to Arkansas before Bubba was elected the first time.

19 posted on 04/05/2002 6:30:54 PM PST by CaptRon
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 18 | View Replies]

To: xm177e2
Yes, but it wasn't really Clinton's fault. Arafat had the whole thing planned well in advance. He wanted the intifada, the peace deal was just a convenient place to launch it from. Clinton allowed himself to be used by Arafat, and he refused to criticize Arafat, but he didn't start the intifada (he just didn't do anything to stop it).

"It's just about intifada, everyone does it!" Let's move on.

20 posted on 04/05/2002 6:44:05 PM PST by Chu Gary
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 11 | View Replies]

To: Browardchad
Clinton used Barak as his Mid Eastern Monica. He was willing to sell out Israel, for his Peace Prize. He had eight years to bring peace and failed and that has to be part of his legacy. Clinton becomes more repulsive and disgusting with each passing day.
21 posted on 04/05/2002 6:49:24 PM PST by Wild Irish Rogue
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 20 | View Replies]

To: gumbo
Re-post from another thread:

In my opinion, Clinton took both Arafat and Barak for a ride. Arafat thought Clinton respected him by treating him as a statesman, and Clinton duped Barak into thinking that he thought highly of him by sending Carville to help get Barak elected.

It turned out Clinton looked upon both of them pretty much the same way he looked upon women -- he simply used them. In this case it was a desperate, unsuccessful attempt to win himself a Nobel Prize. Say what you want about Arafat, but I truly believe that he had identified Clinton's true motivation long before anyone else did.

22 posted on 04/05/2002 6:56:00 PM PST by Alberta's Child
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: gumbo
Love that photo of Blair and Bush in the pickup truck.

Bush: "Howdya like this set of wheels, Tony? Can't beat a Ford truck, now can you?"

Blair: "I must admit I am impressed, Mr. Bush. Over in England we are such limp-wristed socialists with such high gas taxes that I could fit three of my government's biggest cars into the back of this thing. What do you call this, anyway -- a Ford Battleship with the diesel locomotive engine option?"

23 posted on 04/05/2002 7:00:55 PM PST by Alberta's Child
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 13 | View Replies]

To: xm177e2
This isn't fair to Clinton. Arafat had the whole thing planned in advance anyway. What Clinton did wrong was to not condemn Arafat for his treachery.

This has everything to do with Clinton having his eye on the Nobel eace Prize, instead of the nation's peace.

His conceit is apparant by his lack of handling over the issue.

24 posted on 04/05/2002 7:02:26 PM PST by AlGone2001
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 2 | View Replies]

To: gumbo
I can't really see how Bush can deride Clinton. He following his model pretty well...
25 posted on 04/05/2002 7:02:43 PM PST by RamsNo1
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: gumbo
This is the administration's payback for Madeline Albright opening her big trap a few days ago. Apparently, the Dems are trying to make Bush out to be the fall guy, so Bush is going back on the offensive. He waited until they fired the first volley.
26 posted on 04/05/2002 7:07:21 PM PST by massadvj
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: xm177e2
I wouldn't argue against Arafat having had his own plan, and I guess you are saying clinton was Arafat's stooge.

But clinton was the US President for godsake. He isn't supposed to step on landmines planted by jerkwater despots at his own summit! He's supposed to know what he's doing so this kind of fiasco doesn't happen.

If Arafat needed a trigger for his intifada, and set up clinton at his own summit to pull the trigger, then at least, clinton is guilty of gross incompetence for being sucked in.

27 posted on 04/05/2002 7:22:31 PM PST by hinckley buzzard
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 14 | View Replies]

To: xm177e2
This isn't fair to Clinton. Arafat had the whole thing planned in advance anyway. What Clinton did wrong was to not condemn Arafat for his treachery.

This starts with the abomination of the Oslo Accords - a secretly negotiated deal between individuals, rather than between the countries they would affect.

28 posted on 04/06/2002 6:32:10 AM PST by lepton
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 2 | View Replies]

To: gumbo
is sandy booger gonna cry about his boss getting picked on again? wahhhhhhhhhhhhhhh

Clintons mistake(and I remember it being said over and over in the press)was treating Arafart like a leader and not the slimey terrorist that he is.

29 posted on 04/06/2002 6:43:10 AM PST by linn37
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: aculeus
Don't underestimate the impact of such an insult on the Arabs

Don't underestimate the impact of such an insult on the Arabs

Don't underestimate the impact of such an insult on the Arabs

Don't underestimate the impact of such an insult on the Arabs

This needs to be repeated and repeated.

Remember also that there had to be handshaking. Clinton the buffoon was unclean. His action was absolutely repulsive and denigrating.

30 posted on 04/06/2002 6:50:10 AM PST by bert
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 6 | View Replies]

To: dighton ; Orual
Don't underestimate the impact of such an insult on the Arabs

Refers to my #6.

31 posted on 04/06/2002 7:40:03 AM PST by aculeus
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 30 | View Replies]

To: gumbo
Aides said Friday that Bush was not blaming Clinton, either, but rather Arafat for missing opportunities to make peace with Israel — both in 2000 and during Bush's presidency....

And the stolen FBI files of the Republicans are still in action, I see.

32 posted on 04/06/2002 7:43:45 AM PST by swampfox98
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: aculeus; dighton
Don't underestimate the impact of such an insult on the Arabs

I never thought of it this way before, but it makes a lot of sense.

33 posted on 04/06/2002 7:49:04 AM PST by Orual
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 31 | View Replies]

To: Tom Jefferson
i'm sure he was thinking hard about all this with monica between his legs. such a smart classy man........................
34 posted on 04/06/2002 7:50:28 AM PST by angcat
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 5 | View Replies]

To: angcat
Clintoon was desperate for a deal before the end of his term so he could claim a legacy other than "I did not have sexual relations with that woman," "it depends on what the meaning of the word "is" is," and "you'd better put some ice on that."

When you try to force a deal between parties who have no intention of settling, this is what you get.

35 posted on 04/06/2002 8:22:34 AM PST by Bubba_Leroy
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 34 | View Replies]

Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.

Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

FreeRepublic, LLC, PO BOX 9771, FRESNO, CA 93794
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson