🚀 go-pugleaf

In article <1301@tecsun1.etl.army.mil> riggs@descartes.tec.army.mil (Bill Riggs) writes:

>more than the U.S. national interest. Only with the advent of the Bush
>administration, which has basically allowed the Foreign Service to
>craft American foreign policy in the Middle East without untoward
>political influence from Capitol Hill, has it been possible to move U.S.
>policy in the direction of both peace and increased direct military
>commitments to Israel.

Are you speaking of the same George Bush who criticized Israel for
taking out Iraq's Osirak nuclear reactor? 

Is this the same Bush that, as President, worked diligently to assure
Saddam of getting US loan guarantees which were financing a massive
military buildup?  (Guess which taxpayers are paying off those loan
guarantees now?)

Is this the same George Bush who let his very own astrologer, James
Baker, pronounce Israeli "settlements" to be the "greatest obstacle to
peace in the Middle East"?  What an embarassing lunacy!

So you say that the same guy then "allowed" the Foreign Service to
consider American interests first?  Bush has been a Foreign affairs
disaster, for foreign and American interests alike.  

>	This whole matter has been a massive spinach eating contest.

Good thing it wasn't broccolli or Bush would have done even worse. :-)

>Nobody really likes the taste, but everyone knows it is good for
>them. But, if Clinton is elected President, we can be sure that the 
>same forces that manipulated U.S. policy in Israel's favor in the
>Carter and Reagan administrations will be back knocking on the
>door of 1600 Pennsylvania Avenue come January 20th.

Ummm, if Bush is re-elected (and I rather doubt it, today) then the
White House will continue to do the bidding of Big Oil, without the
slightest concern for human rights and with contempt for anyone silly
enough not to own the right shares in the stock market or the right
oil wells.  Just ask the Kurds and the Yugoslavs.

There will always be outside forces with their own interests, Israelis
wanting guarantees, Saudis wanting jets, Japanese wanting one-way
tariff structures, etc.  While Clinton is somewhat untested in such
struggles, Bush's demonstrated track record of selling out at the
expense of decency, honesty and humanity make him the worst candidate
for president in a very long time. 

-- 
Jake Livni  jake@bony1.bony.com               Pat Paulsen for President
American-Occupied New York                    This year he has a real chance!
My opinions only - employer has no opinions.