And I thought Bush was violating the UN resolution on a Palestinian State...

Refman, I could be missing something, but I'm pretty sure no one on this BBS has ever denied your contention that the Bush admin's called for a Palestinian state. If they did, they'd be pretty dumb. You don't need proof. It's been widely reported in the past.

What's so weird is the extreme schizophrenia of this administration, re: Israel/Palestine. They've accomplished two, completely inconsistent, precedents: Bush is the first US president to openly claim that the only path to peace in the Middle East is the establishment of a Palestinian state. Bush is also the first US president to so clearly take the side of the Israelis in the conflict, going so far as to take sides in this battle of the outdated warmongers, by saying Sharon's okay but Arafat has to go. No president has ever said that the peace process couldn't go forward without the ouster of the Palestinian boss.

There is a reason that no president has done either of these two things. Insisting on a Palestinian state alienates Israel to the extreme, and it makes it impossible for Israel to trust us as Middle East peace brokers. We might tell them privately that we believe this, but when the world's only superpower states it unevicocably in public, their bargaining power in peace talks is out the window. Same goes for calling for Arafat's ouster. Bush has succeeded in alienating both sides and, in his usual simpleminded, plainspoken (that's what we love him for, right? Here's why that's wrong) fashion, he has forfeited our role as a serious broker of peace in that region.

I'm not saying it can't be regained. He's already taken steps (steps? missteps? it's all the same, right?). He offended Sharon so mightily that to make it right he had to call for the ouster of his opponent. In calling for Arafat's ouster, he offended the Palestinian side so badly that he had to reaffirm his support for a Palestinian state. Most, nay all, previous presidents have understood the danger of making such bold pronouncements off the cuff, or at least they've had advisors who've helped them not to make that mistake.

Somehow, even though this is the most handled president since Reagan, Bush doesn't have people who are successful at keeping him from shooting his mouth off in public.

If you don't believe me, check yesterday's Chronicle for an article on Bush's blatant politicization of the Iraq deal. He has apparently decided that the midterm elections should turn on the Iraq issue. Curious, that. The economy's in terrible shape. We don't know what's up with Bin Laden.

Iraq has been in violation of UN resolutions for eleven years, by Bush's own accounting in the same article. I wonder why it's urgent NOW to attack Iraq. Just kidding. I don't wonder at all. All the answers to that question are in the article. It's urgent now because we have midterm elections. I could write my own parody article, mocking Bush's cynicism in making Iraq an issue RIGHT NOW, before the elections, and I couldn't do as good a job pointing out his blatant, opportunistic playing of politics as he did himself.

Yeah. You're right. He called for a Palestinian state. Very impressive. What a statesman.

Here's the link to the article I referenced.

http://www.chron.com/cs/CDA/story.hts/nation/1574613

And here's the article:

Bush scolds Dems wary over Iraq plan
Lawmakers are pressured to act soon on resolution
By BENNETT ROTH and JULIE MASON
Copyright 2002 Houston Chronicle
NEW YORK -- In a shift toward making Iraq a central fall campaign issue, President Bush on Friday criticized Democratic lawmakers for balking on immediate action supporting a strike against Saddam Hussein.

While wrapping up meetings at the United Nations, Bush offered a withering assessment of Democratic lawmakers hesitant to approve a resolution on Iraq until after the United Nations acts.

"I can't imagine an elected member of the United States Senate or House of Representatives saying, `I think I'm going to wait for the United Nations to make a decision,' " Bush said. "It seems like to me that if you're representing the United States, you ought to be making a decision on what's best for the United States."

The president's remarks pushed the Iraq issue directly in the path of the crucial midterm elections, which will decide which party controls Congress and the national agenda.

Until now, both parties have avoided overtly politicizing the war. For Republicans, the risk has been in appearing too exploitative, while Democrats gain a better advantage by focusing on the economy.

Bush, appearing emboldened by the positive response to his United Nations speech, warned that lawmakers would be politically vulnerable if they return home to campaign for the November elections without having acted on Iraq.

"If I were running for office, I'm not sure how I'd explain to the American people -- say, `Vote for me,' and `Oh, by the way, on a matter of national security, I think I am going to wait for somebody else to act,' " Bush said. "I don't imagine Saddam Hussein sitting around, saying, `Gosh, I think I'm going to wait for some resolution.' "

Bush's remarks came as most lawmakers were returning home to their districts for the weekend, where polls have shown more voters care about the economy right now than the threat of Iraqi weapons systems.

The White House, after initially indicating it was prepared to act unilaterally against Iraq, recently changed course and announced it would seek a congressional resolution of support.

But Democratic leaders, unwilling to bend to Bush's demand for a vote before Congress adjourns in October, are saying they may push a vote off until a special session after the November election.

Applying pressure to Democrats is a politically tricky move for Bush, political analysts said, because a popular mandate for war is not entirely there.

"This helps Bush now on the simple equation that the more people are thinking about national security, the more he is benefited," said Stephen Hess, a senior fellow at the Brookings Institution and a former presidential speechwriter.

"But taken too far, it could look like he is trying to politicize the issue, and that shouldn't be," Hess said.

A number of recent polls have shown strong public support -- between 51 and 64 percent -- for military action in Iraq.

At the same time, a recent poll by the Gallup Organization for CNN and USA Today found 69 percent of Americans believe it is necessary for Bush to first get a resolution of support from Congress.

That puts Bush and Congress in the politically awkward position of mutual dependency on the Iraq issue. And although it appears Bush may have enough support to pass a resolution, Democrats may dig in their heels and make him wait for it.

"Other members of the Senate are understandably concerned that a debate on the question of war against Iraq might be unnecessarily politicized if it occurs in the more heated environment of this fall's congressional elections," said Sen. Joe Lieberman, a Connecticut Democrat.

On Thursday, Bush bluntly told the United Nations that it must force Iraq to comply with international demands made following the Gulf War, that it disarm and allow weapons inspectors into the country.

Then on Friday, Secretary of State Colin Powell began negotiating with members of the U.N. Security Council to fashion a resolution that would give Saddam one last chance to comply with weapons restrictions.

Powell, appearing on the Early Show on CBS, said it was clear the Security Council "realizes that we have a problem they have to deal with."

In the meantime, Powell said, he also will be pressing the administration's case to Congress.

"I'm confident, after we make the case, we'll get the support that the president will need," Powell said.

At the United Nations, Russian Foreign Minister Igor Ivanov said after a meeting of the Security Council that leaders had begun to respond to Bush's challenge.

"The ministers agreed that Iraq's noncompliance with the Security Council resolutions is a serious problem and that Iraq should implement its resolutions," Ivanov said. "And today we started consultations so that to decide how the Security Council of the United Nations can tackle the problem to implement all the resolutions."

Bush said he expected there would be quick deadlines imposed on Saddam in any resolution.

"We're talking days and weeks, not months and years," said Bush, who said he hoped the United Nations would approve a resolution "as soon as possible."

Even if the United Nations approves a resolution prodding Iraq to disarm, Bush said he was "highly doubtful that he'll meet the demands."

"The reason I'm doubtful is he's had 11 long years to meet the demands," Bush said. "And so, therefore, I am doubtful, but nevertheless, made the decision to move forward to work with the world community."

Congressional Democrats have suggested that they do not want to approve anything until they gauge world opinion. Many of the United States' traditional allies have expressed opposition to joining war against Iraq.

 

I agree with you. But maybe I wasn't clear. There's a reason that, as the recognized mediator in this conflict, no previous president has publicly towed this line. It interrupts the negotiation process between the parties and is viewed by the Israelis as taking sides. They also know there will have to be a Palestinian state, but as long as the US prez didn't explicitly say so, they had somewhere to negotiate.

You could say the same about Sharon that which you say about Arafat. They are both terrorists, they are both warmongers. Sharon's only there because Israelis became so frustrated with the conflict that they went hard right. Arafat's still there for the same reason. There will never be peace as long as either of them is there. Taking sides, with regard to which warmonger has to go and which should be allowed to stay is plain dumb.

As for respecting Bush for speaking his mind, he had no opinion at all about international affairs until he ran for president. Since then, his opinion has been whichever one Karl Rove told him would play best. I have no respect for this poor little rich boy and I never will. He stands for nothing and falls for everything. Sometimes he looks like a strong leader. And I'm glad. We need one. But he gets no credit from me for that. The UN speech was, by all accounts, very successful. Credit where it's due: to his speechwriters and coaches. I would love to hear him speak his mind. Let's hear him speak extemporaneously. Clinton did it all the time. Bush never will. He's that smart, at least. He knows that if he pretended hard enough to have his own opinions to actually speak unscripted, he'd be out of politics in a minute flat.

One thing to talk to Sharon, another to speak publically. See above.

You expressed disgust in a recent thread at what you viewed as the Dem leadership politicizing the issue. If it is forced to a vote before the election (and more importantly, before Bush has presented promised evidence of the urgency which even his own allies are requiring for support), as Bush's people are hoping, it will be because of urgency of the election, not the urgency of the Iraqi threat. Kindly tell me why this wasn't urgent even six months ago. Nothing new has come to light. In fact, Bush's people aren't offering evidence which is less than five years old as to why this is urgent before the elections. The only evidence for such can be found in the above article. Politics. Only. So far. Until there is more from Bush or Blair. According to them though, this is too urgent to wait for even the proof they claim to have. According to them, true patriots will just trust them. According to them, Scowcroft and Eagleburger are UN tools.

No offense, Refman, but this is getting a little tired. I didn't say Bush should or could fix the economy (though I have a big problem with people saying presidents have no effect on the economy even when they pass historic tax cuts which directly lead to deficit spending). I said that the economy was in bad shape and, wow, all of a sudden, it's time to focus on Iraq. Can't help but remind me of another President Bush. How is it that it doesn't remind one of my favorite, smartest posters of same? This is an exact repeat.

Remember when Republicans used to campaign on how they were the party who would do better by the economy? How exactly did they turn into the party that argues that elected officals have no effect on the economy? And how did their followers go from saying that Democrats would destroy the economy with all their tax and spending to saying that no president and no policy can effect meaningful change, re: the economy? Could it actually be that they've given up this issue? Cause it really looks that way.

There are more than enough "balls" in the Middle East. If we want a place at the peace table -- and we do, cause, you know, they gots all the oil -- we'd do well to use brains instead. I know that's not a strong suit of the new boss (same as the old boss), but he's got some smart folks on retainer. And they should know better.

 

How can you mention stagflation in the same post that you claim there's never been lasting peace in the Middle East? As I understand it, Egypt and Israel are still at peace, more than twenty years after Carter brokered it.

You know I like you, Refman, but don't tsk tsk me in one thread and call a respected op-ed writer disgusting in another for expressing an opinion held by millions of Americans, if not the majority (during "wartime" at least). You are very good at the diplomatic BBS debate game, but please don't pretend you corner the market on cordiality. You get as puffed up as anyone else here and throw around bloated pronouncements about what's disgusting, etc. as much as anyone. I appreciate that you avoid making it personal, but it's really all the same. I didn't say you were an idiot for thinking Bush wasn't an idiot. I just said he was definitely an idiot.

On another note, with respect to our other BBS friends, is there any really good reason why we don't just have these discussions over email? Especially this time of night? I'm pretty sure we're the only ones up. And on that note, now you're the only one up.

Good night. Look forward to more tomorrow. Same Bat-Time.

 

I think the suffering would also end if Israel's expansion would stop... But that's just my thoughts

 

because that would deprive ppl like me who love to read yall's discussions..You and Ref are probably my fav posters because your posts are informative and yall know how to discuss issues without gettin into a pissin contest (mostly)..so with all due respect, please continue your discussions in public where I can read them...Thanks to both of you.

 

probably not....but like many other things on TV these days...it would have an audience...

 

"I can't imagine an elected member of the United States Senate or House of Representatives saying, `I think I'm going to wait for the United Nations to make a decision,' " Bush said. "It seems like to me that if you're representing the United States, you ought to be making a decision on what's best for the United States."

"If I were running for office, I'm not sure how I'd explain to the American people -- say, `Vote for me,' and `Oh, by the way, on a matter of national security, I think I am going to wait for somebody else to act,' " Bush said. "I don't imagine Saddam Hussein sitting around, saying, `Gosh, I think I'm going to wait for some resolution.' "

These are great quotes. Way to call out those p*****s. How is this 'politicizing' the Iraq issue any more than wanting to DELAY a vote until AFTER the election is politicizing? How is this different from politicians wanting to keep the focus on 'corporate fraud' (yeah, rreealll important issue...like THAT hasn't been going on for the past 10 years? Why is THAT all of a sudden so important? Oh yeah....ELECTION) in the weeks/months leading up to the election?

It's obvious that some politicians feel that the Iraq issue is not a strong issue for them. So they'd rather put it off while trying to focus on other 'winning issues' for them and their party. Bush is simply calling those people out. Why not question those who can't bear to address the issue until AFTER an election? Same thing.

It's not like Bush is shutting down the government for political gain.

 

Freak, it's politicizing it because of all times, he chose election time to make Iraq a big deal. He could have done it six months ago and he could have done it six months from now. He says he has evidence which makes it urgent to act now, but doesn't provide the evidence. Even people in Congress who are eager to act against Iraq are saying they need to see the evidence before voting. He had a good speech to the UN and, at a time when he should be encouraging bi-partisan action, he chooses to criticize Democrats for not falling in line BEFORE he provides promised evidence. Worse, he leaves out the fact that, as Refman mentioned, there are pretty much as many Republicans with questions as Democrats and pretty much as many Dems ready to vote without evidence as Repubs.

Yes, what a bunch of p*****s. The world has questions, the country has questions, our allies have questions, the electorate has questions. But Bush gives a well received speech to the UN and now all those questions are supposed to disappear. Never mind the fact that there was ZERO percent of the promised evidence in the speech.

Many, many respected, Republican hawks are urging UN support before acting. It's not just Democrats. They've in fact been less vocal about requiring international support. Once again, Bush chooses to fasten his cowboy hat and call people who want to have a serious discussion before sending our troops into battle wimps. It is unconscionable. He went too far here, and even many of his backers admit it.

The article cites Republican strategy as being careful not to appear to play politics with such an important issue. This is plainly playing politics. Even someone like Refman who recently accused the Democrats of same agrees this was a bad misstep.

You fell for the rhetoric. No shame there. Someone was bound to.

 

Batman, you didn't answer any of my questions. You can go ahead and call what Bush is doing 'politicizing the Iraq issue' if you want. It's just that when it was suggested that Daschle and other politicians like Armey were doing the same thing on this board, you got upset and offended. But oh well.

Funny how I fell for "rhetoric" from someone so dumb...was Bush speaking out of line this time, or was this scripted? I'd hate to think I fell for something that a dumb president just decided to let fly one day.

edit: and no, I don't 'have a problem' with you....I love and want to meet everyone.