Bush Middle East Speech Discussion Thread

[RCW2001]

Bush Middle East Speech Discussion Thread

[Fred Mertz]

But where's the stick to go with this carrot?

His speech was very good, but you're right about the stick.

If there is a stick, there is truly a great burden ahead, one which most Americans aren't prepped for.

I am of the opinion that it was high rhetoric...

On the other hand, this could lead us into a grand [choose your word] war.

I'm leaning toward this latter option, based on today's speech.

[Luis Gonzalez]

So...did I miss anything good?

[Texasforever]

For any sane person, the message of this speech is "this is an offer you had better not refuse".

[quidnunc]

Darlin' wrote: Yep, that is how he seemed to me as well.

I get the impression that: (1) there are people who monitor FR and report any Rush-bashing to Limbaugh, and (2) when it occurrs it irritates Rush more than a little.

I don't get the impression thatr Rush himself spends much if any time on FR, he has staff to do his grunt work now.

[Deb]

Kinda like them "principled" third party, constitutional-pro-drug-Libertarian FReepers.

Beware the BUILD-A-BURGERS!!!!

[AAABEST]

Holy s###, now the flying monkeys are going after you too? Join the boat we're all evil now, even Rush.

I don't believe the absurd psychology going on around here, there's got to be a clinical name for it as only pathectic loons could be so deluded. Speak evil of the mascott/figurehead/icon and you must be torn to shreds, not debated.

I rarely debate any of them any more, I've found their heads to be completly empty with nothing substantive to offer the arena of ideas, unless your ideas are all geared towards furthering a phoney politicians political career. Their entire vacuous life philosophy revolves around one person and one person only.

Just give 'em a friendly wave once in a while, you'd gain more by debating the slow bagger at the grocery store, at least he'd be willing to listen to reason.

[Scott from the Left Coast]

I tend to think you may be surprised about what Rush will say tomorrow about this speech. I too have been one critical of the Administration's policy on Israel/Palestinian territories up until today (last week, actually, when the U.S. was supportive of Israel's move back into the West Bank). But I think that Bush's speech today was a note of moral clarity and certainly, if the follow-through is as clear, in the face of certain violent Palestinian rejection, as the policy announced today, then there is nothing more that the hard enemies of Islamic terror (of which I am one) can ask for. Bush has set forth the path for a policy of war on the Palestinian terror institution. I believe that Rush will see that and will applaud the President as I do tonight.

Of course, that's only a guess.

[Howlin]

LOL.....buy the Cliff Notes!

[Deb]

I think Bush handed the stick to Mr. Sharon...and he took it.

[denydenydeny]

Bush is setting up the hopes of those who want a Palestinian state right now (like Clinton did in 2000) without stating the consequences of refusing this generous offer.

I thought he did, pretty much in so many words, with the quote from Deuteronomy about choosing between life and death.

[LarryLied]

It looks like you're implying that his loyalty is to Israel first because he's Jewish. Am I wrong here?

Yes you are wrong.

Rush and Hannity agree with Levin. It is silly to suggest anyone of them puts Israel before America.

Mark is a rock solid conservative. Whatever his motive is for having the position on Bush and Israel he does, it is not because he puts America second. Mark Levin is a patriot.

That is what is so frustrating about this topic. Write one thing and immediately someone extends the meaning into something not intended. It always ends up in the same place : "youse all a bunch of Nazis."

[Amelia]

furthering a phoney politicians political career

My father calls George Bush a "phoney politician".

Of course, my father is a Democrat.

[Howlin]

That'll teach you to leave. We should have stopped at YOUR posts, IMO!

[toenail]

A PBA ban won't substantially affect abortion; it's just election-year pandering. It's the free sqare on the population control bingo card. And I didn't bring it up; TexasForever did, and I called him on it. But I won't say any more about it on this thread, devolved as it is.

[Texasforever]

rarely debate any of them any more,

I can understand that. You are not good at it.

[kristinn]

That's why I asked you to clarify what you wrote. Thank you for doing so.

[justshe]

Good post.

I don't know why we continue to plow the same ground over and over and over. The warm fuzzies gained by upholding one's principled high ground by voting for someone who doesn't stand a chance of getting elected ( I think it was PhilKapMom who did an excellent job earlier of pointing out that the 'other parties' made up a whopping 3.5% of the vote) is the EXACT same thing that is happening now....on a smaller scale.

We are doing it again...we are turning on ourselves...we are like political cannibals.....with our righteous indignation. You nailed it when you stated: "He simply makes tactical adjustments to get there. This disappoints some of us on this board. But that's real politics. That's how it's done out there."

Sigh.

[Howlin]

Uh oh!

Bush's speech "fell short" say Muslims

CAIR Press Release | June 24, 2002 | Council on American-Islamic Relations

Posted on 6/25/02 1:05 AM Eastern by Stultis

Bush's speech "fell short" say Muslims

- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -

(Washington, D.C., 6/24/2002)

A prominent national Islamic advocacy group today said President Bush's speech outlining his vision for peace in the Middle East put too much emphasis on Palestinian concessions and too little pressure on Israel to act in accordance with international law.

In a statement reacting to the president's speech, Council on American-Islamic Relations (CAIR) Executive Director Nihad Awad said:

"There were a number of positive aspects to President Bush's proposals for peace and stability in the Middle East. These positive initiatives include the demand for a freeze on Israeli settlement activity, increased humanitarian assistance, an end to the Israeli occupation based on U.N. resolutions, and a call for freedom of movement for ordinary Palestinians. We also appreciated the president's recognition of the 'anger and despair' brought on by Israel's brutal occupation.

"The speech was a step in the right direction, but it fell short of offering a clear vision of the ultimate destination. Core issues such as the status of Jerusalem and existing Israeli settlements, final borders and the right of Palestinian refugees to return to their homes, were not addressed in a way that offers hope for a just and comprehensive settlement to the Middle East conflict. It was the failure to address these vital issues that brought us to the current impasse.

"The right to freedom should never be conditioned on the whims of a hostile party and must not face a veto by any individual, group or government opposed to peace. It is up to the Palestinians themselves to choose their leaders in a free and independent political process. That leadership should reflect the hopes and aspirations of all Palestinians.

"Our policies in the Middle East should be based on American national interests and on universal values of freedom and justice, not on the political and religious agenda of an influential domestic lobby for a foreign government."

Awad thanked the president for his statements in praise of Islamic culture and its contributions to world civilization. He said those comments were particularly significant given the current atmosphere of anti-Muslim rhetoric.

[Southflanknorthpawsis]

Do you mean these guys?

[Torie]

From your point of view, not mine, to effect anything more than PBA, and for that matter, PBA lite, you will need to have a different cast on SCOTUS, a cast that would never be confirmed as things now stand. So now you need to come up with the plan Doughty One said he had, but never chose to reveal to us, to change all that.