maybe it's just me, but i can't see how sharon can convince shrub or ashcroft that one jewish life equals one US life. i'd say he'd be lucky to get 10 to one. or maybe a constitutional 3/5ths of a person, at the very best -- and that's only when southerners are voting.
R
At 11:59 PM 12/3/2001, you wrote:
>All the wires and papers have Bush giving Sharon the green light, but The
>Times says it's just another case of Israel hogtying US policy:
>
>Hakki
>
>TUESDAY DECEMBER 04 2001
>
>Bush hands tied as Sharon joins war on terror
>http://www.thetimes.co.uk/article/0,,3-2001561635,00.html
>
>FROM ROLAND WATSON IN WASHINGTON
>
>WHEN Ariel Sharon sat down with President Bush in the Oval Office for a
>hastily arranged meeting on Sunday, he had one devastating fact up his
>sleeve.
>The killing of more than 25 Israelis this week, when taken in proportion to
>the US population, was similar to some 2,000 Americans losing their lives,
>said his travelling entourage.
>
>Mr Bush hardly needed to have the implication spelt out. Mr Sharon was
>placing the weekend's suicide bombings on the same scale as the September 11
>attacks and would respond accordingly. There was nothing that Mr Bush could
>do to prevent him.
>
>Mr Sharon has used the wide-ranging terms in which Mr Bush cast his war on
>terrorism to leave the President powerless to restrain Israel. When Mr Bush
>delivered his address to Congress nine days after September 11, he set out
>what his officials were keen to enshrine as the "Bush doctrine". The thrust
>was that America was declaring war not just on those responsible for the
>World Trade Centre and Pentagon attacks, or Osama bin Laden's al-Qaeda
>network, but on states and authorities that harbour or fail to crack down on
>terrorists.
>
>Mr Sharon's declaration of a "war on terror" yesterday was a deliberate
>aping of Mr Bush's own language and was designed to give the Israeli Prime
>Minister maximum room for manoeuvre. The implication was that, while
>Washington was justified in unleashing its military might over Afghanistan,
>the Israeli Government was similarly justified in launching its helicopter
>gunships on Gaza against the Palestinian leadership.
>
>To tie Mr Bush's hands further, Mr Sharon went out of his way to praise his
>war leadership as brave and promised to match it. The effect is to
>complicate hugely the next phases of Mr Bush's war on terrorism and to make
>life uncomfortable for the White House.
>
>Lawrence Eagleburger, Secretary of State to the first President Bush, said
>yesterday that the historical interpretation of Sunday's meeting would be
>that it was the moment the US leader gave Israel his tacit blessing to use
>force against Palestinians. "It will be the time when Sharon came to
>Washington, the President gave him the green light," Mr Eagleburger said.
>
>Such a view threatens to do untold damage to Washington's already shaky
>standing in the Middle East, wrecking Mr Bush's recent efforts to cast aside
>his early lack of interest in the region. Much of the credit Mr Bush and
>Colin Powell, his Secretary of State, bought in the region with their goal
>of an independent Palestinian state will be fast running out.
>
>Linking Israeli aggression against the Palestinians with the US-led war on
>terrorism is also potentially inflammatory around the Muslim world. Young
>militants accept bin Laden's rhetoric that part of the reason for al-Qaeda's
>jihad against the West is the hostile treatment of Palestinians. White House
>officials were nervous about the idea of America standing by while
>Palestinians were bombed.
>
>Ari Fleischer, Mr Bush's spokesman, volunteered when addressing the
>President's meeting with Mr Sharon: "During the meeting yesterday, I think
>it's fair to say that the United States did not give anybody the green light
>because no one asked for a green light." He dodged all questions about
>whether Mr Bush accepted that Israel's military action was now part of the
>wider war on terrorism.