← Autodidact Archive · Original Dissent · il ragno
Thread ID: 5337 | Posts: 8 | Started: 2003-03-04
2003-03-04 15:47 | User Profile
Did you vote for Bush in 2000? Did you think you were actually *voting against Gore/Lieberman and more Clinton-policies, with Bush your only option? Think again: you were actually demanding that the US send money, guns and warm bodies to defendIsrael!
None of your back talk,now. That's what you meant, whether you knew it or not. Let Dan Pipes explain what you were really thinking.*
[url=http://nypost.com/postopinion/opedcolumnists/69854.htm]http://nypost.com/postopinion/opedcolumnists/69854.htm[/url]
BUSH ON ISRAEL: HEARTBURN FOR ALL
March 4, 2003 -- CONSISTENCY and predictability are core strengths of George W. Bush as a politician. Be the issue domestic (taxes, education) or foreign (terrorism, Iraq), once he settles on a policy he sticks with it. There is no ambiguity, no guessing what his real position might be, no despair at interpreting contradictions. Even his detractors never complain about "Tricky George" or "Slick Bush."
But there is one exception to this pattern. And - couldn't you have predicted it? - the topic is the Arab-Israeli conflict. Here, Bush not only seems unable to make up his mind, but he oscillates between two quite contrary views.
For example, at the height of the Palestinian assault against Israel last April, the president delivered a major address that contained within it a flagrant contradiction.
He began by slamming Yasser Arafat's Palestinian Authority (PA) for its terrorism against Israelis, and he fingered several groups, one of them (Al-Aqsa Brigades) under Arafat's control, attempting to destroy Israel. In this spirit, not surprisingly, Bush approved of Israeli efforts at self-protection, saying that "America recognizes Israel's right to defend itself from terror."
Then, in concluding the speech, he drew policy conclusions at odds with this analysis. The president asked Palestinian leaders to make some nominal gestures to prove they are "truly on the side of peace," then demanded that Israel's government reciprocate with four giant steps (halt its military efforts, withdraw from areas it had recently occupied, cease civilian construction in the occupied territories and help build a viable Palestinian state).
In sum, Bush theoretically backed Israel and condemned Arafat while practically he backed Arafat and punished Israel. All this left most observers stumped.
Their puzzlement then grew, specifically about the requirements for a Palestinian state. In June 2002, amid much fanfare, the president unveiled a major initiative making this contingent on significant changes in Palestinian behavior: "When the Palestinian people have new leaders, new institutions and new security arrangements with their neighbors," he said, "the United States of America will support the creation of a Palestinian state."
Three months later, the State Department furtively unveiled a contrary initiative, something it called the "concrete, three-phase implementation road map." This road map can plan on a Palestinian state by 2005 by dispensing with Bush's requirements of the PA and instead requesting only token assurances from it.
This duality leads to heartburn on all sides of the Arab-Israeli conflict, as no one can quite figure out U.S. policy. One thesis is that the White House and the State Department have separate plans. That appears to be what Israeli Prime Minister Ariel Sharon thinks and explains why he has ignored the road map and focused on the president's June speech.
As though in reply to this, in a major address to the American Enterprise Institute last week, Bush signaled his endorsement of the road map: "It is the commitment of our government - and my personal commitment - to implement the road map," he said.
And yet, doubts persist.
When a politician acts inconsistently, it usually signals an attempt to please opposed constituencies. In this case, **President Bush feels pressure from the Republican voters who put him in office to help Israel protect itself. A Gallup poll last month showed 80 percent of Republicans holding a favorable opinion of Israel, and no politician ignores a number like that. **
But the pressure for a Palestinian state is no less impressive, coming from a wide range of influential forces, ranging from Secretary of State Colin Powell to the Democrats in Congress and beyond them to British Prime Minister Tony Blair and Arab leaders.
Observing these contradictions through two years of the Bush administration leads me to one main conclusion: In key ways - sympathy for Israel's plight, diplomatic support, providing arms - Bush tends to ignore his own Palestinian-state rhetoric and stand solidly with Israel. **His statements demanding this from Israel and promising that to the Palestinians appear to be a sop to outside pressure, not operational policy.
In short, look at what President Bush does, not what he says, and you'll find his usual consistency, this time hiding under a veneer of apparent indecision.
If this is accurate, then the road map is for show, not true policy, and U.S. endorsement of a Palestinian state remains remote. **
Daniel Pipes (www.DanielPipes.org) is director of the Middle East Forum and author of "Militant Islam Reaches America."
2003-03-04 19:07 | User Profile
Did I read this correctly!!!> When a politician acts inconsistently, it usually signals an attempt to please opposed constituencies. In this case, President Bush feels pressure from the Republican voters who put him in office to help Israel protect itself. [color=red]A Gallup poll last month showed 80 percent of Republicans holding a favorable opinion of Israel, and no politician ignores a number like that[/color].
There seems to be no escape from war if this is remotely correct. We are a stupid, immature nation worthy of Old Testament type condemnation.
2003-03-04 20:20 | User Profile
George W Bush is in favor of a Palestinian state. He says this. But his quandary is in supporting Israel, whi recently said it will never recognize a Palestinian State. This Man has an opportunity presented to him as has never been laid forth before any American President. He truly has the world by the balls, as the old expression goes. His bullheaded push for war against Iraq is belying his credentials.. it's really scary that America has come to the point where the fate of its children lay in the hands of one man. Truly in the past no President has ever behaved this way. But the fact that Congress is a bunch of beaurocrats spoiled into their comfort does nothing to stop it. We are, in reality, right now, a dictatorship.
2003-03-04 21:08 | User Profile
Originally posted by Exelsis_Deo@Mar 4 2003, 14:20 ** We are, in reality, right now, a dictatorship. **
A reality unaltered but by perception, since 1861.
2003-03-11 11:46 | User Profile
**Observing these contradictions through two years of the Bush administration leads me to one main conclusion: In key ways - sympathy for Israel's plight, diplomatic support, providing arms - Bush tends to ignore his own Palestinian-state rhetoric and stand solidly with Israel. His statements demanding this from Israel and promising that to the Palestinians appear to be a sop to outside pressure, not operational policy. ** I'm surprised to see that bastard Pipes actually tell the truth about something for a change. Of course Bush is firmly in the Zionist camp. Any time you see him publicly urging "restraint" on the part of the Israelis, you can be sure he's already been on the phone with Sharon, saying something like, "Don't worry, I'm just 'urging restraint' to look unbiased. I'm still yo bitch, Daddy."
"Sympathy for Israel's plight"? Last I heard, the Israelis weren't the ones being occupied by a hostile force, starved, harassed and brutalized at checkpoints, denied medical care, tortured, etc. Pipes disgusts me to the very core of my being.
2003-03-11 22:41 | User Profile
Originally posted by wintermute@Mar 11 2003, 16:25 ** I must say, the whole experience has tended to make me think twice about the whole voting thing. **
Thinking twice, and even three and four times was your problem. You should have thought once and voted for Buchanan.
;)
2003-03-12 03:57 | User Profile
Originally posted by Texas Dissident@Mar 11 2003, 16:41 ** > Originally posted by wintermute@Mar 11 2003, 16:25 ** I must say, the whole experience has tended to make me think twice about the whole voting thing. **
Thinking twice, and even three and four times was your problem. You should have thought once and voted for Buchanan.
;) **
On foreign policy matters, I would prefer, right now, as we speak, even Nader to Bush or Gore.
2003-03-16 09:47 | User Profile
This piece should be put alongside the lengthy, excellent threads on Goldberg on Moran/Buchanan here in the OD forum.
It shows: 1. The Jew Pipes, writing in the Jew Murdoch's newspaper, March 4, 10 days before Bush presents his middle-east "road map" reiterating recognition of a Palestinian state -- **already undermining the US position** -- and the President, of course, reaching for his overcoat on his way out the door to get to the Azores and settle Iraq's fate for good and all with Blain and Aznar, unable to take questions.
The point being, vis a vis the Goldberg/Townhall.com "conservatives", this proves the activity, direction, and public relations consequences of Jewish influence on U.S. policy. Who could believe Bush, after that? Pipes is the one that has largely defined "the enemy" in the war on terrorism* (*as if) as "Islamic Militants"; generalized by Falwell and Co. to the Muslim religion in general, turning US policy "anti-Arabian", on principles of religious bigotry ("Judeo-Christian" variety, identified with and backed up by US military force).
2. The Jew Pipes, writing in the Jew Murdoch's paper, same article, not only defines US policy toward Palestine in advance, in contradiction to that the Presidebnt is to give; he will also, in the now infamous line:
> **"Bush feels pressure from Republican voters who put him in office to help Israel protect itself."**
In other words, Daniel Pipes, in Rupert Murdoch's newspaper, will define not only what the President's plan really is in the middle east, but also what Republicans (80% "holding a favorable opinion of Israel ..no politician ignores numbers like that.") voted for him to do, and support.
One should also mention, if addressing Goldberg and the Goldberginians, that the souce of these redefinitions is Jews; the motive is to propagate Israel's cause; this motive is not pursued openly, by argument, but underhandedly, pre-emptively, spinning verbal tricks with numbers for political effect.
I view this manipulation of communication proceeses as criminal, in itself. To democracy, however attenuated, it is also a contradiction. It uses uses the media the public must rely on for information about government, its policies, and who is saying what that affects them/us, as a source of propaganda for anti-American interents, leading to bloodshed.
Perle must not only be placed in custody; Goldberg and other masterminds of this treason complex must, also. It would begin a purge of communication, on the way to restorating democracy in America. What do you think, il ragno. The pre-emptiveness with which they go about things, beginning with, but not confined to, communication, makes me think they have gone into reverse on the old golden rule thing -- do it to others before they can do it to you. A
dawning, strange attraction to 'ragnoism?... lawd, hep' us.