| Page 4 of 5 < > |
The Opposite of a Victory Lap
|
Discussion Policy
Comments that include profanity or personal attacks or other inappropriate comments or material will be removed from the site. Additionally, entries that are unsigned or contain "signatures" by someone other than the actual author will be removed. Finally, we will take steps to block users who violate any of our posting standards, terms of use or privacy policies or any other policies governing this site. Please review the full rules governing commentaries and discussions. You are fully responsible for the content that you post.
|
Q: "I have more of a general question. Looking back at your seven last years here, do you think there was a point of time that you have -- should have maybe made different decisions from the one you took, pertaining to the Israeli original conflict and other --"
Bush: "Yes, that's an interesting question. They always ask me, would you have done things different? I probably would have toned my rhetoric down at times. And I think it's important to speak clearly and then do what you say you're going to do. But in terms of the -- in terms of Israel, I would hope that history would say, from everybody's perspective, including the Israeli perspective, that this is a guy who clearly saw the world the way it is."
He explained: "You know, on all these issues, just so you know, there needs -- I'm going to say the word several times -- maybe this is like the word of the day -- clarity. In my time as President, it's easy to excuse people until there's just kind of moments where it's so obvious that the skeptics can't see reality."
Lebanon in Shatters
Robin Wright writes in The Washington Post: "On the eve of his trip to the Middle East next week, President Bush faces the collapse of one of his three top priorities in the region -- stabilizing Lebanon, a rare Arab democracy -- amid new fighting that once again pits the United States against Iran and Syria through surrogates, according to Lebanese and U.S. analysts. . . .
"The Bush administration has spent $1.3 billion over the past two years to prop up Siniora's government, with about $400 million dedicated to boosting Lebanon's security forces. But Washington's assistance has been put in check by Hezbollah -- the Shiite militia trained, armed and financed by Iran and Syria -- which has the Siniora government under virtual siege. . . .
"'Clearly, Bush has a two-header now. He'll have to explain away the lack of progress on the peace process, and a crisis in Lebanon that could see the collapse of the Siniora government. It comes at a time when the news from Iraq is as gloomy as ever and oil prices have reached $126 a barrel,' said Geoffrey Kemp, a Reagan administration National Security Council staffer who worked on Lebanon during the Shiite takeover of West Beirut in 1984."
In a tough interview with the president yesterday, Nadia Bilbassy-Charters, a correspondent for Arab satellite TV network Al Arabiya, questioned his commitment to Lebanon. Here's the transcript.
Q: "You have been a strong supporter of Prime Minister Siniora. Yet when he came under attack, he seems to be abandoned -- not the U.S., not the U.N., not Arab countries came to his aid. How do you explain that?"
Bush: "Well, I don't think it's an accurate description that the United States hasn't stayed in contact with him, has listened to him, has listened to his requests. I mean, we're in contact with him a lot. . . . "
Q: "Just to follow up on that, during the fight with Fatah al-Islam, you have helped the Lebanese army, but in this particular case, it doesn't seem to be coming. So can you just give us some details --"
Bush: "Yes, we probably got some more work to do, Nadia. . . . "
Q: "Three of your closest allies, which is Saad al-Hariri, Walid Jumblatt, and Prime Minister Siniora, are under siege, they're under house arrest. Is this any guarantee that you -- their life is safe or that they're not going to be attacked? And if they are attacked, what the United States can do?"


Discussion Policy