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: tekboy who wrote (65286)1/10/2003 1:26:22 PM
From: Nadine Carroll  Respond to of 281500
 
That is, if this person says that Arafat "started to act against the terrorists" at that point then I would bet heavily that there is a real evidentiary basis to that assertion--although how significant such action was or might ever have become is something that careful observers of the region, yourself included, are entitled to be skeptical about.

Well that is certainly a most diplomatic answer -g- My highest probability interpretation of what happened now becomes, "Arafat, under pressure, tried really hard to persuade US diplomats that he was acting against the terrorists, while sending them a note (remember, they have standing orders to ignore what he says on TV) saying, 'cool it for a couple of weeks, would you, fellows?'"



To: tekboy who wrote (65286)1/10/2003 1:35:48 PM
From: paul_philp  Read Replies (1) | Respond to of 281500
 
Tekboy,

It is so great to read balanced, informed critique of the Bush policy. The little dig about 'winning Jewish votes' revealed a little partisanship but didn't distract from the core argument.

My question is: What is the analysis of why Bush didn't follow the prescribed course? What analysis might lead to the action the Bush adminstration took? Then, what's the flaw in their analysis?

I know it's a large question but a critic always sees the structure of the opponents strategy better than the proponents.

Thanks,
Paul