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 : Politics for Pros- moderated -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?

To: LindyBill who wrote (103446)	3/6/2005 1:11:46 PM
From: Nadine Carroll	Respond to of 793853

This is from the Belgravia Dispatch comments section: Greg, "Ignore the petty carping that Bush didn't cause Arafat's death. Or Hariri's--the direct catalyst for the Cedar Revolution in process today." I would go farther than that. No one causes most of the events that lead to change. They can however set in motion things which can lead to events, and then take advantage of them. If Bush hadn't treated Arafat as a pariah would the stage now be set for the rapprochement between the Palestinians, The US and Israel? I doubt it. The new leadership, after Arafat’s long overdue passing, most likely would have seen the existing process as sustainable. Instead by supporting Sharon (at least to an extent) ostracizing Arafat, and openly pointing out the corruption, Arafat's passing provided a chance without insurrection for the change in approach. Arafat could be mourned, and his approach repudiated without actually having to tear down a hero to many. Without Bush and Sharon turning the intifada into a disaster Arafat's legacy could have been much more enduring. The same with Hariri. Without the feeling that the world and most specifically the US was watching, and that that watching was being done with troops close by makes a difference to people on the ground. I have a friend who used to say that Larry Bird had more easy rebounds fall into his hands than any other player in the league. He even called them "Larry Bird" rebounds. He was smart enough to know that the key to a Larry Bird rebound was being where you needed to be and actually getting the ball when it fell into your lap. There are always balls bouncing off the rim, some people are there when it does and do something with it, others never seem to be where they need to be or do anything when the opportunity presents itself or push the game to put the other side in the position to fail. Bush has done that. Maybe incompetently, though I see plenty of areas where they have been quite competent, but if you aren't where you are supposed to be and willing to do something it doesn't matter how gracefully you do what you are doing. That is true in basketball and in foreign policy. Posted by: Lance at March 2, 2005 03:56 PM