SI
SI
discoversearch

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 : Foreign Affairs Discussion Group -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?


To: JohnM who wrote (20343)3/1/2002 1:02:58 PM
From: Nadine Carroll  Read Replies (1) | Respond to of 281500
 
My guess is they won't even get close to making that kind of an argument. It will remind everyone that the Clintons inherited that problem from someone else's administration. And the Bushies don't want us to remember that.

But John, they're already making that argument. Just to quote from today's Krauthammer column (your favorite, I know):

A policy of waiting to be attacked with nuclear (and other genocidal) weapons is suicidal. Moreover, self-defense is the self-evident justification for unilateralism. When under attack, no country is obligated to collect permission slips from allies to strike back. And there is no clearer case of a war of self-defense than America's war on terrorists and allied states for whom "death to America" is not just a slogan but a policy.

I was a unilateralist before it became unfashionable. Long before the axis of evil, long before the Afghan war, long before Sept. 11, I argued that the multilateralism of the Clinton years inevitably produced lowest-common-denominator foreign policy -- diluted, ineffective, as feckless as the pinprick cruise missile strikes Clinton liked to launch as an ostentatious pretense of assertiveness.


washingtonpost.com



To: JohnM who wrote (20343)3/1/2002 1:11:26 PM
From: Win Smith  Read Replies (1) | Respond to of 281500
 
Bush Aide Attacks Clinton on Mideast, Then Retracts Remark nytimes.com

[ I'm not sure if this one has been noted here yet. Personally, I'm shocked, shocked! by the implication that politics as usual continues in Washington. I'm somewhat bemused by Nadine's apparent direct line to the White House press secretary, though. ]

WASHINGTON, Feb. 28 The White House press secretary this morning blamed former President Bill Clinton for the continuing violence in the Middle East, causing denunciations from former Clinton aides, but he quickly reversed himself and by midafternoon issued a retraction.

"No United States president, including President Clinton, is to blame for violence in the Middle East," Ari Fleischer, the White House press secretary, said in a statement e-mailed to reporters shortly after 3 p.m. "The only people to blame for violence are the terrorists who engage it."

He added, "I regret any implication to the contrary."

At a morning briefing with White House reporters, Mr. Fleischer had strongly implied that the Clinton administration had pushed Israelis and Palestinians too far in aggressive efforts to make peace.

"Actually, I think if you go back to when the violence began, you can make the case that in an attempt to shoot the moon and get nothing, more violence resulted," Mr. Fleischer said, adding that "as a result of an attempt to push the parties beyond where they were willing to go, that it led to expectations that were raised to such a high level that it turned into violence."

Mr. Fleischer, responding to follow-up questions, said "the violence really began at the end of 2000, and accelerated through 2001."

Mr. Clinton's spokeswoman, Julia Payne, said, "It is unfortunate that the spokesman for the president discussing the Middle East suggested that the United States is somehow responsible for the violence there, particularly President Clinton."

At a later briefing with reporters, this one shortly after 1 p.m., Mr. Fleischer spent a good deal of time trying to back out of his earlier remarks, saying, "I don't think I ever used the words `President Clinton' when I talked this morning." But by then, the damage was done.

Mr. Fleischer's words drew a sharp response from Dennis Ross, the negotiator in the Middle East for both Mr. Clinton and former President George Bush. "We were not the ones who were pushing the parties, the parties were the ones who were pushing us to help them," Mr. Ross said. "And a little better grounding in history would demonstrate that that is what the process was."

Mr. Fleischer's comments also brought an objection from Samuel R. Berger, Mr. Clinton's national security adviser. Immediately after Mr. Fleischer finished his morning briefing, Mr. Berger called Condoleezza Rice, President Bush's national security adviser, to complain. Ms. Rice told Mr. Berger that Mr. Flesicher's remarks did not reflect the views of the Bush administration, according to a person close to Mr. Berger. Ms. Rice then told Mr. Fleischer that he needed to correct his remarks, and worked with him on the retraction.

"I talked to Condi, and we put our heads together and we put out this statement," Mr. Fleischer said.

At one point in the day, Mr. Bush also called Mr. Fleischer to express his concern.

Mr. Fleischer said in a telephone interview late this afternoon that he made his remarks in error by answering a question too extensively. At the morning briefing, a reporter had asked Mr. Fleischer if he agreed that Middle East violence in the last months of the Clinton administration had been quelled when both Israelis and Palestinians were at the negotiating table, and if it had not increased during the Bush administration, when the United States has not been deeply involved in peace talks.

"If what you're asking me, do I attribute the violence to President Bush taking office, the answer is no," Mr. Fleischer responded testily. Later, in the interview, Mr. Fleischer said he should have just left his comments at that, rather than veering off into a critique of the Clinton administration. "I went too far," Mr. Fleischer said.