Bush Flip Flops on Sharon Deal.

[a_unique_person]

In a foreign policy flip-flop, US President George Bush has backed away from his recognition last month of Israeli territorial demands in the West Bank and his rejection of Palestinian refugees' right to return to homes in Israel.

After meeting Jordan's King Abdallah in Washington on Thursday, Mr Bush announced that such "final-status issues must be negotiated between the parties" and also referred to UN Security Council resolutions that call on Israel to withdraw from territories, which it seized in 1967.

The White House is also expected to make similar assurances in a letter to Palestinian Prime Minister Ahmed Qurie - a potential negotiating partner whom Mr Bush left out of last month's unilateral agreement with Israel.

Mr Bush's latest announcement, made with King Abdallah at his side, came only three weeks after the President stood in the same spot in the Rose Garden with Israeli Prime Minister Ariel Sharon and said any final peace agreement would have to recognise major Jewish settlements in the West Bank and East Jerusalem.

http://www.theage.com.au/articles/2004/05/07/1083911402222.html

Seems Dubya is trying hard to work out he has to please most of all. One week, it is the Zionists and nutcase Xians back home, the next it is the Arabs he is trying to please because someone screwed up on his latest adventure. My tip, they will all end up hating him.

 

[Mycroft]

Originally posted by a_unique_person
Seems Dubya is trying hard to work out he has to please most of all. One week, it is the Zionists and nutcase Xians back home, the next it is the Arabs he is trying to please because someone screwed up on his latest adventure. My tip, they will all end up hating him.

Setting aside your own venomous interpretation, at the moment it seems that theage.com is the only media outlet that's reporting that specific spin on these events, but we shall see if that holds true over the next few days.

You seem to have missed my thread comparing the actual texts of the letters between Bush and Sharon and the Medias reporting of it. This article seems to be another example of what I was speaking of. Let’s compare:

Snipped from letter from Bush to Sharon As part of a final peace settlement, Israel must have secure and recognized borders, which should emerge from negotiations between the parties in accordance with UNSC Resolutions 242 and 338.

Snipped from theage.com article After meeting Jordan's King Abdallah in Washington on Thursday, Mr Bush announced that such "final-status issues must be negotiated between the parties" and also referred to UN Security Council resolutions that call on Israel to withdraw from territories, which it seized in 1967.

Hmm, one seems like a paraphrase of the other, yet it’s reported as a flip-flop. I wonder how it would look if theage.com had spared us the interpretation and simply reported what Bush and Abdallah actually said?

 

[Dorian Gray]

Yeah, because then there wouldn't be quotes conveniently out of context like in your post.

 

[demon]

AUP:
"Seems Dubya is trying hard to work out he has to please most of all. One week, it is the Zionists and nutcase Xians back home, the next it is the Arabs he is trying to please because someone screwed up on his latest adventure..."

Jeez, you'd think there was an election coming up or something.

 

[Mycroft]

Originally posted by Dorian Gray Yeah, because then there wouldn't be quotes conveniently out of context like in your post.

Feel free to correct the context, Dorian.

 

[a_unique_person]

Re: Re: Bush Flip Flops on Sharon Deal.

Setting aside your own venomous interpretation, at the moment it seems that theage.com is the only media outlet that's reporting that specific spin on these events, but we shall see if that holds true over the next few days.

You seem to have missed my thread comparing the actual texts of the letters between Bush and Sharon and the Medias reporting of it. This article seems to be another example of what I was speaking of. Let’s compare:


Hmm, one seems like a paraphrase of the other, yet it’s reported as a flip-flop. I wonder how it would look if theage.com had spared us the interpretation and simply reported what Bush and Abdallah actually said?

Well which is it? Either there is a negotiated settlement, or Sharons proposal which is unilateral. What sort of a negotiation is it when one side says, "were taking all this, then we negotiate." The Bush letter is merely platitudeds giving lipservice to what a negotiation actually involves.

 

[subgenius]

Please excuse my ignorance on the subject.
Wasn't this Bush's "road map"?
"The comments came after President Bush suggested that the internationally backed “road map” peace plan’s call for an independent Palestinian state in 2005 was unrealistic."

http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/4932141/

And if it was, I thought Kerry was supposed to be the "flip-flopper"?

I am so confused.

 

[subgenius]

Sorry, now I understand, not a flip-flop, just a "slipped some."

" Bush told the Al-Ahram daily: “I readily concede the date has slipped some."
http://www.arabnews.com/?page=4&section=0&article=44587&d=9&m=5&y=2004

 

[Mycroft]

Re: Re: Re: Bush Flip Flops on Sharon Deal.

Originally posted by a_unique_person
Well which is it? Either there is a negotiated settlement, or Sharons proposal which is unilateral. What sort of a negotiation is it when one side says, "were taking all this, then we negotiate." The Bush letter is merely platitudeds giving lipservice to what a negotiation actually involves.

False dichotomy.

You’re interpreting the withdrawal plan as a solution. It’s not. It’s an intermediary step until such time as there can be a negotiated settlement. In the meantime, the withdrawal plan amounts to unilateral concessions to the Palestinian-Arabs.

Admirable double-speak to interpret concessions and withdrawal as “taking.” Orwell would be proud of you.

 

[Mycroft]

Sorry, now I understand, not a flip-flop, just a "slipped some."

" Bush told the Al-Ahram daily: “I readily concede the date has slipped some."
http://www.arabnews.com/?page=4&section=0&article=44587&d=9&m=5&y=2004

Bush proposed a plan called the road map. The plan called for a cessation of violence from the Palestinian-Arabs, which hasn't happened yet and may never happen. Because the plan hasn't started yet, it's not reasonable to hold it to the same time table as was suggested two years ago.

Glad to clear that up for you.

 

[subgenius]

Bush proposed a plan called the road map. The plan called for a cessation of violence from the Palestinian-Arabs, which hasn't happened yet and may never happen. Because the plan hasn't started yet, it's not reasonable to hold it to the same time table as was suggested two years ago.

Glad to clear that up for you.

OK, gotcha.

 

[a_unique_person]

Re: Re: Re: Re: Bush Flip Flops on Sharon Deal.

False dichotomy.

You’re interpreting the withdrawal plan as a solution. It’s not. It’s an intermediary step until such time as there can be a negotiated settlement. In the meantime, the withdrawal plan amounts to unilateral concessions to the Palestinian-Arabs.

Admirable double-speak to interpret concessions and withdrawal as “taking.” Orwell would be proud of you.

"Withdrawal" to me means just that. This is anything but. I still don't see why the Palestinians should be required to stop terrorist attacks. I think it would be good if all sides did the right thing, packed up and went home. But as long as they are under a military occupation, an act of war, why should they should be required to maintain a peace fire?

The past has only every seen more and more land taken, no matter if they maintained a ceasefire or not. On your feet or on your knees.

 

[Cleopatra]

Mycroft are you a Republican??!!!! If you were a Catholic too you would represent the ultimate evil.

I haven't investigated the matter thoroughly Unique but I smell that this spin is related with the outrageous behavior of the American Army towards the Iraquis/Arabs he tries to amuse our impression.

But then this is just a thought in a bright and hot sunday morning.

 

[zenith-nadir]

Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Bush Flip Flops on Sharon Deal.

"Withdrawal" to me means just that. This is anything but. I still don't see why the Palestinians should be required to stop terrorist attacks.

Because you are an utter racist imbecile and have proved that fact on many many occasions.

Performance-Based Roadmap to a Permanent Two-State Solution to the Israeli-Palestinian Conflict

In Phase I, the Palestinians immediately undertake an unconditional cessation of violence according to the steps outlined below;

That doesn't say Israelis withdraw unconditionally, it doesn't say Israel should pack up unconditionally, it doesn't say Israel should go home unconditionally a_u_p. You CANNOT agree to the Roadmap, like the palestinians did , and then not fulfill the single obligation that is the first god damn sentence in the Roadmap.

In Phase I, the Palestinians immediately undertake an unconditional cessation of violence according to the steps outlined below;

That is the first frikkin sentence.

You want peace? You stop terror. Plain and simple. If you cannot live up to that SINGLE obligation then don't agree to the Roadmap. If you agree with the Roadmap and fail to undertake an unconditional cessation of violence then the Palestinians are just blowing smoke up everyones ass....

 

[Cleopatra]

Why you call you Unique a racist? I have never seen a comment of his that can make me believe that he holds such beliefs what makes you say that?

 

[a_unique_person]

Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Bush Flip Flops on Sharon Deal.

You want peace? You stop terror. Plain and simple. If you cannot live up to that SINGLE obligation then don't agree to the Roadmap. If you agree with the Roadmap and fail to undertake an unconditional cessation of violence then the Palestinians are just blowing smoke up everyones ass....

You want peace? You stop an act of war and withdraw a military occupation.

I agree, the 'roadmap' in theory might be fine, in practice, Likud has never given it more than lip service. It has never lived up to the single obligation of renouncing the occupation of the West Bank and Gaza. The latest vote on even Sharon's proposal indicates exactly that. Anything less than total occupation of the 'biblical' borders, whatever they may be, is not acceptable.

 

[zenith-nadir]

Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Bush Flip Flops on Sharon Deal.

Why you call you Unique a racist? I have never seen a comment of his that can make me believe that he holds such beliefs what makes you say that?

Lemme see Cleo, is it the repeated use of "zionist" or "Likud" to describe jews, or is it the zinger that Grammatron has as his signature;

"There is plenty of evidence that a clique of Jewish extremists do have a enourmous influence over the US, the "neo-conservatives" have some prominent Zionists."

I have never seen a comment of his that can make me believe that he holds such beliefs what makes you say that?

Yet again, Cleo has given us all another example of how she is not what she claims to be.

 

[zenith-nadir]

Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Bush Flip Flops on Sharon Deal.

You want peace? You stop an act of war and withdraw a military occupation. I agree, the 'roadmap' in theory might be fine, in practice, Likud has never given it more than lip service. It has never lived up to the single obligation of renouncing the occupation of the West Bank and Gaza. The latest vote on even Sharon's proposal indicates exactly that. Anything less than total occupation of the 'biblical' borders, whatever they may be, is not acceptable.

That is why a_u_p is a lost cause.

Likud has never given it more than lip service. It has never lived up to the single obligation of renouncing the occupation of the West Bank and Gaza.

What is the title of this thread a_u_p? What does it refer to? The total withdrawl from Gaza by Sharon and Likud you moron.

 

[Cleopatra]

Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Bush Flip Flops on Sharon Deal.

Lemme see Cleo, is it the repeated use of "zionist" or "Likud" to describe jews, or is it the zinger that Grammatron has as his signature

Errrr I think that he uses those terms to describe the Israelis. I have repeatedly debated that it's wrong to use the term zionism in any case.Of course there are no sites of orthodox jews to quote on this subject that's why you were absent from those debates I pressume.

Yet again, Cleo has given us all another example of how she is not what she claims to be.

LOL You remind me the lunatic rabbi I met in PalTalk the other day. Do you reject Yeshua zenith-nadir? LOL

Yes I do, Yes I do!!!! LOL

 

[zenith-nadir]

Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Bush Flip Flops on Sharon Deal.

LOL You remind me the lunatic rabbi I met in PalTalk the other day. Do you reject Yeshua zenith-nadir? LOL

When the debate is lost slander becomes the tool of the loser. Me, a lunatic rabbi indeed....