Posted on 04/23/2002 6:46:40 PM PDT by Wphile
President Bush has trouble concealing his sympathy for Israel. When White House aides suggested Deputy Defense Secretary Paul Wolfowitz as Bush's personal representative to address the pro-Israel rally in Washington on April 15, the president responded without hesitation. He could have had a low-level official from the State Department or the National Security Council or the White House staff speak at the event, someone with less of a reputation as a firm supporter of Israel, someone who'd signal friendship with Israel but not strong backing in the current fighting with Palestinians, someone whose prescence wouldn't upset Europeans and Arabs. Bush didn't ask for another option. "Yeah," he told his aides about sending Wolfowitz, "that's the guy that ought to do it."
This is hardly an isolated episode. Some of the president's pro-Israel utterances are well known, notably his comment after Secretary of State Colin Powell returned from his trip to the Middle East that Israeli prime minister Ariel Sharon is a "man of peace." Other comments have escaped media attention. Example: Bush's private remark to Jewish leaders last year about his disdain for State Department diplomats with anti-Israel leanings. Vice President Dick Cheney echoes Bush. In a little-noticed speech last week at the Israeli embassy - it was Israel's independence day - he said Israel's battle against terrorists is the same as America's war on terrorism. Cheney cited Israeli support for America's war and added, "Israelis have lived at the front lines of this struggle for decades."
Bush's sharpest prodding of Israel came on April 8 after he hed toured a citizens' police academy in Knoxville, Tennessee. Reporters were summoned for what White House press aides said would be a "statement." The president appeared peeved. He punctuated his comments with a slashing hand movement. "Let me say one thing before I leave," he said. "First of all, I meant what I said to the prime minister of Israel. I expect there to be a withdrawal (by Israeli soldiers from the West Bank) without delay...I repeat. I meant what I said about withdrawal without delay."
for sure, that wasn't a pro-Israel moment. But what followed was. When the president returned to Washington, he was informed Israeli troops had been pulling out of two small Palestinian towns. That was enough for him to change his tune. Interviewed late that afternoon by the Wall Street Journal , Bush refused to zing Sharon for declaring Israel would finish the job of rooting out terrorists in the West Bank. "I can just tell you they started pulling out of cities," Bush said. Are there consequences for Israel if the pullout doesn't continue? "It's going to continue," he said.
For the next eight days, the president was silent on the subject of Israel's need to retreat hastily - no words, no arm-twisting. Of course, Bush could have exerted enormous pressure on Israel. He or an administration official could have raised the possibility of a "reassessment" of Middle East policy, a tactic used by President Ford in the mid-1970s. Leaks about potential cuts in aid to Israel could have been engineered. Or a State Department official could have suggested the United States could do nothing to stop Europeans from imposing trade or economic sanctions against Israel. None of this happened.
What can we draw from this? At the very least, Bush didn't feel strongly about stopping Israel from completing its anti-terrorist drive in the West Bank. Rather, he seemed quite happy to see it continue, so long as Sharon was beginning a gradual pullout and thus allowing Bush to claim credit. As for Powell's mission to the Middle East, the White House announced he had maximum flexiblitity to decide what to do. As luck would have it, he decided as Bush would have. Palestinian leader Yasser Arafat expected Powell to spring him from his headquarters in Ramallah, where the Israelis were keeping him. Powell didn't. Nor did he free the Palestinian fighters besieged in the Church of the Nativity in Bethlehem, as the fighters had expected he would. Naturally, the press called Powell's trip a failure because a cease-fire, requiring Israeli troops to quit the West Bank, wasn't reached. But from Bush's pro-Israel standpoint, things worked out fine.
At the outset, however, Bush faced rising anger among Republicans and conservatives - his political base - over his refusal to call Arafat a terrorist and his insistence Israel halt its incursion. One GOP congressional leader told the White House he was hard-pressed to keep Republicans from attacking the Bush policy. He was informed that Bush hadn't meant to sound so harsh with his "I meant what I said" statement. By the end of Powell's trip, the anger had dissipated. "It played out substantially differently from what people thought," the Republican leader said. "We're back to giving Bush the benefit of the doubt." Bush adviser Karl Rove, by the way, says the White House was never concerned about a revolt by pro-Israel Republicans. "We don't hyperventilate around here," he says.
By declining to label Arafat a terrorist, Bush sacrificied moral clairty in his war on terrorism. True, following Powell's trip he said Arafat must "not only" denounce terrorism but actually stop it from being carried out by Palestinians. That's not quite the same as writing Arafat off as a terrorist. There was a reason for the president's hesitancy: Iraq. His aim is to stop the fighting in the Middle East, cool tensions, assuage Arab leaders, and begin some sort of peace process to preoccupy the region. In Bush's view, Arafat's involvement is necessary, for now anyway. All this would clear the way for the Bush administration to move ahead with plans for deposing Iraqi dictator Saddam Hussein. That remains Bush's top priority, so much so he broached the subject last week in a talk ("I've got one country in mind") to the Fiscal Responsiblity Coaltion, which isn't a foreign policy group.
The Wolfowitz speech at the pro-Israel rally at the Capitol also got priority treatment at the White House. It was drafted at the Pentagon by the entire speechwriting staff and rewritten by Wolfowitz himself. Then it was vetted by White House aides, though Bush didn't read it. Wolfowitz was booed when he lamented the suffering of innocent Palestinians, a part of the speech he had inserted. Except for that, he was well received, especially by Elie Wiesel, the writer and Holocaust survivor. As he left the stage following his speech, Wolfowitz was waylaid by Wiesel. In reporting back to White House aides, Wolfowitz quoted Wiesel as saying: "I listened to every word you said. I agreed with it. It's important you said it." Bush's aides were relieved.
ROFL! What a great line. Wish some around FR would take a lesson....
Yep. That's a professional aproach, and good advice for anyone. Pragmatism is a necessary attribute for those dealing with international affairs. What may seem black-and-white to one party is just not so to many others. Taking pragmatic, small steps, and at times sending mixed signals, is part and parcel in the game.
That having been said, the place to draw the line is at the moral boundary. Gotta be very careful here. Moral equivelancy is a game/tool of the modern fascist leftists. There can be no moral equivalance between terrorist actions and the rightful duty of a soveriegn state to protect its citizens.
On the home front, I wish the US Congress would take the time to review the part of their job description that commands them to ensure the domestic tranquility, provide for the common defense, etc. as their TOP PRIORITY!!! And spend less time concerned about spilling a few drops of oil on a remote arctic desert wilderness, etc.
Thanks, I feel much better now.
You don't sound very sorry to me.(snif snif)
There is an alaborate set of rules in political discourse. You are, of course, familiar with the one which states that politics ends at the water's edge?
Ok, so now Democrats and Republican are two sovereign nations on different continents. Right.
No Republican can ever disagree with another Republican, and no Democrat can disagree with another Democrat...or they are violating the "rules in political discourse".
In fact they could be tried for treason.
This is a joke, right?
One of the strengths of the enemy (fascists, masquerading as liberals -- hint: demonrats) is they have learned to blend their differences into a cohesive fighting force. Recall in the eighties when there ensued so much infighting within the democrat party, this enabled Reagan and the other pubs to get a toe-hold and roll out their agenda. This was a good outcome.
Now, I fear, the roles are reversed. The dim ones have learned the bitter lesson of their defeats in the eighties, and now present a united front despite their difference -- while it is the Republicans who squabble amongst themselves over half-loaves, thus dissipating their cohesiveness and forcefulness in steering poilicy and events. The Republican "leadership" really needs to get with the program NOW!
No, not when you are dealing with Ms. Marple. Bush could steal the Crown Jewels of England and Ms. Marple would defend him.
Weakly Standard is the Neocon bible. Don't take it very seriously, in fact, don't take it seriously at all.
It is not the first time that G-d communicated with the Jews through a bush.
LOL
Miss Marple, I don't see how anyone could not agree with Mr. Wiesel. His book about his time in the Nazi camps was one of the most haunting accounts I have ever read. My respect for this man knows no bounds.
I can also say the same thing about President Bush. I trust his judgment equally as much. He has a fine line to walk right now considering the war we are conducting.
I would expect anyone could understand that, and just wait and see the results knowing that he has the best interests of our nation foremost in his mind.
It's "Miss Marple".... not "Ms. Marple".
Thou shalt not take Miss Marple's name in vain.
Go sit in the corner.
I agree with you 100%. I may not agree with everything President Bush says but I'm certainly not going to yell from the roof tops about him. I think as well known as some of these people are, that they could call the President privately and express their disappointment. Whether it's said in private or public, once is enough anyway. I will NEVER listen to Rush nor watch Hannity again. It's as if they are begging for a Democrat Congress and Senate.
If I disagree with something Pesident Bush does, I always think of the total person, rather than just one issue. Some seem to think he has to do EVERYTHING they want him to do or they start trashing him. Disagreement is one thing but contineous trashing is something else. I'd sure hate to think some folks within the FR were for me or my friend. Fair weather people, I can do without. He's earned my trust and there's no doubt in my mind that he's working on something long term. All I have to do is think about a liberal being president or taking over the Senate and Congress and my priorities get in order real fast. NO ONE is going to do everything we like. He's such a good, moral, decent man and I'm so proud to call him Mr. President. I've met him twice and you just could not ask to know a better person.
Some of you have caused his poll numbers to go down some and maybe you're happy about that but thank God, most people know a good thing when they have it. I guess I just don't understand how someone who claims to be a conservative could bash him worse than the Dems do; knowing how happy that makes the liberals and I do hope you wake up before it's too late. Just keep it up and come November, you'll REALLY have something to complain about when you've succeeded in giving us a liberal Senate and Congress.
Yes, and isn't it amazing that they would turn to Bush while his own party deserts him? Looks like they got smart and some on our side got----should I say "not so smart?"
I said re: Wolfowitz' appearance at the support for Israel rally that he was the PERFECT Bush administration person to attend and that his presence there signalled a very strong support for Israel in face of the suicide attacks by terrorists.
Glad to see - as this article confirms - this "analysis" was correct. (Maybe I need to apply for Karen Hughes' job? Just kidding......!!!)
I had stopped listening to Rush a long time ago because he seemed to be a mouthpiece for the country club, RINO wing of the Republican party. You could always count on Rush to parrot the party line. I couldn't believe my ears when I heard him taking the President to task over CFR, amnesty for illegal aliens and pressuring Israel to stop defending itself against terrorism. So now I'm back to listening to Rush everyday. Keep up the good work Rush!
I believe that one should be loyal to their leader as Karen Hughes is. President Bush is still my leader and I will defend him or stand by him til he proves with results that he is not worthy of being my leader. So far I am satisfied.
No, you didn't send me your picture of you with President Bush!!!! YOU LUCKY THING, YOU!
Are you gearing up for this November's races? Seems like the voter fraud is still out there big time - I just hope somebody more important than moi is paying attention and has plans to counter the illegal, dead, and multi-precinct voters!!!!
I want to have the Citizen Corps volunteer to be pollwatchers - two at every voting precinct in America!!! With video cameras and armed guards if necessary!!!!
Otherwise, we will have more of what we had in 2000 and the Senate and the House could easily go under the Rat Control!!!
My current ad is: DEMOTE DASCHLE! Bring President Bush The Republican Senators Needed to Save America
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.