Posted on 06/24/2002 12:48:28 PM PDT by RCW2001
Bush Middle East Speech Discussion Thread
LOL! It's a Bush cabal I tells you.
Anyway as you have your pity party, I will lay out the facts as I have debated them before about CFR.
Bush signed CFR so as not to give the the dems, mccain, and the press an issue. Bush signed the bill knowing it will go to court and the most vile part of CFR(the ad bans) being thrown out and actually a recent SCOTUS ruling bears that will happen.
SCOTUS ruled that an Ohio town's ban of door to door solicitation was unconstituional setting the precedent for SCOTUS to rule that the politcal ad ban is also unconstitutional, IMHO.
Nice reality-check. You and I think alike, inasmuch as it is important to try to hold Dubya's feet to the fire. I was hoping for another Reagan with GW, instead it looks like I got another GWH.
You both do think alike IMHO. You both are really full of themselves.
BTW, if you would look at the facts you will notice that W. has more cajones than Reagan when it comes to Social Security, the ABM treaty, the 2nd amendment and a whole host of other issues.
"Considering that the President just ringingly endorsed the Mitchell Report as continuing US policy, I bet not. The broadcast media will probably miss that, since it doesn't lend itself to those 30 second sound bites. But the Government of Israel definitely got the message. "Yes, the section regarding settlements.He only mentioned a section of it.
What part of "consistent with the recommendations of the Mitchell Committee, Israeli settlement activity in the occupied territories must stop." don't you understand?
-Eric
"BTW, why do you bring us quotes from the PLO, Al Bushwa and the leftist FMEP?"Save what three? The opinion is that the settlements are illegal, a violation of the Geneva Convention. The Mitchell Report specifically states this. It's the US position on the matter, and also the position of the rest of the Geneva Convention signatories.I dunno, because they are also the opinion of every government on Earth save one?
Save three - the US does not endorse the PLO, as should be obvious from the fact that Bush wouldn't even mention Arafat's NAME.
-Eric
Did eric say INDONESIA? Tolerant, peace-loving, multicultural Indonesia?Oh big deal, in a nation of 215 million people, 90% of whom are Moslems, you'll find a few fanatics. There's maybe 20,000 belonging to Lasker Jihad and similar organizations.
I suppose it means nothing that the government is based on Dutch Law, the franchise is universal, and the President is a woman who is at most a moderate Moslem who often visits Hindu temples in Bali and has strongly supported the War on Terror.
-Eric
no lets go back to indonesia, traitor.Opposing Israel is treason to America? Do you live in a alternate world or do you just throw out random ravings when you're losing badly.
Our President said that settlement activity must stop and endorsed a report that called it illegal.
-Eric
Care to compare how many innocent women and children intentionally slaughtered by jihadis that you encouraged? You go girl, you are edging close to the FR Goebelles award.So now preferring Peres to Eitam and the rest of the lebensraum lusters is backing Hamas. Wow.And who gives a flying for how long you have been SQUATTING on your keyboard at FR. Anyone who loves Peres and is STUPID enough to call many of the Jews living in Yesha socialists is an obvious candidate for HamAS juco validictorian of the year. And btw, I'm not your "son, I have 10 years on you, more than enough understand the weakness of your mind and your spirit.
On my other bulletin board we call this a "meltdown". It's getting funny.
-Eric
If you will take a deep breath, look at what GWB and his team have done,and compare them to Clinton. My God, can you imagine what Gore would have done with 9/11?You've got that right for sure. Gore himself wouldn't have been as bad as the morons he would have appointed. :shudder.
Now, GWB has outlined a clear path for peace in the mideast. Why shouldn`t we support our President?Both the terrorist supporters and the radical Eretz Israel types are going to hate this idea. That's a sign that its probably a good plan.
-Eric
Most of these third party orphan losers couldn't tie Powell's shoes. Their hate mantras on this man are right in the arena of racism, which they could never admit.I like to ask those who love Sharon and hate Powell what they thought of Reagan. Reagan strongly trusted Powell and made him his National Security Advisor. Reagan also burned Begin's ears over the Beirut invasion (deliberately using the word "holocaust"), and actively pushed the Israelis to remove Sharon from the cabinet once the facts came out.
Has it occurred to anybody that Powell and Condi Rice are being "good cop/bad cop" with the combatants in the region? Powell is the "good cop" with the Arabs, Condi is with the Israelis.
-Eric
Because it's easier to be the victim than to get up and get moving.
More about Indonesia. It is a mixed bag, but to be fair, it sure ain't akin to what we find (sadly) at present in most of the Arab world. The best we can hope for is that this too shall pass.I saw an article put together by the Australian government (which keeps a close eye on Indonesia for obvious reasons). They seemed to think there were at most 20,000 hard line Islamic terrorist backers in Indonesia.
I suspect anyone with a chip on their shoulder about America could find 20,000 wackos here.
-Eric
I wonder how the anti-Bush faction on the airways is going to spin this today....
I never said that, in fact I ment just the opposite. Bush is the first president that is using blunt and plain language about what he thinks needs to happen.
That's for sure -- their Breaking News Department is not the best! Pretty bad when I go to CNN for breaking news!CNN's website is light years better than Fox's and IMO lacks the bias of its parent network.
-Eric
Unfornately many of the Powell haters and anti GWers on anything he does re the Middle East, don't like Sharon either. They are 24/7 Bibi fans. Bibi is not the man in charge in Israel. The man in charge in Israel is Sharon, and our man is GW. They both are doing a good job in a terrible situation. So called allies that hammer both of them 24/7 are not allies. They play right into the hands of the Islamic Thugs.Personally I have more respect for Netanyahu than Sharon, even though I disagree with his rhetoric. Despite it, he was able to work well with both Jordan and the PA. Sharon seems to go out of his way to antagonize the Palis in even the smallest ways (the high profile visit to Mount Moriah, the house he maintains in the Muslim Quarter of Jerusalem).
If the Israeli government is as happy with Bush's speech as is presented here, they may indeed be looking for a pretext to rein in the Anschluss crowd. While Bush's comments about the PA are getting all the public attention, his views on the settlements were subtle but equally clear.
Actions will count more than reactions..on both sides.
-Eric
The words Mark used tonite were the exact words Sean used on his radio show this afternoon when he commented on the President's speech.
Interestingly enough, the three who never served a day in the military are now military experts, Israeli experts, and experts on how they would run the country if they were President.
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.