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.
posted on 04/05/2002 5:28:44 PM PST
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.
posted on 04/05/2002 5:47:20 PM PST
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.
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson