Posted on 04/11/2002 6:45:41 PM PDT by Pokey78
The leak-proof White House is telling reporters--on background--that the administration is souring on Ariel Sharon. Who are these rogues?
YESTERDAY, in Madrid, the American Secretary of State virtually obliterated the distinction between terrorists and those fighting terrorists: "I think we are all in agreement and the world is in agreement that the solution will not be produced by terror or a response to terror." Quite a departure from the Bush Administration's response to September 11.
Later in the day, White House spokesman Ari Fleischer joined in the holiday from moral judgment. He said that the murderous suicide bomb attack in Haifa, in which eight Israelis were killed and a dozen others wounded, somehow underscored "the need for all parties to step back, for Israel to withdraw, and for the Palestinians and the Arabs to stop the violence, stop the killing." How wonderfully even-handed (even as it ignores the fact that the terrorist attacks against Israel have declined significantly since the Israeli military offensive began).
Administration officials speaking anonymously to reporters went further. "U.S. officials" told CNN White House correspondent John King Tuesday night that the ambush of Israeli military forces in the West Bank "would not have happened had Prime Minister Sharon heeded the president's advice and pulled back his troops." In other words, if Israelis die fighting terrorism, it is their fault for fighting back and for not heeding the American president's warning.
In fact, some senior White House officials seem to have launched a campaign against the national unity government of Ariel Sharon. The Washington Post quoted "administration sources" saying support for Sharon was "eroding . . . inside the White House." These "senior White House aides are beginning to express doubts about whether the Israeli leader can be a long-term partner in achieving the administration's goals in the Middle East."
These "senior White House aides" may be unaware that the current Israeli military operation has the overwhelming support of Israeli people across the political spectrum. But in any case, isn't it rather extraordinary, at a time when Secretary Powell is reaching out his hand to "Chairman" Arafat, that White House officials are now suggesting they would like to see the elected prime minister of Israel out of office?
Which leads to the question: Who are these "senior White House aides"? For months we've been reading about the unprecedented discipline of this White House--how no one speaks to the press without authorization. So we can safely assume that only the highest officials in the White House could be making statements with such significant policy implications. People at the level of, say, Andrew Card, Karl Rove, Karen Hughes, Condoleezza Rice, and Ari Fleischer.
Is it really the case that "regime change" in Israel is now administration policy? If not, these officials may want to publicly dispel the impression left by "senior White House aides."
Why not ? They love the Arabs and envy and hate the Jews.
This is the same as accusing them of antisemitism, and it is a false and malicious charge. To say that I am making up words is pretty foolish, when yours are there for all to see.
In fact, I will go on to ask you why you use the term "House of Jacob," which in case you didn't know it was a euphemism used by antisemitic types in earlier centuries.
You have NO idea what is going on behind the scenes. None. Neither do I, but at least I don't get on the computer and rant about things of which I am not informed.
Any speculation that I do is based on my knowledge of the character of the parties involved. You, on the other hand, seem inclined to make blanket statements of pseudo-fact and throw in a few insults to help your case along.
So, where did I learn my debating? I learned in school and in my life experience, which included people who taught me to not jump to conclusions and to always be civil.
The planet is not as simple as you believe. Rash actions often have unintended consequences. If you're suggestions were implemented at this point in time, the results would be global in it's effect and likely start the big one.
We need to avoid a global calamity if possible and that is exactly what Bush is doing. If he fails then your options will likely be on the table. My support for this attempt is 100%.
I look at my kids now and wonder if they will be still fighting this battle after I am gone. We owe them the chance to live in comfort and without fear. Let's give Powell some rope and see if he can get something going. If it all goes to hell then we will deal with it! OK?
You are slick but transparent. I wrote those comments about George I and Weinberger, which is evident from their careers, choices, and associations. You applied it to George II and tried to call foul. The jury is still out on his presidency, which is headed down at the moment, in great crisis.
You rememember George I's right hand man James Baker don't you ?
Both George I and Weinberger were on TV this week arguing the House of Saud's case. Say, the PLO has some job openings in Washington if you are interested in being a spokeswoman.
Ich bein Kristol if you want to target him because he is Jewish. You're among friends. You can get it off your chest.
I have nothing further to say to you, except that I am very, very glad that you are not in charge of foreign policy.
Should have cut that deal with Hitler and Tojo when we could have ...
Should have impeached Reagan when he called the Soviet Union an evil empire and put all those nukes in Europe ...
Of course no one attacked our capital under them. This is different. Any real patriot should be asking for a global calamity so no nation ever dreams of attacking or supporting an attack on America again.
What a crock. I am going to bed.
Actually there are quite a few, a majority even, on FR that are not sick with JewEnvy and the HateIsraelFirst flu sweeping the globe.
It makes me wonder.
Then why doesn't he close the borders? Why has he allowed 53,000 muslims to enter this country since 911? Bush is in over his head, He doesn't know what to do or when to do it. I'll be glad when the 2004 election occurs, hopefully we will live that long.
I saw the interviews. They did not argue the Saudi case as much as they stated a balanced view. I did not like it either and thought it was too Clintonian.
The fact is, that it was a example of good dipomacy. They were probably asked to do it by the administration to try to calm the waters for Powell's effort. This is what diplomacy is all about. It is ugly but necessary.
More lies and hypocrisy
Israel is trying to defend herself. You and your ilk want to hold down Israel back while her citizens are murdered. You pretend to be Christians. You sicken me with your smug hypocrisy.
That's right. We must strike a balance between BinLaden and Bush. It's personal with them you know. We just need two new leaders so we can stop the violence on both sides and reach a just settlement.
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.