Bush has boxed himself into an impossible situation. He promoted elections that have produced results opposite of the ones he wanted. For all his constant rhetoric about his determination to hunt down and kill terrorists, in Palestine he has in effect helped install into power a group he calls "terrorists." His confusion over whether this is democracy, which should be legitimate, or is an unacceptable outcome -- and his unwillingness to address the underlying issues behind the Israeli-Palestinian conflict -- suggest that a fatal paralysis will continue to afflict the region.
posted on January 27, 2006 06:55:24 PM new
If Bush quits giving Palestine U.S. dollars by the hundreds of millions. No problem Iran and other mid East Country's will. The Arabs are staying together DUPING DUMBO.
Already some new leaders of Iraq warned the U.S. about going after Iran.
The rebuilding of Iraq we all heard Bush TALK,TALK,TALK so much isn't going to happen. Just one of countless broken promises Bush and Cheney make every day knowing full well the promises will never be fulfilled.
After 2200 PLUS young American lives and Hundreds of Billions of U.S. dollars. Bush led conservative lawmakers into GETTING DUPED.
THE BIG LIE IS CRASHING DOWN ON THE CONSERVATIVES.
posted on January 27, 2006 08:10:04 PM new
Yes, that IS democracy in action....whether anyone likes the outcome of their elections or not.
I've always believed things happen for a reason. In this case now Hamas will have to PROVE to their people that they can run a government, do things that are advantagous to their people and NOT just show their terrorist activities.
I doubt that will come about. So...then the people will vote them out AFTER they see they can't deliver on their pre-election promises.
But yes, that IS democracy in action as it is all over the world where we aren't in agreement with their leaders either.
Much different than those liberals who support castro....and think we're the bad guys. LOL
The hamas terrorists will have to prove they can be MORE than murderers. No excuses now that someone else is to blame for all that is wrong....like that they couldn't do anything about controlling these terrorists. The truth will soon be evident.
edited to add: especially since this President has said our aid will be stopped. As we will not aid the hamas terrorists. Maybe with any luck other countries will do the same and they'll be forced to spend their own funds on the Palistinians themselves...rather than on their terrorists activities.
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
While the democratic party complains about everything THIS President does to protect our Nation:
What would a Democrat president have done at that point? Apparently, the answer is: Sit back and wait for the next terrorist attack.
Ann Coulter
[ edited by Linda_K on Jan 27, 2006 08:15 PM ]
posted on January 28, 2006 12:43:04 AM new
The problem is that Hamas can no longer be called "terrorists". They are now the legitimate elected government. Now matter how many people they kill, they can't be labeled as "terrorists" by anyone that understands the definition of terrorist.
That creates a much bigger problem than some seem to understand.
posted on January 28, 2006 07:36:05 AM new
So Belefonte in his dispicable speech about President Bush was wrong because he can't be a terrorist. Thanks nerfball for straightening that out.
It is rumoured that Hamas will come into line with a legitimate government, the US is considering stopping all aid to the palestinians if they do not.
Ron
"I'm so depressed. My doctor refused to write me a
prescription for Viagra. He said it would be like putting
a new flagpole on a condemned building."
posted on January 28, 2006 08:04:33 AM new
Yes, that is correct. Belafonte is an idiot.
By the way, who do you think will fill the vacuum, if the US cuts funding to the legitimate Palestinian government. The Saudis and Iranians can and will lend a hand. The US doesn't want that to happen.
The US government will do it in a way to try to save face, but you better believe money will make it to Hamas from the US government. If you still want to call Hamas terrorists, than that would mean the US funds terrorists.
posted on January 28, 2006 08:28:20 AM new
Ron said," US is considering stopping all aid to the Palestinians"
No problem about money Iran the Saudis and other Mid East Country's will come up with plenty of money. Money like the money already being sent to Iraq to fight the U.S. The Arab Countries love the way Hamas DUPED DUMBO BUSH. Bush sends Money they take it then tell Bush and America to go to hell. Even a couple South American countries could send money. The U.S. stopping the money is a joke its nothing.
posted on January 28, 2006 09:34:54 AM new
I don't think so nerfball, Arab leaders are calling for Hamas to change their ways before they will accept them.
Isreal will wipe them out with our blessing if they don't. Iran will do nothing as they have thier own problems right now and are hoping the Russians will bail them out.
Ron
"I'm so depressed. My doctor refused to write me a
prescription for Viagra. He said it would be like putting
a new flagpole on a condemned building."
posted on January 28, 2006 12:35:49 PM new
What part of Isreal didn't you understand, President Bush has nothing to do with it.
Why must people seem to think President Bush tells the Isreali govt. what to do?
I said we would give our blessing, if you had listend to President Bush's speech the other day he was basically saying this exact thing.
If President Bush wanted you to know, he would tell you.
Do you really believe that no President before President Bush had secrets?
It seems to me this is one of the more open presidencies we have had in over 10 years.
Ron
"I'm so depressed. My doctor refused to write me a
prescription for Viagra. He said it would be like putting
a new flagpole on a condemned building."
posted on January 28, 2006 01:26:00 PM new
OK, I see this is a very difficult subject for conservatives to deal with.
This was the worst possible nightmare scenario for this administration. You have an organization that has always been considered terrorist by the US government, but is now a legitimately elected government. One of the biggest knocks against Iran has always been it's support for the terrorist organization Hamas. Since Hamas is no longer terrorist, the US and Israel can no longer point to Irans support of Hamas as "funding terrorists", since it is now "foreign aid".
On the other hand, if the US and Israel refuse to accept the will of the people and insist that Hamas are terrorists, and treat them as such, they look like hypocrites for supposedly wanting democracy in the Middle East (but only if they are happy with the choice of the people).
The biggest tagline on the war in Iraq, is elections. But how is anybody supposed to believe the US if they don't support Hamas?
If they do support Hamas, then what is the knock on Iran? Yeah they want nuclear capability, but without being able to say they fund terrorists, how can the administration make the claim that they don't want Iran to gain nuclear capability because of their support for terrorists?
Unfortunately, it is now a lose/lose situation for the US.
And YES, Israel does what the US tells it to. Why do you think they never responded to the scuds in Gulf War I? $4 billion a year in military aid will make alot of people listen.
Hamas winning the elections was the most damaging blow to US policy in the region since the overthrow of the Shah.
posted on January 28, 2006 01:48:51 PM new
I think you need to do some more research you have opinions that are not supported at all.
President Bush has not recognized Hamas as the "legitimate" government as of yet. He did recognize that elections took place.
Not even the palestinians are accepting Hamas as of yet. We wouldn't stop Isreal from taking out Hamas if they continued attacks against Isreal.
What I see is a lib that is refusing to say that Hamas could change to a legitimate government entity from the terrorist organization they currently are. Even other Arab leaders have already stated that they would not be happy if Hamas did not change.
Democracy won out, President Bush is correct that democracy could spread.
Oh where does it say we cannot label Hamas as terrorists? or would you prefer terrorist supporters?
Ron
"I'm so depressed. My doctor refused to write me a
prescription for Viagra. He said it would be like putting
a new flagpole on a condemned building."
posted on January 28, 2006 02:24:47 PM new
I understand President Bush does support democracy, he doesn't have to support those who were elected. Just the process.
He and European leaders have already stated they will cut off aid if Hamas does not renounce its stance on Isreal.
That I understand, why can't you?
or is it your hatred for President Bush clouding your understanding?
Ron
"I'm so depressed. My doctor refused to write me a
prescription for Viagra. He said it would be like putting
a new flagpole on a condemned building."
[ edited by WashingtoneBayer on Jan 28, 2006 02:26 PM ]
posted on January 28, 2006 02:54:50 PM new
LOL....you just gotta laugh at people like nerf who make up stuff totally out of the air ..then decide it's a FACT....lol...and then give their senario of what's going to happen. LOL
Like this FALSE statement he made above....
Since Hamas is no longer terrorist,
REALLY???? I sure haven't seen them denounce their activities yet.....NOR have I read about them changing their minds on destroying Israel. geeze....where do you come up with this crap? In your own mind, obviously.
the US and Israel can no longer point to Irans support of Hamas as "funding terrorists", since it is now "foreign aid". More pure BS. We AND Israel can do whatever WE want to do. Make whatever policy we want to make.
Did you miss the President's statements that UNTIL hamas denounces their terrorism actions we will NOT recognize them as a National leader?
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
While the democratic party complains about everything THIS President does to protect our Nation:
What would a Democrat president have done at that point? Apparently, the answer is: Sit back and wait for the next terrorist attack.
Ann Coulter
[ edited by Linda_K on Jan 28, 2006 02:58 PM ]
posted on January 28, 2006 06:39:47 PM new
They are no longer terrorist by definition since they are the elected leaders of the people. Just because elected leaders kill others doesn't make them terrorist, otherwise Belafonte would be right.
By the way, what happened Linda_K, they finally let you out?
posted on January 28, 2006 07:01:12 PM new
They have to be recognized first nerfball, even the palestinians are having a hard time accepting them. But if it is no longer terrorism, then it is war and Isreal would have even more reason to wipe them out.
Ron
"I'm so depressed. My doctor refused to write me a
prescription for Viagra. He said it would be like putting
a new flagpole on a condemned building."
posted on January 28, 2006 07:15:53 PM new
nerball has a big problem with comprehending what our President has said. And by now should be VERY aware that he's not clinton....he does what he says he's going to do.
inform yourself nerfball...
U.S. won't deal with Hamas
By Bill Sammon
THE WASHINGTON TIMES
January 27, 2006
President Bush yesterday said the U.S. will not deal with Hamas, the terrorist group that won Wednesday's Palestinian elections, unless it renounces its goal of destroying Israel.
"A political party that articulates the destruction of Israel as part of its platform is a party with which we will not deal," the president said in a press conference. "People must renounce that part of their platform."
He added, "You can't be a partner in peace if your party has got an armed wing."
The stunning victory by Hamas prompted the resignation of Palestinian Prime Minister Ahmed Qureia, a member of the Fatah party. Palestinian Authority President Mahmoud Abbas, also a Fatah member, was asked by Mr. Bush to remain in office.
"We would hope he would stay in office and work to move the process forward," the president told reporters in the James S. Brady press briefing room.
Mr. Abbas said he would not be deterred from implementing a U.S.-sponsored peace plan, known as the "road map," which entails negotiations with Israel.
"I remain committed to implement the platform on which you voted for me one year ago," he told Palestinians in a televised address. "The basis of this platform is negotiations and a peace settlement with Israel."
The victory by Hamas, which won 76 of 132 seats in the parliament, was a setback to Mr. Bush's stated goal of brokering a comprehensive peace agreement between Palestinians and Israelis in his second term. Nonetheless, the president was philosophical about the election results, suggesting that voters were more interested in getting rid of the existing corruption than embracing terrorism.
"It's a wake-up call to the leadership," Mr. Bush said. "People were not happy with the status quo. The people are demanding honest government. The people want services. They want to be able to raise their children in an environment in which they can get a decent education and they can find health care."
Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice issued a stern warning to Hamas, which has carried out scores of suicide bombings against Israelis.
"You cannot have one foot in politics and another in terror," Miss Rice said at the World Economic Forum in Davos, Switzerland. "Our position on Hamas has therefore not changed."
She added, "Palestinian people have apparently voted for change, but we believe their aspirations for peace and a peaceful life remain unchanged."
posted on January 28, 2006 07:19:54 PM new
page two of the above article.
U.S. won't deal with Hamas
By Bill Sammon
THE WASHINGTON TIMES
January 27, 2006
Last year, Miss Rice told The Washington Times in an interview that participation in the political process could force terrorist groups like Hamas to moderate their policies.
"When people start getting elected and have to start worrying about constituencies and ... not about whether their fire-breathing rhetoric against Israel is being heard, but about whether or not that person's child down the street is able to go to a good school or that road has been fixed ... then things start to change," she said.
Yesterday, Mr. Bush sounded similarly optimistic.
"Peace is never dead, because people want peace," he said. "The best hope for peace in the Middle East is two democracies living side by side."
The Hamas win led Rep. Vito J. Fossella, New York Republican, to say he will introduce legislation to end all U.S. aid to a Palestinian Authority led by Hamas. Last year, the U.S. sent $275 million to Gaza and the West Bank, including $50 million directly to the Palestinian Authority.
"Not one dollar of taxpayer money should go to this terrorist organization," Mr. Fossella said of Hamas. "The Palestinian people have every right to elect a terrorist organization to control their government -- and the United States has every right to eliminate any financial assistance for it."
Ehud Olmert, Israel's acting prime minister, vowed not to work with Hamas.
"Should a government be established in the Palestinian Authority with Hamas leading or participating, the Palestinian Authority will become a sponsor of terror," he said in an emergency meeting of the security Cabinet in Jerusalem.
"The world and Israel will ignore it, and it will become irrelevant," he said.
While the democratic party complains about everything THIS President does to protect our Nation:
What would a Democrat president have done at that point? Apparently, the answer is: Sit back and wait for the next terrorist attack.
Ann Coulter
posted on January 28, 2006 08:33:11 PM new
Save the Clinton comparisons for someone who gives a shat, I didn't like him either.
The fact is, you can't just decide whether or not you want to recognize the leadership of a country if they are democratically elected, and still claim to support democracy.
Just because you don't like their policies shouldn't matter. Most countries don't support the war in Iraq, yet they are still forced to recognize Bush as the elected leader of a democratic country. The same goes for Hamas. Hamas kills people. So does Bush. Now they have something else in common. They are both in charge of their governments.
posted on January 29, 2006 06:22:16 AM new
I suppose a Bush supporter's definition of terrorist is someone who has a bomb but doesn't have an airforce?
What irony that Bush has enabled and encouraged radical Islamists to become politically powerful.
posted on January 29, 2006 06:35:32 AM new
nerfball you just lost any credibility you had for this thread by comparing President Bush to Hamas, the world leaders have already voiced their disatisfaction against Hamas and what will happen if they do not change. You saying it can't be so is irrelevent.
All it is to you now is a way to bash President Bush and it appears that you are refusing to look at the world picture.
We do not have to support a government we find unfavorable I have no idea where you have come to that misconception other than your bush hatred. You and comrade helen enjoy for me this discussion is over.
Your opinions have no basis of fact and now even relevance. But then again your judgement seems to be clouded by anti-bush rhetoric.
Ron
"I'm so depressed. My doctor refused to write me a
prescription for Viagra. He said it would be like putting
a new flagpole on a condemned building."
posted on January 29, 2006 08:42:45 AM new
How can you claim to desire democracy, and then in the next breath say that you don't? It's contradictory.
My comparison between Bush and Hamas was simply to point out that depending on what part of the world you're from, they both seem to bring terror to the people. It's hard for us to understand that because we don't have soldiers kicking in our doors all times of the night and bombs dropping on houses down the street. Put yourself in the shoes of the average Iraqi citizen - even one that hated Saddam. Look at what they have to deal with on a day to day basis. Why do you think they hate us now? If you were so unfortunate to live in Baghdad, you would most likely see Bush and his war quite differently. Here in Detroit we have the largest Iraqi population outside of Iraq, and I've heard the same thing day after day. Most of them supported removing Saddam. Now, not one of them supports this war, and they almost all resent what this country has done to Iraq. And these are the pro-American ones.
A terrorist is someone who is trying to affect the policy of those in power through terror, violence or destruction. That is why Bush can not be called a terrorist - he is already in power. The same now goes for Hamas, unfortunately. You can thank Bush and this war for that.
I don't hate Bush, I just don't respect him. He has no credibility. He wants democracy, buy only if it favors him. That is supporting puppet governments, not democracies.
Does Bush support democracy in the Middle East like he says? He claims that to be the biggest drive behind this war, and then turns around and refuses to accept the democratic will of the people.
The fact is Bush only supports elections if the winner is Pro American. That is NOT Democracy.
posted on January 29, 2006 10:24:53 AM new
Imo, Ron, it's because people like helen and nerfball carry such hatred for this President....they can never allow themselves to be on our own countries side in ANY issue.
And nerf - Put yourself in the shoes of the average Iraqi citizen - even one that hated Saddam. Look at what they have to deal with on a day to day basis. Why do you think they hate us now?
What a totally misinformed statement. I have previously posted a link that was a poll taken of Iraqi citizens. YOU need to do a little research so YOU will become better informed about how they DO feel about having freedom.
It's NOT as you proposed...but rather JUST the opposite. THEY feel it's all worth it.
Don't speak for them.....read what THEY, themselves say.
While the democratic party complains about everything THIS President does to protect our Nation:
What would a Democrat president have done at that point? Apparently, the answer is: Sit back and wait for the next terrorist attack.
Ann Coulter
posted on January 29, 2006 10:47:47 AM new
Linda_K I doubt you ever met, let alone talked to any Iraqi citizens. I deal with, work with and live around these people every day. I am as informed as an American can be on that subject.
I don't need a bogus poll that some telemarketers in some backwater Arkansas town probably conducted 3 years ago.
Every pro-American Iraqi I know supported the war initially, and now everyone of them has horror stories about a grandmother, niece, uncle etc, that was maimed or killed by American "smart" bombs.
posted on January 29, 2006 11:19:25 AM new
LOL....who said anything about a 3-4 year old poll>
Not I.
I agree with Ron....it's people like you and helen who will support leaders like saddam and now say we MUST deal with the hamas terrorists...who are proof of why your party doesn't get elected.
To EVER compare our President....ANY President with a hamas terrorist is beyond anti-American.
I think I too will just ignore your posts. You don't have a clue as to who the evil doers are and who represents our Nation.
You and helen are BOTH extremely confused if you believe you're patriots of THIS country. I'm surprised you make your home in America....the way you see our National policies. What a shame you don't live in Palestine....enjoy their way of ruling...their lives
While the democratic party complains about everything THIS President does to protect our Nation:
What would a Democrat president have done at that point? Apparently, the answer is: Sit back and wait for the next terrorist attack.
Ann Coulter
posted on January 29, 2006 11:37:13 AM new
#1 - You confuse me with someone who has a party. What do you think - I'm a democrat?
#2 - When have I ever supported Saddam? You support Kim Jong Il. There, we can both just make things up.
#3 - Bush is the one that said he wanted democracy in the Middle East, not me. I wouldn't deal with Hamas. But if he supports democracy like he says he does, then why shouldn't he respect the will of the people?
#4 - Get away from LOL LOL LOL LOL LOL LOL ROFL ROFL ROFL. Just make it part of your signature, so you don't have to type it. Like classic with "Pot meet kettle". Something new, please.
#5 - Dispute the facts, don't just call people anti-American anytime they disagree with US foreign policy.
Can you name one thing about US foreign policy you don't agree with? I didn't think so, so it is your mind that is clouded with blind support. I can think of plenty of things I support and plenty I don't - you know why?
Because I know how to formulate my own thoughts, and not have them fed to me by FOX and Limbaugh
