Presidente Bush, clueless, again ?

[Miramonti]

Originally posted by: JellyBaby

Even by these low standards the policy is failing miserably.

What would you advise the president to do?

First, anything but nothing as has been basically the approach. Second, treat it like its one of our priorities and make demands on both sides, except without concessions. If we want to "fight terror" we would prioritize our leadership and influence in this situation to provide the greatest amount of pressure and direction as possible. This is a national priority, and our country has almost as much to gain in the long run by treating it as one. The administration should quit these weenie condemnations of palestinian bombings and weenie submissiveness to israels strongarmed policies, because outside of the leaders of israel and the palestinians, no one can have greater influence than us.

 

[JellyBaby]

Hi there, Beamer.

Well at least this is one time where you can't blame the people

Somewhat true but America sends $30 billion Israeli's way with strings attached. The People are complacent this money goes to continue the war there.

I think we've been through the "Gore won" argument before. Bush was elected president, Gore wasn't. If Gore was president the middle east would be in the same state it's in today.

Presidents excerise as much influence as they can under the banner of foreign policy because on the domestic front they must go through Congress and they hate that irritation. Ds do it, Rs do it, Libertarians...well we've never had them in power.

 

[bsobel]

hello davy boy, so you are saying my cables arent good then?

Don't know about the cables, but your ethics arent good.

Bill

 

[ThePresence]

Originally posted by: Moonbeam
Jelly, I know you didn't ask me, but if you had I would suggest that Bush do the right thing, go home and give the office to Gore who won the election and should be President.

Here's a tissue. Get over it.

 

[JellyBaby]

First, anything but nothing as has been basically the approach. Second, treat it like its one of our priorities and make demands on both sides, except without concessions. If we want to "fight terror" we would prioritize our leadership and influence in this situation to provide the greatest amount of pressure and direction as possible. This is a national priority, and our country has almost as much to gain in the long run by treating it as one. The administration should quit these weenie condemnations of palestinian bombings and weenie submissiveness to israels strongarmed policies, because outside of the leaders of israel and the palestinians, no one can have greater influence than us.

Is it the US's responsiblity to "right the wrongs" over there? Your policy is much the same as what exists today: suggestions to Israel's leadership and suggestions to palestinian leadership. All words.

I'm not saying that's bad policy, mind you. I just don't see how it's much more effective.

I don't know what I would do. Sending $30 billion/year in aid to Israeli in direct support is at the heart of things. Cut 'em off completely? Over time? Maybe. I disagree making this issue a "national priority" makes sense since it's obvious most Americans would not agree with placing it there.

 

[LordMaul]

Presidente


Real winner here, guys...

 

[UltraQuiet]

Originally posted by: jjsole

Originally posted by: JellyBaby

Even by these low standards the policy is failing miserably.

What would you advise the president to do?

First, anything but nothing as has been basically the approach. Second, treat it like its one of our priorities and make demands on both sides, except without concessions. If we want to "fight terror" we would prioritize our leadership and influence in this situation to provide the greatest amount of pressure and direction as possible. This is a national priority, and our country has almost as much to gain in the long run by treating it as one. The administration should quit these weenie condemnations of palestinian bombings and weenie submissiveness to israels strongarmed policies, because outside of the leaders of israel and the palestinians, no one can have greater influence than us.

You should be in politics because you said absolutely nothing of substance in that entire paragraph.

"we would prioritize our leadership and influence in this situation to provide the greatest amount of pressure and direction as possible."

LOL.

 

[Random Variable]

The best way to deal with the conflict would be to DISengage politically and economically. You can't force two people to tolerate/like each other.

 

[Miramonti]

Originally posted by: JellyBaby

First, anything but nothing as has been basically the approach. Second, treat it like its one of our priorities and make demands on both sides, except without concessions. If we want to "fight terror" we would prioritize our leadership and influence in this situation to provide the greatest amount of pressure and direction as possible. This is a national priority, and our country has almost as much to gain in the long run by treating it as one. The administration should quit these weenie condemnations of palestinian bombings and weenie submissiveness to israels strongarmed policies, because outside of the leaders of israel and the palestinians, no one can have greater influence than us.

Is it the US's responsiblity to "right the wrongs" over there? Your policy is much the same as what exists today: suggestions to Israel's leadership and suggestions to palestinian leadership. All words. I'm not saying that's bad policy, mind you. I just don't see how it's much more effective. I don't know what I would do. Sending $30 billion/year in aid to Israeli in direct support is at the heart of things. Cut 'em off completely? Over time? Maybe. I disagree making this issue a "national priority" makes sense since it's obvious most Americans would not agree with placing it there.

There's no excuse for accepting a lack of negotiations in this situation, as well as accepting a lack of willingness to negotiate, which this administration seems to tolerate. There are many issues to make progress except Israel doesn't "negotiate with terrorists" while its caught up in a cycle of violence and revenge, driving the stakes deeper. And the stance and rhetoric on this issue should become one of a national priority, because it is at the root of rapidly growing hostility and animosity towards america and americans due to our current policy in this issue.

You should be in politics because you said absolutely nothing of substance in that entire paragraph.

Yes, this is true that I did not provide substance, but the key is increasing the rhetoric at the highest levels (i.e. the president, theoretically) - something this administration is extremely capable of. Second it requires adament follow-thru, something this admin has sucked at. This is a very narrow-minded administration and yet we all will pay for it in the long run by greater security concerns here and abroad.

There is no greater opportunity for this admin to positively and constructively influence international stability by aggressively seeking to difuse this situation and lead it towards a peaceful settlement.

 

[Miramonti]

Originally posted by: Vespasian
The best way to deal with the conflict would be to DISengage politically and economically. You can't force two people to tolerate/like each other.

Thats better than what we're doing now. I'd be happy if we pulled the economic support that we have been donating.

 

[Random Variable]

Originally posted by: jjsole

Originally posted by: Vespasian
The best way to deal with the conflict would be to DISengage politically and economically. You can't force two people to tolerate/like each other.

Thats better than what we're doing now. I'd be happy if we pulled the economic support that we have been donating.

The President had the right approach before September 11th (although he should have considered decreasing our aid to Israel, and especially to the most anti-American state on the face of the planet--Egypt).

 

[Moonbeam]

The notion that Gore would not have done better is incorrect. He would not have washed his hands of the whole situation like Bush did in the earlier part on his non-administration just so he could look Different than Clinton which gave the parties to green light to start up the violence again. He would have been engaged right from the git go and the current blood batyh would not have gotten started. Give the families of the dead the tissues so they can get over it.

 

[UltraQuiet]

Originally posted by: Moonbeam
The notion that Gore would not have done better is incorrect. He would not have washed his hands of the whole situation like Bush did in the earlier part on his non-administration just so he could look Different than Clinton which gave the parties to green light to start up the violence again. He would have been engaged right from the git go and the current blood batyh would not have gotten started. Give the families of the dead the tissues so they can get over it.

That is nothing but pure speculation and you know it. Everyone, and I mean everyone, was/is scratching their heads and saying WTF after Arafat turned down Clinton's deal in 2000. No one in that admin. knew where to go from there and Powell had really no idea where to start picking up the pieces from that.
IMO two things are going to have to happen before any real peace can be achieved. The Hamas must be neutralized and all the settlements that have been created since Sharon was elected must be disbanded.

 

[JellyBaby]

jjsole, it seems you'd prefer the illusion of getting the job done (Clinton's approach) to simple lip service (Bush's approach). Neither have proven effective over time. It's clear you're impatience with the lack of progress over in that area over there. Truth is to US politicians it's a political issue, nothing more. To US citizens, by and large, it's not a high priority though most would like to see Israelis and Arabs dancing together and sharing egg-nog.

What I'm sayin is the US will not, cannot, solve this problem. It's up to them.

Moonbeam,

The notion that Gore would not have done better is incorrect.

Your prognostication is no more accurate than mine but it's certainly more optimistic. In any case Gore would not have, could not have, solved the middle east problem. It's up to them.

 

[XMan]

Originally posted by: DaveSohmer

Originally posted by: Moonbeam
The notion that Gore would not have done better is incorrect. He would not have washed his hands of the whole situation like Bush did in the earlier part on his non-administration just so he could look Different than Clinton which gave the parties to green light to start up the violence again. He would have been engaged right from the git go and the current blood batyh would not have gotten started. Give the families of the dead the tissues so they can get over it.

That is nothing but pure speculation and you know it. Everyone, and I mean everyone, was/is scratching their heads and saying WTF after Arafat turned down Clinton's deal in 2000. No one in that admin. knew where to go from there and Powell had really no idea where to start picking up the pieces from that.
IMO two things are going to have to happen before any real peace can be achieved. The Hamas must be neutralized and all the settlements that have been created since Sharon was elected must be disbanded.

Once again, the voice of reason speaks. Thanks, Dave.

 

[ThePresence]

I can just imagine the immense problems the Arabs would have had dealing with an administration that has a Jewish VP (Lieberman).

 

[UltraQuiet]

Originally posted by: ThePresence
I can just imagine the immense problems the Arabs would have had dealing with an administration that has a Jewish VP (Lieberman).

The same problems they had with dealing with a Sec. of State that was a woman.

 

[ThePresence]

Originally posted by: DaveSohmer

Originally posted by: ThePresence
I can just imagine the immense problems the Arabs would have had dealing with an administration that has a Jewish VP (Lieberman).

The same problems they had with dealing with a Sec. of State that was a woman.

....And Jewish.
EDIT: Did they really make an issue over dealing with a woman?

 

[Random Variable]

If Arafat were told that the IDF would kill him if he didn't aggressively reign in the terror, I guarantee that the violence would subside.

 

[Miramonti]

Originally posted by: JellyBaby
jjsole, it seems you'd prefer the illusion of getting the job done (Clinton's approach) to simple lip service (Bush's approach). Neither have proven effective over time. It's clear you're impatience with the lack of progress over in that area over there. Truth is to US politicians it's a political issue, nothing more. To US citizens, by and large, it's not a high priority though most would like to see Israelis and Arabs dancing together and sharing egg-nog. What I'm sayin is the US will not, cannot, solve this problem.

Truth is there was a potential settlement during the clinton era but arafat backed out - bonehead choice. But its not about comparing presidencies, its about dealing with todays issues responsibly and with leadership. Its not about whether or not americans support more intervention either...the administration's leadership can easily convince the mostly ignorant americans of why its important to see a peace accord (muchless truce) sooner than later...yet it does not try to and this is some seriously weak and unvisionary leadership we have.

This is way beyond "other peoples problems"...either we get all the way out and pull our funds to israel, or we get all the way in and make it a priority, because sitting on the fence is only pushing the fencepost further up bushes rectum.

 

[Geagle]

If Arafat were told that the IDF would kill him if he didn't aggressively reign in the terror, I guarantee that the violence would subside.

LOL, dont be such an idiot. Arafat can't control his people. Thats why he should step down. Sharon should step down since he is a war criminal. Will any of this happen? Hell no!

A peace deal will be achieved when a moderate Israeli leader and a new Palestinian leader sit on the same table together.

 

[JellyBaby]

A peace deal will be achieved when a moderate Israeli leader and a new Palestinian leader sit on the same table together.

Trouble is the New Palestinian Leader will say, "You're still on our land." and the New Israeli Leader will say, "You're still a group of terrorists.". This leads to the same situation.

Also, I truly wonder if Arafat has that much influence over "his people". So would it be the same with Ps next leader?

 

[Geagle]

Trouble is the New Palestinian Leader will say, "You're still on our land." and the New Israeli Leader will say, "You're still a group of terrorists.". This leads to the same situation.

Palestinians weren't labelled as terrorists until Sharon came along. Its funny to hear that word coming from his own mouth.

 

[Sachmho]

Oh yea Clinton's great "peace plan" last for how long?

I ABSOLUTELY DESPISE THOSE THAT WHEN PRESENTED WITH A POLITICAL STATEMENT AUTOMATICALLY TURN TO A CONTEST, TWO SIDE BATTLE. NEVER CAN ANY OF YOU TAKE A COMMENT FOR WHAT IT IS AND DISCUSS IT. GIVE UP THIS CHILDISH FORM OF ARGUMENT. HE SAID BUSH IS CLUELESS, DISCUSS BUSH BEING CLUELESS. HE NEVER MENTIONED CLINTON. OMG.

 

[Miramonti]

Bush Aides Deny Getting Plan to Fight Al Qaeda [from the clinton administration]

Interesting...stay tuned for more at 11.