Re: Bushspeak

on 28/6/02 4:23 AM, [email protected] at [email protected]
wrote:

> Jbor has, for the most part, illustrated how one can take a critical
> stance which does not rely on political animus as its premise. This
> does not make jbor a Scrubby cultist, but rather, a progressive
> "pragmatist", a becoming cut

Thanks cfa. You can speak for me any time. ; )

Regarding Bush's speech I do see that there are problems with his call for a
democratically-elected government and new institutions and so forth in
Palestine. But I think it's just as arrogant for some crank journalist in
London or New York to imply that Palestinians don't deserve representative
governance, and I note that Arafat has said he will certainly stand for
re-election. I read some of what Bush said as purely rhetorical, more in the
line of a challenge to Arafat rather than as an outright refusal to have him
sit at the negotiation table. And I agree with Monica that the speech was
contrived by speechwriters and a brains trust. Bush is just a symbol, you
might be tempted to say, if you were to be "interviewed" by a journalist
from Playboy Japan.

I disagree with David: Bush does mention where and by which UN codicils
Israel will be bounded, and he does offer support for Palestine in spades.
All Arafat needs to do is show that he can control his people, or ask for
outside help in rooting out those he can't control, for the peace process to
begin. I'm sure the US and its allies have their crack anti-terrorist troops
at the ready. The sooner the peace process begins the better, as just about
everyone seems to agree. Way I see it, the ball's firmly in Arafat's square.

best

p.s. By all means get rid of Bush as soon as you guys can. On other issues,
such as agricultural trade tariffs, for example, I strongly oppose current
US policy, but that wasn't what we are talking about.