Silicon Investor (SI) -- The First Internet Community

STOCKTALK

We've detected that you're using an ad content blocking browser plug-in or feature. Ads provide a critical source of revenue to the continued operation of Silicon Investor. We ask that you disable ad blocking while on Silicon Investor in the best interests of our community. If you are not using an ad blocker but are still receiving this message, make sure your browser's tracking protection is set to the 'standard' level.

Politics : PRESIDENT GEORGE W. BUSH -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?

To: TigerPaw who wrote (190387)	10/9/2001 8:48:41 PM
From: PROLIFE	Respond to of 769670

LYING POS ALERT!! oh...we all knew that. bye loser.

To: TigerPaw who wrote (190387)	10/9/2001 8:49:46 PM
From: gao seng	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 769670

Even Clinton gave up on peace, which is another problem left for Bush to handle, but has nothing to do with Osama. Osama, the guy that Sudan begged Clinton to take off their hands while they had him in custody. Why oh why TigerPaw didn't he arrest him?

To: TigerPaw who wrote (190387)	10/9/2001 8:51:59 PM
From: D.Austin	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 769670

Middle East 'Thing' Interrupts Clinton Fund Raising NewsMax.com Wires Monday, Oct. 23, 2000 JOHNSON CITY, N.Y. (UPI) – For some, the backstage drama of President Clinton telephoning Israeli Prime Minister Ehud Barak in the midst of an upstate New York fund-raising tour for his wife only added to the political experience. Clinton kept hundreds of people waiting at a Sunday morning fund raiser in Johnson City while he urged the Israelis and the Palestinians to stick to last week's cease-fire agreement. Those waiting were told that the president was "taking care of some very important business." Many guests were left with the impression that this wasn't a lame duck president campaigning for a fellow Democrat, but a sitting president coolly managing a global crisis – while visiting a mostly Republican section of upstate New York. "The backdrop of the whole Middle East thing made the presidential visit more presidential," one of those attending the fund raiser told United Press International. Once the president appeared, he spoke of his role as "presidential spouse," not leader of the Free World or Middle East peace broker. "I came here today in my capacity as presidential spouse," Clinton said. "I want to talk about what is at stake in this election." Actually, Clinton appeared in his role as fund-raiser-in-chief for the first lady's Senate race because she needs money; Clinton's opponent, Rep. Rick Lazio, raised $11.2 million during the month of September compared to Mrs. Clinton's $2.9 million. The president said the Senate race in New York echoes the issues in the presidential race between Vice President Al Gore and Texas Gov. George W. Bush, and illustrates that Democrats and Republicans have different approaches to keep economic prosperity going as well as to education, health care, the environment and crime. newsmax.com

To: TigerPaw who wrote (190387)	10/9/2001 8:56:15 PM
From: D.Austin	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 769670

Clinton Blamed for Peace Talks Failure NewsMax.com Thursday, July 27, 2000 In an obvious effort to curry favor with New York’s large Jewish community, which could hold the key to his wife’s election as a U.S. senator, President Clinton is blaming Palestinian President Arafat, but a top foreign policy expert says the fault was all Clinton’s. "The Middle East peace talks at Camp David have apparently failed. The reason is President Clinton's lack of leadership," says Stephen Zunes, associate professor of politics and chair of the Peace and Justice Studies program at the University of San Francisco. "He proved to be a less capable broker than President Carter was at Camp David back in 1978 when Israel and Egypt made peace.” Writing in yesterday’s Houston Chronicle, Zunes said that Carter was willing to pressure the Israelis to withdraw from all the Egyptian territory they won in the 1967 war, but Clinton "has never supported total Israeli withdrawal from Palestinian lands" taken by Israel in the 1967 conflict, although that flies in the face of U.N. resolutions on the subject. Instead, Clinton has a record of pressuring the Palestinians to permit Israel to keep control "of large amounts of their land, including Arab east Jerusalem – the historic capital of Palestine." This, he wrote, "proved to be the issue that seems to have scuttled the talks. "The Israeli refusal to share the city with the Palestinians and the Clinton administration's inability to push the Israelis to compromise made a successful conclusion to the negotiations impossible. Administration officials hoped that the corrupt and autocratic Palestinian regime of Yasser Arafat would yield to combined U.S. and Israeli pressure. "They were wrong." Zunes noted that Clinton's refusal to pressure Israel on this point is a total reversal of the traditional U.S. policy followed by all U.S. presidents from Johnson to Bush. That policy recognized that Jerusalem is part of the Israeli occupation that is subject to U.N. Security Council resolutions 242 and 338 which, in return for security guarantees from neighboring Arab states, call upon Israel to withdraw from the Arab lands taken in the 1967 war. "Clinton has reversed that stance," according to Zunes. "His administration has made a series of statements tacitly accepting Israel's annexation of greater east Jerusalem, which the U.N. Security Council, with the Carter administration's support, had labeled "null and void." The Clinton administration has even opposed U.N. resolutions that recognized greater east Jerusalem as occupied territory." Zunes notes that Clinton also failed to urge such "creative solutions" to the Jerusalem problem as declaring Jerusalem to be an international city "(as originally called for by the United Nations in 1947)," or creating a joint Israeli-Palestinian administration, or re-partitioning the city along its original dividing line while according full access to the Israeli and Palestinian sides by residents and visitors. According to Zunes, many Israelis and Palestinians – "including the Palestinian Authority" – back such proposals, "yet the Israeli government and the Clinton administration have rejected them out of hand," he wrote. In Israel, he says, there is a group that supports sharing Jerusalem. There is also a right-wing faction that supports retaining Palestinian lands. "The majority of Israelis are in between, leaning toward the right if they think Israel can get away with holding on to more territory but leaning in a more moderate direction if they believe U.S.-Israeli relations will be harmed. As a result of Clinton’s refusal to take the initiative and demand that Israel abide by the U.N. resolution and withdraw from Palestinian lands, thereby strengthening Israeli Prime Minister Ehud Barak’s hand, Barak was left with hardly any room to maneuver to counter the powerful right-wing opposition at home. "While the United States should maintain its commitment to legitimate Israeli security needs, it should also assert the kind of leadership required to force Israel to live up to its international obligations for the sake of peace," Zunes concluded. "The failure of the talks shows that Clinton is not willing to assert such leadership." Other observers say that in the end, Barak and Arafat, both under enormous pressure at home to avoid giving in on key issues such as Jerusalem, were not willing to risk their political careers, or even their lives, to reach an ultimately unworkable concord merely to help Clinton in his insatiable quest for a legacy.

To: TigerPaw who wrote (190387)	10/9/2001 8:57:21 PM
From: D.Austin	Respond to of 769670

Is Hillary Hostile to Israel and the Truth? Deroy Murdock Tuesday, Oct. 31, 2000 NEW YORK – As New Yorkers prepare to elect a new U.S. senator on Nov. 7, Hillary Rodham Clinton remains hounded by twin suspicions about her honesty and commitment to Israel. Her plunging support among Jewish voters in a just-released survey suggests that these nagging questions may be causing grave damage to her Senate candidacy. Mrs. Clinton fueled these lingering doubts in November 1999 when she kissed Yasser Arafat's wife, Suha, immediately after Mrs. Arafat delivered a speech accusing Israel of murdering Arab children – with poison gas, no less. Mrs. Clinton said she did not understand the simultaneous translation of Mrs. Arafat's Arabic remarks. In any case, why the smooch? Given the PLO's legacy of violence, wouldn't a handshake have sufficed? Mrs. Clinton sparked further questions when she claimed that she asked President Clinton to veto an anti-Israel resolution in the United Nations Security Council on Oct. 7. The U.S. abstained instead. But did she really urge that veto, or simply concoct that story afterward to limit the damage to her candidacy after the abstention drew fire? Mrs. Clinton has been very uncomfortable discussing this matter. When I asked her about this at an Oct. 17 Council on Foreign Relations meeting, she huffed: "That question does not even deserve a response. I have said everything about that I have to say." Now Hillary Clinton has puzzled Jewish voters and friends of Israel with yet another stumble. The New York Daily News reported on Oct. 25 that her Senate campaign has returned $50,000 collected at a Boston fund raiser attended by Muslims and Americans of Arab descent. The first lady posed for photos holding a plaque given to her by the event's organizers. It expressed the appreciation of the American Muslim Alliance for her human rights activism. Mrs. Clinton now says she didn't know the award was from the alliance, even though the group's name was emblazoned on the trophy in large letters. "I get handed thousands of plaques," Mrs. Clinton now says. Alas for the first lady, the American Muslim Alliance's national president, Agha Saeed, favors the Palestinian struggle for independence from Israel and believes the Palestinians "have the right to resist by armed force." Mrs. Clinton has hosted events at the Executive Mansion "to which individuals opposed to the Mideast peace process and Israel's existence were invited," the Daily News reported. Her Senate campaign returned a $1,000 contribution from one of those visitors, Abduraham Alamoudi of the American Muslim Council. According to the Daily News, Alamoudi once declared: "We are the ones who went to the White House and defended what is called Hamas," the Palestinian terrorist group whose 1994-1996 suicide-bombing campaign killed 130 people and wounded some 600 others. Shortly after one of its bombs exploded in Jerusalem in August 1997, Alamoudi told Fox News about Hamas: "I think it's a freedom-fighting organization." Mrs. Clinton's June 30, 2000, Federal Election Commission filing cited Alamoudi's May 25 donation of $1,000 to her war chest. Oddly enough, his occupation is not listed as "American Muslim Council" but "American Museum Council." The Clinton campaign calls this a typo. (To see Alamoudi's contribution record, search under his surname at: opensecrets.org The letters L and I in "Muslim" are on the right side of English-language computer keyboards while the E and U in "Museum" are on the left and middle. It's hard to believe that "Muslim" conveniently morphed into "Museum" due to a slip of a typist's fingers rather than a deliberate effort to conceal a potentially embarrassing contribution. A reasonable voter might give another candidate the benefit of the doubt here. But this is the same Hillary Rodham Clinton who is associated with the "bureaucratic snafu" that led to Filegate. This is the same first lady whose Rose Law Firm billing records vanished for two years, then magically reappeared in the White House residence just days after the Resolution Trust Corporation concluded a Whitewater-related probe in which the records would have been relevant. "I do not know how the billing records came to be found where they were found," the first lady shrugged back in January 1996. This is the same woman who special prosecutor Robert Ray believes gave deceptive sworn testimony in the Travelgate affair. As Ray's Oct. 18 report concludes: Mrs. Clinton "played a role in the decision to fire the [White House Travel Office] employees and ... thus, her statement to the contrary under oath to this office is factually false." As Bill Clinton's presidency wanes, a Hillary Clinton Senate term could be waxing around the corner. For now, her Republican opponent stands in the way. In a Zogby International poll published Oct. 31 in the New York Post, Rep. Rick Lazio led the Dutchess of Chappaqua 47.8 percent to 42.9 percent (margin of error: plus or minus 3.8 percent). Mrs. Clinton's collapsing popularity among Jewish voters also spells trouble. On Oct. 29, Zogby found her leading Lazio among Jews by 68.8 percent to 27.3 for Lazio. (Margin of error: plus or minus 4 percent). Two days later, in the aforementioned Oct. 31 poll, only 46 percent of Jews favored Mrs. Clinton while Lazio's support climbed to 45 percent. But the biggest obstacle between Hillary Clinton and her Capitol Hill dreams may be her reluctance to speak candidly about the scandals that nip at her heels like Park Avenue poodles. New Yorkers soon may decide that they deserve better in the Senate than a politician's wife who parachuted into the Empire State with ambitions nearly as awesome as her allergy to the truth.

To: TigerPaw who wrote (190387)	10/9/2001 8:58:25 PM
From: D.Austin	Respond to of 769670

Clinton's Convention Surprise Gerald L. Hibbs July 25, 2000 At Camp David, Ehud Barak, Yasser Arafat and Bill Clinton wrangled over peace with the specter of war threatening in the background. Each man struggled for a deal over the future of Palestinians in Israel for different reasons. Barak, elected under his promises of peace, faces a shattered coalition at home and an uncertain political future. Arafat similarly faces opposition should he accept anything other than complete victory on the issue of East Jerusalem as the Capital for Palestine. Bill Clinton is a man in search of a Legacy to replace Monica Lewinsky and his impeachment as the first paragraph defining his presidency in history books. Or is his current focus for a legacy peace? Could it be that Clinton sees an opportunity to play out the negotiations for political gain beyond what movement on the Israeli/Palestinian issues can provide? As a Clinton cynic who has watched our president wag the dog through missile strikes on an aspirin factories in another country in our one-day war on terrorism - Did we win this war? Why did it disappear after impeachment? - I believe it is certainly possible. The republican convention is starting in Philadelphia and one has to wonder if Clinton's ancillary plans for this summit include an attempt to usurp Bush's place in media coverage in this crucial phase of the electoral process. One of the democrats' fears has been that George W. Bush will be able to take the historical bounce in the polls due to conventions and parlay it into a lead so large Al Gore will be unable to catch up. A political coup at this important juncture would take the focus of the media, and thus the American people, off of the best opportunity Bush has to introduce himself and his agenda to voters. Bush plans a positive convention with female and minority speakers playing a central role, thus undermining democratic operatives' attempts to portray the republicans as an old-rich-white boys club. Further, the republican convention is a golden opportunity to educate moderate voters on Bush's policy agenda: school vouchers and privatization of Social Security, as well as his take on how he would handle crime, Medicare, the economy and other central issues. Should there be an actual peace agreement, it would most likely resemble the following: Palestinians get a state in Gaza with control of up to 90% of the West Bank. Palestinian control of Beit-Hanina, a community in East Jerusalem (east Jerusalem's shrines are among Islam's holiest), and Shouafat, a suburb of Jerusalem along with armed Palestinian police/soldiers. Palestinian refugees (about four million) will lose the right of return to homes in the land remaining to Israel. In return for this concession the U.S. may pay reparations of up to $40 billion in compensation. Some plan for 'family reunification' for refugees as well as rights to settle in the newly-drawn Palestine. Assurances from Palestinians that this peace agreement is the end of the issue with forfeiture of further claims and grievances against Israel. Ehud Barak is desperate for a peace agreement as demonstrated by his offered concessions on Jerusalem; he had vowed never to concede an inch of Jerusalem to the Palestinians. Barak was elected on his promises to work out a peace agreement, but his government is in shambles. He was deserted by three of the parties in his governing coalition. The defection of the three parties has changed his parliamentary majority of 68 into a minority of 42. The loss of support occurred because they worried he was about to make sweeping concessions to the Palestinians. The revelation of his weakness in negotiation has left him little room to backtrack. An agreement would enable him to attempt to turn the tables on his critics and recoup his recent losses. Last week over 100,000 protesters gathered on Rabin Square to protest the current course, and opposition leader Ariel Sharon has attacked Barak, saying he has been outmaneuvered and has offered "dangerous concessions." Ehud Barak's best political hope is to take back from the US summit a credible peace deal. He then hopes to persuade the Israelis that the deal offers the possibility a final peace and - according to many analysts - seek a dual win by combining the referendum with a general election. Finally, Barak is under tremendous pressure from the Clinton administration to reach a deal. Far more than the Palestinians, the screws have been turned on Israel to buckle to greater and greater concessions. Adding more pressure is the revelation, according to the New York Post, that Arafat has secretly given orders to the Fatah movement to start attacking parts of Jerusalem if the talks fail. These details were learned from highly placed Israeli security officials. Further, the Post reports sources stating that Barak is terrified of a full-scale Middle-East war if the peace talks fail. In all likelihood no peace agreement will be struck. Arafat has a reputation as a leader for whom the focus is process and not peace. That is, that every meeting provides more concessions on top of more concessions so that a peace deal could actually be counterproductive. Arafat also faces stiff resistance back home. Hamas leader Sheik Ahmed Yassin called upon the PLO Authority (PA) to reject any deal with Israel saying the deal would reflect concessions to the US and Israel. Recently, over 1,500 people rallied in the Gaza Strip demanding that Arafat abandon the summit and resume the fight to destroy Israel. Indeed, there need not be an actual full-fledged peace plan hammered out by the participants should the media - traditionally Clinton's ally - decide to play up whatever does come out of the talks and if Clinton works the timing just right. Clinton could theoretically decide to declare victory just before John McCain's highly anticipated opening night convention speech. Any time during the four-day convention would throw a monkey wrench into Bush's plans and seriously jeopardize his ability to achieve/maintain momentum. Palestinian leader Yasser Arafat has stated that the declaration of a Palestinian state is "irreversible." Should the US-sponsored peace talks not provide a negotiated settlement then he would declare a Palestinian state in September. In exchange for an interim peace deal, the PA could be persuaded to call off the dogs and delay unilateral declaration of statehood. Added into the mix would no doubt be further land transfer: even more of the West Bank and perhaps land on the outskirts of Jerusalem with Jerusalem itself being tabled as an issue. Barak could take home to Israel the promise that peace is around the corner. That fact that Jerusalem is off the table, at least temporarily, would soothe civilian adversaries. Israel would also receive monetary aid as well as military equipment and/or technology. Ehud Barak owes his election in part to president Clinton and his cronies like James Carville who was a central player on his campaign staff. Arafat owes Clinton for the billions of dollars which have been funneled without oversight into the corrupt PA. All three have a lot to gain. Clinton, being the masterful politician that his is, will leverage his influence to make sure his stack of gains is the largest. Then again, my crystal ball hasn't had a tune-up in awhile. Perhaps my paranoid cynicism about the Clinton regime is fueling fires of fantasy. But, if I'm right . . . well, expect a media embrace for Clinton. When you hear the glowing admiration in their voice for Clinton's political skills, know full well that underneath they see the intentional timing and are happy to help their boy.

To: TigerPaw who wrote (190387)	10/9/2001 8:59:13 PM
From: D.Austin	Respond to of 769670

Arafat, Barak Agree to Emergency Meetings NewsMax.com Wires Monday, Oct. 2, 2000 WASHINGTON, (UPI) -- As the weekend violence that has taken 30 lives in Israeli occupied territories continued to smolder Sunday, Palestinian Chairman Yassir Arafat and Israeli Prime Minister Ehud Barak accepted a proposal by President Clinton for a meeting of the security forces of both sides to analyze the crisis and develop strategies to prevent it from recurring. But White House officials said Sunday night that such a summit would not go forward until the current wave of violence has ended and each side has had a chance to conduct their own internal reviews of events of the past few days that have brutally pitted Israeli and Palestinian security forces against each other. Continuing clashes between hundreds of stone-throwing Palestinian demonstrators on one side, and Israeli soldiers on the other, resumed Sunday, leaving another 12 Palestinians dead, raising the total for the ongoing outburst of violence to the count of 30 people dead. Palestinian health minister Reyad Za'noon said there have also been 1,006 Palestinians injured over three days of violence. The battles between Palestinian protesters and Israeli forces broke out in Jerusalem's old city and spread to the West Bank and Gaza in the wake of a visit by Israeli Likud party leader Ariel Sharon to the Al Aqsa mosque in Jerusalem on Thursday. Muslims said the visit by Sharon defiled their holy site. Sharon is widely despised by Palestinians for his role in launching the 1982 Israeli invasion of Lebanon. Sources in the region report that Israeli military helicopters Sunday used anti-tank missiles to attack two Palestinian police buildings in the southern Gaza town of Rafah, killing two police officers and wounding 70 civilians. The Israelis used missiles after Palestinian police officers opened fire at an Israeli military outlook post on the borders between Gaza Strip and Egypt. White House Spokesman P. J. Crowley told United Press International Sunday night that Clinton had spoken to Barak on Saturday and Arafat Sunday "to express his deep concern about the escalation of violence." According to Crowley, "President Clinton proposed and Prime Minister Barak and Chairman Arafat agreed that as soon as conditions permit, the U.S. will chair a meeting of Israeli and Palestinian security officials for the purposes of fact finding and to prevent a recurrence of the events of the past few days." "Prior to that meeting, both sides will conduct their own separate reviews," Crowley said. The process "is designed to understand what went wrong" and to ensure that the region "not relive the terrible events of the past few days." In the meantime, Crowley added, "we are doing everything we can to restore calm," and Clinton "called on both sides to exert maximum efforts top restore calm immediately." The deadly clashes prompted thousands of Palestinian refugees in Lebanon to strike and hold demonstrations in shantytowns in Beirut and south Lebanon. A general strike in Gaza, the West Bank and east Jerusalem will be in effect until Tuesday as a protest over what Palestinian officials have called "the brutal massacre against the Palestinian people." Palestinian radio reported that the Palestinian Authority cabinet had issued a statement condemning the incidents, and calling on the United Nations Security Council to immediately launch an investigation into the "massacre carried out by the Israeli soldiers against innocent, disarmed Palestinians." Arafat and Barak have reportedly been in contact since the trouble began, however there was no word late Sunday of any official cease-fire being ordered by either side. Palestinian security officials issued a statement saying that Israeli and Palestinian security officers met in the field Sunday in a bid to reduce the wave of violence. "We were promised by the Israeli army officers that they would stop firing at Palestinian demonstrators; but this shows that the Israelis did not fulfill their promises to Palestinians and (they) kept shooting at Palestinians, killing and wounding them," said the statement. Thousands of angry Palestinians marched in funeral processions Sunday for Palestinians who were shot and killed during Saturday's fighting-the bloodiest clash between Israel and the Palestinians since signing Oslo accord in 1993. The mourners shouted, "Allah Akbar (God is great)," while members of the Hamas movement vowed revenge for what they called "the blood of Al Aqsa Martyrs." Col. Munir Makdah, commander of the Fatah movement in Lebanon, said his group went on alert and was following developments in the Palestinian territories. Fatah is a mainstream Palestinian faction headed by Arafat. "There is a call to all Palestinian leadership to open the front of south Lebanon if the massacres continue inside the territories," Makdah told UPI. "We promise that there will be no peace or stability for this (Israeli) occupier, neither in south Lebanon nor in Jordan." He warned that the "massacres will lead to the explosion of the whole region," accusing Israel of intransigence in the process and confiscation of Palestinian land. The Palestinian media and Arab TV stations continued concentrating on the case of the 12 year-old-boy who was shot and killed Saturday at Nitzarim crossroad south of Gaza, while his father was trying to protect him. Rami Al Derra was shot while he was trying to cross the street during a melee in which hundreds of Palestinians were throwing stones and Israeli soldiers were firing back at them. An Israeli general said Sunday's violence on the Gaza Strip intensified after Palestinian snipers and machine-gunners fired on Israeli troops, who then retaliated with helicopters and anti-tank weapons. While rock-throwing incidents have been fairly routine in the troubled region, the use of live ammunition and Israeli air power to quell demonstrations is unprecedented. The commander of Israel's Southern Command, Maj. Gen. Yom-Tov Samia, told reporters Sunday that the Palestinians had violated several cease-fires that he had personally arranged, and that Palestinian gunmen resumed shooting shortly after they evacuated their wounded. Samia said he made no apologies for calling in helicopters to quell the small-arms fire. "I don't have to retaliate with machine guns; in what war textbook is that written?" he asked. "Every time we stopped, the Palestinians tried to calm the situation for 10-15 minutes," Samia said. "We let them take care of their casualties and do whatever they wanted, and when they completed preparations, machine gun or other weapons fire resumed." Much of the fighting raged at an Israeli army stronghold that controls a junction south of Gaza City. The fortified position controls the intersection of the Gaza Strip's main north-south highway and an east west-road leading from the border to the settlement of Netsarim and the Mediterranean Sea. Palestinians hurled firebombs at the position, setting off fires on its roof and next to a watchtower; an Israeli soldier was injured, according to Israel Radio.

To: TigerPaw who wrote (190387)	10/9/2001 9:00:15 PM
From: D.Austin	Respond to of 769670

Clinton's Nobel Prize Chances Fading NewsMax.com Friday, Sept. 8, 2000 Trailing one diplomatic failure after another, President Clinton is watching his top-priority foreign-policy initiative – an Israeli-Palestinian peace pact – circling the drain. His last-minute proposal for Muslims and Jews to share sovereignty over their holiest of sites in the Holy Land has been dismissed out of hand by Palestinian leader Yasser Arafat and studiously sidestepped by Israeli Prime Minister Ehud Barak. That could signal the beginning of the end of the Middle East peace process, which was to have been the jewel in Clinton's legacy crown. And it would rob Vice President Al Gore, Clinton's candidate to succeed him as a Democratic president, of the biggest foreign-policy bragging point he could use against his Republican challenger, George W, Bush. The Clinton-Gore administration is no stranger to diplomatic rebuffs. When the president flew to India and Pakistan to try to bring those two hostile nations into some sort of settlement, they each told him bluntly, and publicly, to mind his own business. He got the same message when, on his way home from that failure, he called upon the president of Syria to enlist his positive intervention in the Israeli-Palestinian dispute. Clinton's repeated efforts to sort out the multiplicity of warring tribes and factions in Africa have all ended in failure. Nor has he been able to overcome Russia's and Communist China's intractable opposition to his plan for a limited missile shield for the United States. The president's flirtations with China, coupled with his irresolute stance on America's commitment to defend Taiwan against attack by Beijing, have left the little island in more than one sense at sea. Clinton's effort to intervene in resolving the conflicts between Catholic and Protestant Irish factions has never realized lasting success. And his military intervention in the Balkan wars has settled nothing, but left United States troops stationed atop a powder-keg of centuries-old ethnic hatreds. Now, the long-festering hostilities between Arabs and Jews in the Middle East, which have presented the greatest challenge to Clinton and occupied the highest place on his foreign-policy agenda, appear to be eluding his grasp altogether. Any hope he harbored of crowning his presidency with a Nobel Peace Prize is all but snuffed out. According to a dispatch Thursday by the Associated Press veteran diplomatic writer Barry Schweid: After the president met separately with Arafat and Barak during the United Nations Millennium Summit in New York on Wednesday, "Clinton's No. 1 foreign-policy goal was on the brink of disaster." The Palestinian leader had flatly turned down what Clinton had hoped would be a deadlock-breaking proposal – for Palestinians and Israelis to divide between themselves the control of Muslim and Jewish holy sites in East Jerusalem. Arafat continued to insist on placing all of East Jerusalem under Palestinian authority, which continued to be unacceptable to Barak. "I will not betray the Arabs," Arafat said. "I will continue to liberate all the Islamic and Muslim holy places." To which Barak replied, "No Israeli prime minister will ever be able to sign a document that gives up the sovereignty over places like the Temple Mount to the Palestinians." Clinton's split-the-difference proposal would give Palestinians sovereignty over the two most-sacred mosques on the Temple Mount in East Jerusalem, while at the same time recognizing Israeli sovereignty over the Western Wall, the last vestige of the Jewish temple destroyed by the Romans. Then, the wall surrounding the Temple Mount and the enclosed area separate from the mosques would be placed under "divine sovereignty," which the Clinton plan did not specify, allowing Muslims and Jews to continue to worship separately. Barak left the door open a crack when he said, "I have told President Clinton that some of the ideas he has raised are beyond what we believe we can accept, but that if Chairman Arafat is ready to take Clinton's ideas as the basis for negotiations, we will be ready to contemplate it and to enter into such negotiations." But Clinton's days in office are running out, Barak's own political future is on a tight-wire and Arafat has to contend with a political deadline of his own. He has continued to stress that he reserves the right to declare a separate Palestinian state by Sept. 15, just a week away. And he was leaving the United Nations to attend a meeting back home with the Palestinian Liberation Organization's top policy-making body, which has the ultimate authority to make the actual proclamation. While an agreement on how to handle Jerusalem's holy places is generally considered to be the principal obstacle that must be overcome, there is no certainty it would lead to a peace deal. But Clinton left his door wide open, telling both parties he is available for further conversations whenever they wish. His secretary of state, Madeleine Albright, tried to put the best face on it: "While there has been no breakthrough, there also is no breakdown."

To: TigerPaw who wrote (190387)	10/9/2001 9:01:23 PM
From: D.Austin	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 769670

Sunday October 29, 2000; 12:35 PM EDT Nader: 'Clinton Is a Liar and a Disgrace' Green Party presidential candidate Ralph Nader, whose rising poll numbers have Gore campaign officials begging him to drop out of the race, called President Clinton a liar on Sunday, saying he disgraced his office over his affair with former White House intern Monica Lewinsky. Nader voiced his strong criticism of Clinton during an interview on ABC's "This Week with Sam Donaldson and Cokie Roberts": DONALDSON: You say that if you'd been in the Senate, you would have voted to convict Bill Clinton in his impeachment trial. Correct? NADER: Correct. And I would have voted against [Robert] Bork and I fought vigorously against [Antonin] Scalia and [Clarence] Thomas, which is more than I can say for Vice President Gore. DONALDSON: You think Clinton is what - a liar? A perjurer? I mean, what... NADER: I think he disgraced the office. He then lied about it. A judge confirmed that. He dragged it out and he took a year of journalism from both of you. DONALDSON: Well, a lot of your supporters, according to our poll, were Clinton supporters. NADER: Well, they're going to have to choose, aren't they?