Bush blames Clinton. Bwaaahahahahahahaha.

1 view
Skip to first unread message

Harry Hope

unread,
Apr 5, 2002, 9:18:02 PM4/5/02
to

Bush Derides Clinton's Mideast Work

Fri Apr 5, 8:25 PM ET

By RON FOURNIER, AP White House Correspondent

CRAWFORD, Texas -

President Bush says the Mideast summit sponsored by former President
Clinton resulted in a "significant intefadeh," or uprising, repeating
an accusation his press secretary got in trouble for uttering.


............................................................................................

From The Washington Post, 3/30/02:
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/articles/A37986-2002Mar29.html


By Mike Allen
Washington Post Staff Writer

Saturday, March 30, 2002; Page A04

CRAWFORD, Tex. --

As Israeli troops and tanks stormed Yasser Arafat's compound today,
President Bush played with his dogs, went for a jog and worked around
his ranch.

With tensions rising and other world leaders speaking out, Bush's
aides stalled, initially saying they were deciding what to say, then
declaring in their first official statement that they were monitoring
and assessing the situation.

________________________________________________

Bwahahahahahaha. 'Nuff Said.

Harry

Harry Hope

unread,
Apr 5, 2002, 9:20:37 PM4/5/02
to
On Sat, 06 Apr 2002 02:18:02 GMT, riv...@ix.netcom.com (Harry Hope)
wrote:

The li'l weasel's too much. I was laughing so hard I forgot to post
the source.

From The Associated Press, 4/5/02:
http://story.news.yahoo.com/news?tmpl=story&cid=536&ncid=703&e=1&u=/ap/20020406/ap_on_go_pr_wh/bush_clinton_2

Bill Mulcahy

unread,
Apr 5, 2002, 10:58:20 PM4/5/02
to

"Harry Hope" <riv...@ix.netcom.com> wrote in message
news:3cae5b31....@nntp.ix.netcom.com...

> On Sat, 06 Apr 2002 02:18:02 GMT, riv...@ix.netcom.com (Harry Hope)
> wrote:
>
> The li'l weasel's too much. I was laughing so hard I forgot to post
> the source.

Unfortunately he's our president. So I guess the jokes on us.

Bill Mulcahy


Dwayne Conyers

unread,
Apr 6, 2002, 1:35:32 AM4/6/02
to
Clinton might have done more in the mid-east if the women weren't covered up
from head to toe...

--
Dwacon Entertainment presents:
Hillary Clinton's congressional striptease
http://www.dwacon.com


George Spelvin

unread,
Apr 6, 2002, 8:21:10 AM4/6/02
to
Harry Hope wrote:

> >By Mike Allen
> >Washington Post Staff Writer
> >
> >Saturday, March 30, 2002; Page A04
> >
> >CRAWFORD, Tex. --
> >
> >As Israeli troops and tanks stormed Yasser Arafat's compound today,
> >President Bush played with his dogs, went for a jog and worked around
> >his ranch.

And he has the nerve to say, "I expect leadership." I'd laugh if so
many people weren't being killed because of HIS lack of leadership.

_____________
"I cannot support this military action in the Persian Gulf at this
time."--Trent Lott, 1998
"How dare Senator Daschle criticize President Bush while we are fighting
our war on terrorism, especially when we have troops in the field!"--
Trent Lott, 2002

"People want a president who says what he means and means what he
says."--G.W.Bush
"I am here to make an announcement that this Thursday, ticket counters
and airplanes will fly out of Ronald Reagan Airport."--G.W.Bush

George Spelvin

unread,
Apr 6, 2002, 8:28:44 AM4/6/02
to
> >Fri Apr 5, 8:25 PM ET
> >
> >By RON FOURNIER, AP White House Correspondent
> >
> >CRAWFORD, Texas -
> >
> >President Bush says the Mideast summit sponsored by former President
> >Clinton resulted in a "significant intefadeh," or uprising, repeating
> >an accusation his press secretary got in trouble for uttering.

Nothing but an ignorant attempt to deflect attention away from his total
lack of leadership. Bill Clinton caused no violence in the Middle
East. People in the Middle East caused the violence and Clinton
actually got out of his pickup and tried to help.

The "intefadeh" started after Sharon walked his fat ass on the temple
mount and taunted the Palestinians. Sharon has never wanted a
Palestinian state. Some Palestinians don't want to recognize Israel.
If nothing is done to stop the violence those extremists (on both sides)
will continue to kill innocent civilians. Bush has the power to make
the situation better, but he refuses. I wonder why? What profit could
there be?

Tom Snyder

unread,
Apr 6, 2002, 8:40:20 AM4/6/02
to
This is outrageous. Why don't you people just leave the U.S. You don't
deserve to be here.


"George Spelvin" <spe...@everywhere.edu> wrote in message
news:3CAEF66D...@everywhere.edu...

Safe as Milk

unread,
Apr 6, 2002, 11:03:59 AM4/6/02
to
In article <3CAEF82D...@everywhere.edu>, George Spelvin
<spe...@everywhere.edu> wrote:

Easy to surmise...

Bush wants the Isrealis to use Palestinian terrorists as an example of
what happens to the Axis of Evil when they are up against the Hogs of
Oil.

What the Israelis are doing to the Palestinians is Bushie's wet dream
for what he'd like to do with Al-Qaeda. Bush lives vicariously through
Sharon.

E. K.

--
Visit PS Mueller's cartoon site.
http://www.psmueller.com

Aaron Hirshberg

unread,
Apr 6, 2002, 11:52:18 AM4/6/02
to
riv...@ix.netcom.com (Harry Hope) wrote in message news:<3cae59b9....@nntp.ix.netcom.com>...

> Bush Derides Clinton's Mideast Work
>
> Fri Apr 5, 8:25 PM ET
>
> By RON FOURNIER, AP White House Correspondent
>
> CRAWFORD, Texas -
>
> President Bush says the Mideast summit sponsored by former President
> Clinton resulted in a "significant intefadeh," or uprising, repeating
> an accusation his press secretary got in trouble for uttering.
>
>
> ............................................................................................
>
> From The Washington Post, 3/30/02:
> http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/articles/A37986-2002Mar29.html
>
>
> By Mike Allen
> Washington Post Staff Writer
>
> Saturday, March 30, 2002; Page A04
>
> CRAWFORD, Tex. --
>
> As Israeli troops and tanks stormed Yasser Arafat's compound today,
> President Bush played with his dogs, went for a jog and worked around
> his ranch.

What's new? In 1991, while the UN was preparing for the Gulf War,
Bush the elder was riding around in his cigarette boat!



> With tensions rising and other world leaders speaking out, Bush's
> aides stalled, initially saying they were deciding what to say, then
> declaring in their first official statement that they were monitoring
> and assessing the situation.
>
> ________________________________________________
>
> Bwahahahahahaha. 'Nuff Said.

Totally. I have also seen some right wing crap on the net lately that
blamed Carter for the Marine barracks bombing in Beirut!

Aaron Hirshberg

David Lentz

unread,
Apr 6, 2002, 12:10:58 PM4/6/02
to

George Spelvin wrote:

<snip>

> Nothing but an ignorant attempt to deflect attention away from his total
> lack of leadership. Bill Clinton caused no violence in the Middle
> East. People in the Middle East caused the violence and Clinton
> actually got out of his pickup and tried to help.
>
> The "intefadeh" started after Sharon walked his fat ass on the temple
> mount and taunted the Palestinians. Sharon has never wanted a
> Palestinian state. Some Palestinians don't want to recognize Israel.
> If nothing is done to stop the violence those extremists (on both sides)
> will continue to kill innocent civilians. Bush has the power to make
> the situation better, but he refuses. I wonder why? What profit could
> there be?

What did the most pro terrorist President of all time, B.J.
Clinton, ever do to promote peace anywhere. Clinton treated
Yassar Afrafat not at the terrorist he was, and is, but some
kind of respectable leader. It was Clinton who wined and dined
Arafat at the White House and treated him like royalty.

In stark contrast, President George W. Bush is putting
expectations on both Israel and the Palestians. Bush had made it
clear that Israel should disengage from Palestine areas and that
Palestinian leadership should step up to stop the Palestian
violence. Note that Bush did not restrict his call for Palestian
leadership to Arafat. Bush has made it clear, as Clinton never
did, that peace require action from both sides.

Clinton made the mistake of assuming, or pretending, that Arafat
was the key to Middle East peace. It becoming increasingly
clear that Arafat is not the key to peace but rather a
distraction from peace.

David

--
qyra...@ebpurfgre.ee.pbz

Cisco Kid

unread,
Apr 6, 2002, 12:14:14 PM4/6/02
to

"Bill Mulcahy" <wmul...@hvc.rr.com> wrote in message
news:wnur8.31575$GF1.5...@typhoon.nyroc.rr.com...

I don't know - I didn't vote for him and I understand he actually finished
2nd in the last election.


Patrick Finucane

unread,
Apr 6, 2002, 12:18:41 PM4/6/02
to
Harry Hope wrote:

> Bush Derides Clinton's Mideast Work

Adam and Eve were expelled from the Garden Of Eden after being tempted by Bill Clinton. For
references, see the Bible.


Thumper

unread,
Apr 6, 2002, 12:25:10 PM4/6/02
to
On Sat, 06 Apr 2002 13:40:20 GMT, "Tom Snyder" <titu...@pacbell.net>
wrote:

>This is outrageous. Why don't you people just leave the U.S. You don't
>deserve to be here.
>
>

Deserve to be here? Screw you.
Thumper

Brian Damage

unread,
Apr 6, 2002, 3:18:18 PM4/6/02
to
Did you leave the U.S. for 8 years? Did Rush? Newt? Barr? Burton? You're
pathetic

Brian Damage

unread,
Apr 6, 2002, 4:32:26 PM4/6/02
to

Hmmm, I didn't see any mention if President Clinton in the Bible, but
there was something about a Burning Bush.

Prophet

unread,
Apr 6, 2002, 5:09:25 PM4/6/02
to
On Sat, 06 Apr 2002 16:32:26 -0500, Brian Damage <bda...@acme.com>
wrote:

Was is a suggestion?


Prophet

"Do it in the name of heaven you can justify it in the end"
One Tin Soldier, Theme from "Billy Jack"

Cognitus

unread,
Apr 6, 2002, 5:10:30 PM4/6/02
to

"George Spelvin" <spe...@everywhere.edu> wrote in message
news:3CAEF66D...@everywhere.edu...
> Harry Hope wrote:
>
> > >By Mike Allen
> > >Washington Post Staff Writer
> > >
> > >Saturday, March 30, 2002; Page A04
> > >
> > >CRAWFORD, Tex. --
> > >
> > >As Israeli troops and tanks stormed Yasser Arafat's compound today,
> > >President Bush played with his dogs, went for a jog and worked around
> > >his ranch.

He enjoys those rare occasions when he's with things he's smarter
than -- like
his dogs. I'm not sure what Bush's IQ is but I would be willing to
conjecture that it's about
Two-Dogs worth.

Cognitus

unread,
Apr 6, 2002, 5:11:35 PM4/6/02
to

"Tom Snyder" <titu...@pacbell.net> wrote in message
news:8VCr8.1466$iG4.72...@newssvr21.news.prodigy.com...

> This is outrageous. Why don't you people just leave the U.S. You don't
> deserve to be here.

After YOU!!!!

Marie Jordan

unread,
Apr 6, 2002, 6:08:26 PM4/6/02
to
riv...@ix.netcom.com (Harry Hope) wrote in message news:<3cae59b9....@nntp.ix.netcom.com>...

Well that's our appointed President, a sorry, petty little dimwit.
You can be sure Georgie and his handlers have a "blame Clinton" story
ready if an alien spaceship lands on the White House lawn tomorrow.

D.G. Porter

unread,
Apr 6, 2002, 7:27:00 PM4/6/02
to
George Spelvin wrote:
>
>
> If nothing is done to stop the violence those extremists (on both sides)
> will continue to kill innocent civilians. Bush has the power to make
> the situation better, but he refuses. I wonder why? What profit could
> there be?

Re-selection in 2004.

D.G. Porter

unread,
Apr 6, 2002, 7:29:51 PM4/6/02
to
Tom Snyder wrote:
>
> This is outrageous. Why don't you people just leave the U.S. You don't
> deserve to be here.

MAKE US, you little fucking pip-squeak.

BitHead

unread,
Apr 6, 2002, 8:53:44 PM4/6/02
to
On Sun, 07 Apr 2002 00:29:51 GMT, "D.G. Porter"
<dgpo...@SENDMENOSPAMpacbell.naught> wrote:

>Tom Snyder wrote:
>>
>> This is outrageous. Why don't you people just leave the U.S. You don't
>> deserve to be here.
>
>MAKE US, you little fucking pip-squeak.

It's going to happen. The people are already pissed off about idiots
like you enough to do exactly that.

BitHead

unread,
Apr 6, 2002, 8:56:26 PM4/6/02
to


The battle has been raging for over 2000 years.
So Bush is supposed to solve the issue r he falls short of your
expectations?

LOL!


SteveL

unread,
Apr 6, 2002, 9:22:08 PM4/6/02
to
On Sun, 07 Apr 2002 01:53:44 GMT, bit...@rochester.rr.com (BitHead)
wrote:

Will you approve?

D.G. Porter

unread,
Apr 6, 2002, 9:43:55 PM4/6/02
to

You're pretty stupid for someone who pretends he writes professionally.
Smirk is going to play this out until November 2004 and appeal to our
"patriotism" to re-select him.

D.G. Porter

unread,
Apr 6, 2002, 9:45:37 PM4/6/02
to

Yeah, riiiight. You just fucking TRY IT, you little twerp. Love to see
you try. I'll chew you up and spit you out.
"The people"? HA HA HA HA! You mean "A few LOONIES"!

Thumper

unread,
Apr 6, 2002, 9:09:39 PM4/6/02
to
On Sun, 07 Apr 2002 01:56:26 GMT, bit...@rochester.rr.com (BitHead)
wrote:

Solve the issue? He has exacerbated the problem. Despite warnings
from our allys that the U.S. needed a hands on approach he announced
shortly after coming into office that he was going to leave the
situation to the folks in the region. Violence has escalated since
then to the point that it could spark a WWIII.
Thumper

Thumper

unread,
Apr 6, 2002, 9:03:10 PM4/6/02
to
On Sun, 07 Apr 2002 01:53:44 GMT, bit...@rochester.rr.com (BitHead)
wrote:

>On Sun, 07 Apr 2002 00:29:51 GMT, "D.G. Porter"

You mean the fascists that only believe in freedom of speech as long
as you speak what they want to hear. We'll never allow this country
to be taken over by fascists Bitbrain.
Thumper

BitHead

unread,
Apr 6, 2002, 11:07:18 PM4/6/02
to
On Sun, 07 Apr 2002 02:03:10 GMT, Thumper <jayl...@attbi.com> wrote:

>>>> This is outrageous. Why don't you people just leave the U.S. You don't
>>>> deserve to be here.
>>>
>>>MAKE US, you little fucking pip-squeak.
>>
>>It's going to happen. The people are already pissed off about idiots
>>like you enough to do exactly that.
>>
>>
>You mean the fascists that only believe in freedom of speech as long
>as you speak what they want to hear. We'll never allow this country
>to be taken over by fascists Bitbrain.


This from the supporters of Bill Clinton, and Al Gore.
(shake of the head)

BitHead

unread,
Apr 6, 2002, 11:08:27 PM4/6/02
to
On Sun, 07 Apr 2002 02:45:37 GMT, "D.G. Porter"
<dgpo...@SENDMENOSPAMpacbell.naught> wrote:

Amazing; you dound just like a 13 year old who has had their ass
backed into a corner.

BitHead

unread,
Apr 6, 2002, 11:07:46 PM4/6/02
to
On Sun, 07 Apr 2002 02:22:08 GMT, SteveL <Ste...@stevelon.demon.co.uk>
wrote:

>On Sun, 07 Apr 2002 01:53:44 GMT, bit...@rochester.rr.com (BitHead)
>wrote:
>
>>On Sun, 07 Apr 2002 00:29:51 GMT, "D.G. Porter"
>><dgpo...@SENDMENOSPAMpacbell.naught> wrote:
>>
>>>Tom Snyder wrote:
>>>>
>>>> This is outrageous. Why don't you people just leave the U.S. You don't
>>>> deserve to be here.
>>>
>>>MAKE US, you little fucking pip-squeak.
>>
>>It's going to happen. The people are already pissed off about idiots
>>like you enough to do exactly that.
>>
>>
>
>Will you approve?

Of intent? Certainly. Of tactics? Depends.


BitHead

unread,
Apr 6, 2002, 11:09:39 PM4/6/02
to
On Sun, 07 Apr 2002 02:09:39 GMT, Thumper <jayl...@attbi.com> wrote:

>>>> If nothing is done to stop the violence those extremists (on both sides)
>>>> will continue to kill innocent civilians. Bush has the power to make
>>>> the situation better, but he refuses. I wonder why? What profit could
>>>> there be?
>>>
>>>Re-selection in 2004.
>>
>>
>>The battle has been raging for over 2000 years.
>>So Bush is supposed to solve the issue r he falls short of your
>>expectations?
>>
>>LOL!
>>
>Solve the issue? He has exacerbated the problem. Despite warnings
>from our allys that the U.S. needed a hands on approach he announced
>shortly after coming into office that he was going to leave the
>situation to the folks in the region. Violence has escalated since
>then to the point that it could spark a WWIII.

Hands on? You mean like Clinton?
Are you running on a borrowed IQ today?


BitHead

unread,
Apr 6, 2002, 11:10:34 PM4/6/02
to
On Sun, 07 Apr 2002 02:43:55 GMT, "D.G. Porter"
<dgpo...@SENDMENOSPAMpacbell.naught> wrote:

>BitHead wrote:
>>
>> On Sun, 07 Apr 2002 00:27:00 GMT, "D.G. Porter"
>> <dgpo...@SENDMENOSPAMpacbell.naught> wrote:
>>
>> >George Spelvin wrote:
>> >>
>> >>
>> >> If nothing is done to stop the violence those extremists (on both sides)
>> >> will continue to kill innocent civilians. Bush has the power to make
>> >> the situation better, but he refuses. I wonder why? What profit could
>> >> there be?
>> >
>> >Re-selection in 2004.
>>
>> The battle has been raging for over 2000 years.
>> So Bush is supposed to solve the issue r he falls short of your
>> expectations?
>
>You're pretty stupid for someone who pretends he writes professionally.

I KNOW YOU are running on a borrowed IQ. Were I you, I'd give it
back. It's not helping you.

>Smirk is going to play this out until November 2004 and appeal to our
>"patriotism" to re-select him.

Yeah, right. I'll be reminding you of this one.

rand mair fheal

unread,
Apr 6, 2002, 11:37:30 PM4/6/02
to

so im a traitor a terrorist and an unpleasant person
so what?
do you really think thats going to stop me from voting in november?

Thumper

unread,
Apr 7, 2002, 3:10:11 AM4/7/02
to
On Sun, 07 Apr 2002 04:08:27 GMT, bit...@rochester.rr.com (BitHead)
wrote:

>On Sun, 07 Apr 2002 02:45:37 GMT, "D.G. Porter"
><dgpo...@SENDMENOSPAMpacbell.naught> wrote:
>
>>BitHead wrote:
>>>
>>> On Sun, 07 Apr 2002 00:29:51 GMT, "D.G. Porter"
>>> <dgpo...@SENDMENOSPAMpacbell.naught> wrote:
>>>
>>> >Tom Snyder wrote:
>>> >>
>>> >> This is outrageous. Why don't you people just leave the U.S. You don't
>>> >> deserve to be here.
>>> >
>>> >MAKE US, you little fucking pip-squeak.
>>>
>>> It's going to happen. The people are already pissed off about idiots
>>> like you enough to do exactly that.
>>
>>Yeah, riiiight. You just fucking TRY IT, you little twerp. Love to see
>>you try. I'll chew you up and spit you out.
>>"The people"? HA HA HA HA! You mean "A few LOONIES"!
>
>Amazing; you dound just like a 13 year old who has had their ass
>backed into a corner.
>

You should be an authority on 13 year olds. They are exactly at your
level of intelectual development.
Thumper

Thumper

unread,
Apr 7, 2002, 3:10:58 AM4/7/02
to
On Sun, 07 Apr 2002 04:07:18 GMT, bit...@rochester.rr.com (BitHead)
wrote:

That must have hurt with your head being that far up your ass.
Thumper

Donovan Rebbechi

unread,
Apr 7, 2002, 4:12:00 AM4/7/02
to
In article <3CAF2C0F...@signfile.net>, David Lentz wrote:

> What did the most pro terrorist President of all time, B.J.
> Clinton, ever do to promote peace anywhere.

What did he do ? He tirelessly worked on achieving peace in the Middle East
while the Republicans discussed his sex life.

> Clinton treated Yassar Afrafat not at the terrorist he was, and is, but some
> kind of respectable leader. It was Clinton who wined and dined Arafat at the
> White House and treated him like royalty.

Are we back to this "treated like royalty" rubbish ?

> In stark contrast,

The "stark contrast" is between Sharons and Baraks policy.

> President George W. Bush is putting expectations on both Israel and the
> Palestians.

Please enumerate some of these "stark contrasts". In particular, what is
your basis for the assertion that CLinton didn't "put expectations" on the
Palestinians ?

> violence. Note that Bush did not restrict his call for Palestian
> leadership to Arafat. Bush has made it clear, as Clinton never
> did, that peace require action from both sides.

Not true. Clinton worked tirelessly to facilitate dialogue, and try to get
both sides to come to make some serious commitments to peace. Arafat chose
not to accept the terms put to him.

> Clinton made the mistake of assuming, or pretending, that Arafat
> was the key to Middle East peace.

This was not Clintons choice to make. Clintons job was to facilitate the
negotiations, not to tell Israel how it should conduct its foreign policy, or
who Israel should negotiate with. Wouldn't it be awfully stupid for the Clinton
whitehouse to anger the Arab world, undermine both Israel and the Palestinians,
and sabotage peace negotiations by saying that they didn't want to talk to the
recognised (by the Israeli government, and the rest of the world) Palestinian
leader ?

The fallacy of your argument is that you are not looking at the policy of
either administrations in the context of other factors, including the level of
violence, the policy of the Israeli leadership, and the status of negotiations.


--
Donovan

Bill Bonde

unread,
Apr 7, 2002, 4:20:46 AM4/7/02
to

Donovan Rebbechi wrote:
>
> In article <3CAF2C0F...@signfile.net>, David Lentz wrote:
>
> > What did the most pro terrorist President of all time, B.J.
> > Clinton, ever do to promote peace anywhere.
>
> What did he do ? He tirelessly worked on achieving peace in the Middle East
> while the Republicans discussed his sex life.
>

He brought about the current violence. Clinton was a disaster in the
Middle East.

rand mair fheal

unread,
Apr 7, 2002, 5:35:11 AM4/7/02
to
In article <3CB0015E...@mail.com>, Bill Bonde
<stderr_...@mail.com> wrote:

hahaha ha ha haha ha haha

clinton has been our stealth president for the last year?
or secretly running the world from harlem?

StevenM135

unread,
Apr 7, 2002, 9:37:22 AM4/7/02
to
>This is outrageous. Why don't you people just leave the U.S. You don't
>deserve to be here.
>

You apparently haven't read the Constitution since YOU have been here.

David Lentz

unread,
Apr 7, 2002, 10:57:51 AM4/7/02
to

Bullshit.

B.J. Clinton never worked for peace a single day in his life.

Clinton quest for a Nobel Peace Prize consisted of pressuring
Israel to accept Palestinian demands and treating the terrorist
Yasser Arafat as some kind of knighted hero. All Clinton's peace
initiative did was to inspire Arafat to reignite the Intifada.

Dialogue does not and can not produce peace. Peace only results
when all combatants have a mutually acceptable version of a
peace. As the only peace acceptable to the Palestinians is one
without an Israel, for Israel peace is not possible unless Israel
ceases to exist.

Unless the Palestinians are willing to accept the existence of
the State of Israel, there nothing to negotiate.

David

--
qyra...@ebpurfgre.ee.pbz

Donovan Rebbechi

unread,
Apr 7, 2002, 11:27:20 AM4/7/02
to
In article <3CB05E60...@signfile.net>, David Lentz wrote:
> B.J. Clinton never worked for peace a single day in his life.
>
> Clinton quest for a Nobel Peace Prize consisted of pressuring
> Israel to accept Palestinian demands

An outright lie. *Barak* was the driving force behind the Camp David proposal.

> and treating the terrorist
> Yasser Arafat as some kind of knighted hero.

You keep repeating this, but don't make any sort of coherent argument that it's
the case.

> All Clinton's peace initiative did was to inspire Arafat to reignite the
> Intifada.

Again, completely false. First, it was *Baraks* peace initiative. Second, it
was the breakdown of the negotiations that resulted in escalating tensions.
Third, any idiot can be a hindsight expert.

> Dialogue does not and can not produce peace. Peace only results
> when all combatants have a mutually acceptable version of a
> peace.

Obviously, that's what Camp David attempted to establish.

> As the only peace acceptable to the Palestinians is one without an Israel,
> for Israel peace is not possible unless Israel ceases to exist.

Not only this is not true, it is in direct contradiction with the view of
the Bush administration, so I suggest you take Bush and Powell to task.

> Unless the Palestinians are willing to accept the existence of the State of
> Israel, there nothing to negotiate.

The Palestinians have already signed agreements that require them to accept
such a thing, so at least on paper, they already do this.

--
Donovan

Donovan Rebbechi

unread,
Apr 7, 2002, 11:30:17 AM4/7/02
to
In article <3CB0015E...@mail.com>, Bill Bonde wrote:

> Donovan Rebbechi wrote:
>>
>> What did he do ? He tirelessly worked on achieving peace in the Middle East
>> while the Republicans discussed his sex life.
>>
> He brought about the current violence. Clinton was a disaster in the
> Middle East.

Gee, and all this time I thought Bush was pres if the US and Sharon was pres
of Israel when actually, Bill Clinton has been controlling everything !!!

The fact is that the current violence was brought about by Sharon and Arafat.

--
Donovan

George Spelvin

unread,
Apr 7, 2002, 11:58:53 AM4/7/02
to

Safe as Milk wrote:
>
> In article <3CAEF82D...@everywhere.edu>, George Spelvin


> <spe...@everywhere.edu> wrote:
>
> > > >Fri Apr 5, 8:25 PM ET
> > > >
> > > >By RON FOURNIER, AP White House Correspondent
> > > >
> > > >CRAWFORD, Texas -
> > > >
> > > >President Bush says the Mideast summit sponsored by former President
> > > >Clinton resulted in a "significant intefadeh," or uprising, repeating
> > > >an accusation his press secretary got in trouble for uttering.
> >

> > Nothing but an ignorant attempt to deflect attention away from his total
> > lack of leadership. Bill Clinton caused no violence in the Middle
> > East. People in the Middle East caused the violence and Clinton
> > actually got out of his pickup and tried to help.
> >
> > The "intefadeh" started after Sharon walked his fat ass on the temple
> > mount and taunted the Palestinians. Sharon has never wanted a
> > Palestinian state. Some Palestinians don't want to recognize Israel.


> > If nothing is done to stop the violence those extremists (on both sides)
> > will continue to kill innocent civilians. Bush has the power to make
> > the situation better, but he refuses. I wonder why? What profit could
> > there be?
>

> Easy to surmise...
>
> Bush wants the Isrealis to use Palestinian terrorists as an example of
> what happens to the Axis of Evil when they are up against the Hogs of
> Oil.
>
> What the Israelis are doing to the Palestinians is Bushie's wet dream
> for what he'd like to do with Al-Qaeda. Bush lives vicariously through
> Sharon.

It might also have to do with future arms sales and the need for Israel
to depend on the US. It would seem, though, that peace would only make
it easier for the US to do business in that region--in the long run. I
think it also has to do with the party in charge; Bush would rather see
a conservative government than a liberal government (and the
conservatives don't want a peace deal apparently).

Must be some things we just don't know that are motivating the lack of
action and concern. And I'm sure it has to do with money and power.

George Spelvin

unread,
Apr 7, 2002, 12:03:47 PM4/7/02
to
David Lentz wrote:
>
> George Spelvin wrote:
>
> <snip>

>
> > Nothing but an ignorant attempt to deflect attention away from his total
> > lack of leadership. Bill Clinton caused no violence in the Middle
> > East. People in the Middle East caused the violence and Clinton
> > actually got out of his pickup and tried to help.
> >
> > The "intefadeh" started after Sharon walked his fat ass on the temple
> > mount and taunted the Palestinians. Sharon has never wanted a
> > Palestinian state. Some Palestinians don't want to recognize Israel.
> > If nothing is done to stop the violence those extremists (on both sides)
> > will continue to kill innocent civilians. Bush has the power to make
> > the situation better, but he refuses. I wonder why? What profit could
> > there be?
>
> What did the most pro terrorist President of all time, B.J.
> Clinton, ever do to promote peace anywhere. Clinton treated

> Yassar Afrafat not at the terrorist he was, and is, but some
> kind of respectable leader. It was Clinton who wined and dined
> Arafat at the White House and treated him like royalty.

Do you understand how to discuss an issue, or do you only desire to
express your obsession with Clinton? When Clinton was President, peace
accords were reached and the Israeli army wasn't threatening an
internationally recognized leader of a people.

> In stark contrast, President George W. Bush is putting
> expectations on both Israel and the Palestians. Bush had made it
> clear that Israel should disengage from Palestine areas and that
> Palestinian leadership should step up to stop the Palestian
> violence.

And so far it seems that no one gives a crap about his "expectations."
Some leader!

> Note that Bush did not restrict his call for Palestian
> leadership to Arafat. Bush has made it clear, as Clinton never
> did, that peace require action from both sides.

That is ignorant bullshit. Clinton actually met with, and got the two
sides together.

> Clinton made the mistake of assuming, or pretending, that Arafat

> was the key to Middle East peace. It becoming increasingly
> clear that Arafat is not the key to peace but rather a
> distraction from peace.

LOL. You really don't understand the situation, do you. Sharon does
not want peace. Period. And Bush doesn't seem to really care one way
or the other. The only reason he is doing anything now (finally) is
because of the political criticism at home. Polling!

Wake up!

--

George Spelvin

unread,
Apr 7, 2002, 12:07:01 PM4/7/02
to

How did Bill Clinton cause any violence in the Middle East? He couldn't
and he didn't. The extremists are responsible: Sharon and the extremist
Palestinians are responsible. And Bush can help solve the problem like
Clinton was trying to do. But since Clinton left office, the situation
has only gotten worse. And it is obvious to everyone but for blind
partisans who will blame Clinton for EVERYTHING wrong and credit Bush
for non-existent positives.

Aaron Hirshberg

unread,
Apr 7, 2002, 12:08:00 PM4/7/02
to
feminaz...@hotmail.com (Marie Jordan) wrote in message news:<53b0f977.02040...@posting.google.com>...
> riv...@ix.netcom.com (Harry Hope) wrote in message news:<3cae59b9....@nntp.ix.netcom.com>...
> > Bush Derides Clinton's Mideast Work
> >

Blame all of the 1970s inflation Carter! After all, he wasn't
President when OPEC imposed the oil embargo/price increases, and he
wasn't President when Nixon appointed Arthur Burns to be Federal
Reserve Chairman!

Aaron Hirshberg

George Spelvin

unread,
Apr 7, 2002, 12:08:59 PM4/7/02
to

Donovan Rebbechi wrote:
>
> In article <3CB05E60...@signfile.net>, David Lentz wrote:
> > B.J. Clinton never worked for peace a single day in his life.
> >
> > Clinton quest for a Nobel Peace Prize consisted of pressuring
> > Israel to accept Palestinian demands
>
> An outright lie. *Barak* was the driving force behind the Camp David proposal.

He knows it is an outright lie. He doesn't care. He just wants to bash
Clinton. That is his ONLY reason for posting.

He thinks BJ Clinton is funny, and yet he wouldn't dare ever write dWi
Bush.

George Spelvin

unread,
Apr 7, 2002, 12:09:58 PM4/7/02
to

"D.G. Porter" wrote:


>
> George Spelvin wrote:
> >
> >
> > If nothing is done to stop the violence those extremists (on both sides)
> > will continue to kill innocent civilians. Bush has the power to make
> > the situation better, but he refuses. I wonder why? What profit could
> > there be?
>

> Re-selection in 2004.

Except most people want him to act (in fact, his decision to send Powell
is based on domestic pressure). He is reacting to polling, just like he
said he never would. LOL

George Spelvin

unread,
Apr 7, 2002, 12:11:26 PM4/7/02
to

Tom Snyder wrote:
>
> This is outrageous. Why don't you people just leave the U.S. You don't
> deserve to be here.

BWAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA! How American of you!

>
> "George Spelvin" <spe...@everywhere.edu> wrote in message
> news:3CAEF66D...@everywhere.edu...
> > Harry Hope wrote:
> >
> > > >By Mike Allen
> > > >Washington Post Staff Writer
> > > >
> > > >Saturday, March 30, 2002; Page A04
> > > >
> > > >CRAWFORD, Tex. --
> > > >
> > > >As Israeli troops and tanks stormed Yasser Arafat's compound today,
> > > >President Bush played with his dogs, went for a jog and worked around
> > > >his ranch.
> >
> > And he has the nerve to say, "I expect leadership." I'd laugh if so
> > many people weren't being killed because of HIS lack of leadership.
> >
> > _____________

George Spelvin

unread,
Apr 7, 2002, 12:12:41 PM4/7/02
to

BitHead wrote:
>
> On Sun, 07 Apr 2002 00:29:51 GMT, "D.G. Porter"
> <dgpo...@SENDMENOSPAMpacbell.naught> wrote:
>

> >Tom Snyder wrote:
> >>
> >> This is outrageous. Why don't you people just leave the U.S. You don't
> >> deserve to be here.
> >

> >MAKE US, you little fucking pip-squeak.
>
> It's going to happen. The people are already pissed off about idiots
> like you enough to do exactly that.

oooooooooooohhhhhhhh. I'm scared. LOL. What a li'l dick.

--

George Spelvin

unread,
Apr 7, 2002, 12:13:36 PM4/7/02
to

We tend to support the people who get more votes.

George Spelvin

unread,
Apr 7, 2002, 12:15:30 PM4/7/02
to

BitHead wrote:
>
> On Sun, 07 Apr 2002 02:45:37 GMT, "D.G. Porter"
> <dgpo...@SENDMENOSPAMpacbell.naught> wrote:
>
> >BitHead wrote:
> >>
> >> On Sun, 07 Apr 2002 00:29:51 GMT, "D.G. Porter"
> >> <dgpo...@SENDMENOSPAMpacbell.naught> wrote:
> >>
> >> >Tom Snyder wrote:
> >> >>
> >> >> This is outrageous. Why don't you people just leave the U.S. You don't
> >> >> deserve to be here.
> >> >
> >> >MAKE US, you little fucking pip-squeak.
> >>
> >> It's going to happen. The people are already pissed off about idiots
> >> like you enough to do exactly that.
> >
> >Yeah, riiiight. You just fucking TRY IT, you little twerp. Love to see
> >you try. I'll chew you up and spit you out.
> >"The people"? HA HA HA HA! You mean "A few LOONIES"!
>
> Amazing; you dound just like a 13 year old who has had their ass
> backed into a corner.

ROTFLMAO. He does not "dound" any such way. Why don't you go back to
your shack in Idaho, marry a 14 year-old girl, and write a manifesto
that no one will read?

George Spelvin

unread,
Apr 7, 2002, 12:17:59 PM4/7/02
to

Cognitus wrote:
>
> "George Spelvin" <spe...@everywhere.edu> wrote in message
> news:3CAEF66D...@everywhere.edu...
> > Harry Hope wrote:
> >
> > > >By Mike Allen
> > > >Washington Post Staff Writer
> > > >
> > > >Saturday, March 30, 2002; Page A04
> > > >
> > > >CRAWFORD, Tex. --
> > > >
> > > >As Israeli troops and tanks stormed Yasser Arafat's compound today,
> > > >President Bush played with his dogs, went for a jog and worked around
> > > >his ranch.
>

> He enjoys those rare occasions when he's with things he's smarter
> than -- like
> his dogs. I'm not sure what Bush's IQ is but I would be willing to
> conjecture that it's about
> Two-Dogs worth.

Depends on the dogs. He is no doubt dumber than the one dog who woke
him up after choking on the pretzel. However, he is probably smarter
than the other dog (I emphasize "probably").

BitHead

unread,
Apr 7, 2002, 12:21:34 PM4/7/02
to
On Sun, 07 Apr 2002 07:10:58 GMT, Thumper <jayl...@attbi.com> wrote:

>>>You mean the fascists that only believe in freedom of speech as long
>>>as you speak what they want to hear. We'll never allow this country
>>>to be taken over by fascists Bitbrain.
>>
>>
>>This from the supporters of Bill Clinton, and Al Gore.
>>(shake of the head)
>>
>That must have hurt with your head being that far up your ass.

Ya know, Thumper, it's clear I have under-estimated you.
I'm sorry, and it won't happen again. I make you this promiise:
I will never again under-estimate how downright *stupid* you can be.

BitHead

unread,
Apr 7, 2002, 12:22:09 PM4/7/02
to

No, I figure you'll do that yourself.

BitHead

unread,
Apr 7, 2002, 12:29:13 PM4/7/02
to
On 7 Apr 2002 08:12:00 GMT, Donovan Rebbechi <elf...@panix.com>
wrote:

>In article <3CAF2C0F...@signfile.net>, David Lentz wrote:
>
>> What did the most pro terrorist President of all time, B.J.
>> Clinton, ever do to promote peace anywhere.
>
>What did he do ? He tirelessly worked on achieving peace in the Middle East
>while the Republicans discussed his sex life.
>
>> Clinton treated Yassar Afrafat not at the terrorist he was, and is, but some
>> kind of respectable leader. It was Clinton who wined and dined Arafat at the
>> White House and treated him like royalty.
>
>Are we back to this "treated like royalty" rubbish ?
>
>> In stark contrast,
>
>The "stark contrast" is between Sharons and Baraks policy.

Perhaps you'd best consider the thrashing Barak got in the last
election there before doing any further extrapolation, Don.

>> Clinton made the mistake of assuming, or pretending, that Arafat
>> was the key to Middle East peace.
>
>This was not Clintons choice to make.

Yes, it was. If you know something is not going to work, you don't
force the parties into a fruitless road. Clinton did that. Purpose?
Obscuring his own legal problems.


>Clintons job was to facilitate the
>negotiations, not to tell Israel how it should conduct its foreign policy, or
>who Israel should negotiate with.

So, explain why he was spending all of his time pushing Barak into
giving away the store. I've said it before:


From Oslo to Camp David, Clinton has pushed Israel to the bargaining
table, and pressured her to give up vital strategic and cultural
assets she has no business giving away, if survival is at all on her
agenda. Ehud Barak, by his giving into Bill Clinton (who, along with
his staff including Jim Carville, did much to put Barak into office),
has done little more than demonstrate just how empty the
Palestinians' peace talk really is, and how desperate Clinton was to
be seen as a good President, his crimes against his oaths not
withstanding.

Consider....

At Clinton's insistence, Barak offered Arafat the keys to the
kingdom; just about all of the West Bank and Gaza, plus East Jerusalem
and even Palestinian sovereignty over the Temple Mount. How do the
peace loving Palestinians respond? Yasser Arafat turned it all down,
and gave us another few nights of headlines, filled with kids in the
street throwing stones, and being shot, occasionally. He also sent his
armed forces, (You recall, they're supposed to be policemen?) to fire
at the Israelis, apparently hoping for an excuse to tell the rest of
the world how Israel is a war-mongering nation.

Of course that should have been a signal to about anyone with a brain
that he didn't give a damn about peace. All he and his followers are
interested in is the destruction of Israel. It should have also been a
signal that Clinton's attempt at a legacy backfired, big time, and
more, that it didn't have a chance to start with.... something that
Clinton should have known, did he have any understanding of the
situation at all. You will recall, perhaps that back in 1992, Clinton
more or less bragged he had no understanding of matters of foreign
policy. This was never quite so clear as during this monstrosity Mr.
Clinton unleashed on the world.

For Israel's part, all of this has been laid at the feet of Ehud
Barak, perhaps unfairly. No, I don't think he was the man for the job,
and clearly was only in the PM's position because Clinton's people
worked so hard to get him there, apparently hoping to set up Clinton's
brokering a of peace deal. Easy to do when you have the PM of Israel
owing you his election. But Barak apparently was under pressures he
had no control of, having nothing to do with politics at home, or the
Palestinians... both of which were quite out of his control to begin
with, in any event.. He was concerned with Israel continuing to get
support from the US. In this concern, he saw Israel as being on the
controlled end of the puppet's string... and knowing that if he did
not capitulate to Clinton's demands, that vital US support would
wither as quickly as Benjamin Netenyau's prime ministership did, when
it became clear he wasn't going to buckle to Clinton's concession
demands.

And Barak wasn't alone, nor was the left in Israel, in this perception
of US control versus Israel's survival. Yitzhak Rabin, hardly a
liberal even by American standards and certainly not under Bill
Clinton's extortion based control to the extent that Barak was, saw
the same problems. His longtime friends, according reports I've seen,
tell us he was deeply troubled over the prospect of losing US
support... and therefore bought into the 'land for peace' deals being
brokered by the liberals in the US. This was something I predicted he
wouldn't have done.

Israeli voters, seeing this happening, and clearly annoyed with the US
control over Israel's dealings with the Palestinians, trounced Barak
in the polls. Unless one considers this anger, the election of Ariel
Sharon, his replacement, is hard to fathom, since he has never been
overly popular, as best I can tell. But perhaps the people of Israel
are finally figuring out what the real story is.. that in truth, there
is no dealing with the Palestinians, and Arifat.

One hopes that they've not been too late in coming to this conclusion.
If they are, world war seems fairly certain to me... possibly nuclear
in nature.

However... also of great import, I think, and far more certain, is
the damage that has been done to our ability to deal with other
countries on the world stage, even on the assumption that Israel
survives all they've given away under Clinton's threats. Our foreign
policy influence has been diminished, because other countries, seeing
what has gone on with Israel, one of our best friends, will trust us
less, when we come with the helping hand. They'll be, perhaps,
wondering what the OTHER hand is doing. And after Bill Clinton, who
could blame them?

And no... as much as I loathe Mr. Clinton and everything he stands
for, I'm not piling on. I am simply issuing a warning that the damage
he has caused will take a while to heal, if it will ever do so. And
that we should avoid making such choices in the next several
elections. Never again should we as a nation or as a world, allow
ourselves to be pushed into the situation we found ourselves in with
Mr. Clinton's attempts at salvaging face.

Our future, assuming we actually have one, will depend on it.

George Spelvin

unread,
Apr 7, 2002, 12:30:59 PM4/7/02
to
Predictable and tired strategy of Republicans. When Reagan was pres.,
Carter got the blame for everything bad. When Clinton was pres.,
Reagan/Bush got credit for everything good. Now, Clinton is blamed for
everything bad. In 2004 when we have a Democrat in office, Bush will
get the credit for all of the new President's accomplishments. It is
the weasel nature they seem to have.

BitHead

unread,
Apr 7, 2002, 12:31:11 PM4/7/02
to
On 7 Apr 2002 15:27:20 GMT, Donovan Rebbechi <elf...@panix.com>
wrote:

>In article <3CB05E60...@signfile.net>, David Lentz wrote:


>> B.J. Clinton never worked for peace a single day in his life.
>>
>> Clinton quest for a Nobel Peace Prize consisted of pressuring
>> Israel to accept Palestinian demands
>
>An outright lie. *Barak* was the driving force behind the Camp David proposal.

And who worked tirelessly to get Barak into office?
Who did Barak owe his election (Selection?) to? Clinton and company.


>
>> and treating the terrorist
>> Yasser Arafat as some kind of knighted hero.
>
>You keep repeating this, but don't make any sort of coherent argument that it's
>the case.

Arifat was the single most frequent forign visitor to the White House
during the Clinton years. Doesn't that tell you anything?

BitHead

unread,
Apr 7, 2002, 12:34:14 PM4/7/02
to

No. He set up the policy that brought about the current problems.

Donovan Rebbechi

unread,
Apr 7, 2002, 1:34:32 PM4/7/02
to
In article <3cb0733f.2104079@news>, BitHead wrote:
> On 7 Apr 2002 15:27:20 GMT, Donovan Rebbechi <elf...@panix.com>
> wrote:
>
>>In article <3CB05E60...@signfile.net>, David Lentz wrote:
>>> B.J. Clinton never worked for peace a single day in his life.
>>>
>>> Clinton quest for a Nobel Peace Prize consisted of pressuring
>>> Israel to accept Palestinian demands
>>
>>An outright lie. *Barak* was the driving force behind the Camp David proposal.
>
> And who worked tirelessly to get Barak into office?
> Who did Barak owe his election (Selection?) to? Clinton and company.

Is Clinton some sort of paranormal being or something ? Did Clinton use some
sort of mass-hypnosis to convince all of Israel to vote for Barak ? Perhaps
you have a source for these wild claims.

--
Donovan

Bill Bonde

unread,
Apr 7, 2002, 2:59:46 PM4/7/02
to

No, the current violence started because Clinton forced the sides
together and Arafat snapped and ordered terrorist attacks. Sharon is
simply trying to protect his country which he has every right and
obligation to do.

Bill Bonde

unread,
Apr 7, 2002, 3:01:22 PM4/7/02
to

George Spelvin wrote:
>
> Bill Bonde wrote:
> >
> > Donovan Rebbechi wrote:
> > >
> > > In article <3CAF2C0F...@signfile.net>, David Lentz wrote:
> > >
> > > > What did the most pro terrorist President of all time, B.J.
> > > > Clinton, ever do to promote peace anywhere.
> > >
> > > What did he do ? He tirelessly worked on achieving peace in the Middle East
> > > while the Republicans discussed his sex life.
> > >
> > He brought about the current violence. Clinton was a disaster in the
> > Middle East.
>
> How did Bill Clinton cause any violence in the Middle East? He couldn't
> and he didn't. The extremists are responsible: Sharon and the extremist
> Palestinians are responsible. And Bush can help solve the problem like
> Clinton was trying to do. But since Clinton left office, the situation
> has only gotten worse. And it is obvious to everyone but for blind
> partisans who will blame Clinton for EVERYTHING wrong and credit Bush
> for non-existent positives.
>

This has been explained to you many times. Clinton forced the sides
together too early to get an agreement that wasn't possible so he could
take credit for 'peace'. This began the current violence. Arafat
certainly is responsible for actually supporting and likely ordering the
violence but Clinton is responsible for forcing the issue.

D.G. Porter

unread,
Apr 7, 2002, 3:19:46 PM4/7/02