Third Party & Independents Archives

The Bush administration legitimizes terrorism

It seems the war on terrorism doesn’t apply to all terrorists. Hamas, a U.S. branded terrorist organization with ties to al-Qaida, has become legit. Since gaining control, Hamas continues to support terrorism. This week, the administration announced it has resumed aid to the Palestinians. So much for opposition to supporters of al-Qaida.

The basis for this change is the view of Hamas Bush expressed on May 4th: as having one foot in the democracy camp and one in the terrorist camp. He failed to remember that the Nazis also won an election in 1933. The foot in the democracy camp means little. I do not want to get into a discussion of the Israel – Palestinian conflict, but wish to examine the implications of this duplicity.

The administration has established the precedence and policy that U.S. support of terrorist organizations is permitted, if they come to power via elections. Gone is the policy used to invade Afghanistan - supporters of al-Qaida are equivalent to al-Qaida. Hamas is a supporter of al-Qaida, yet they now receive aid funneled through the fiction that it is being provided through Abbas.

This new policy leads to the logical conclusion that if a government that supports al-Qaida based party assumes power in either Iraq or Afghanistan through the political process, the US will support it. Will this support permit the training of new terrorists who will then attack U.S.?

This exposes the war in Iraq for what it is – a way for the Bush administration to hold onto political power and funnel billons of dollars to its friends. The much vaunted war on terrorism that restricts civil liberties, has caused the death and maiming of tens of thousands of American solders, instituted chaos in Iraq and produced huge deficits is nothing more than a sham.

Posted by M.L. Schneider at May 12, 2006 8:03 AM
Comments
Comment #147554

You don’t study history, eh? The US overthrew the democratically elected Presidents of Iran and Iraq and tried to assasinate the elected leader of Syria.

Posted by: Aldous at May 12, 2006 8:20 AM
Comment #147559

Even now, the US is supporting countries that occupy and segregate other territories. They build bantustans that encage millions of people and attack them at will. Bombs and missiles would be fired into the most densely populated refugee camp in the world. The UN tried to stop this but the US frequently blocked the Resolutions. Many times the US was the ONLY dissenting vote!!!

Posted by: Aldous at May 12, 2006 8:31 AM
Comment #147561

Aldous – You seemed to have missed the point. I did not want to discuss the legitimacy or illegitimacy of the situation in the area. I wished to examine a major shift in U.S. policy with respect to terrorism – the support of a pro- al-Qaida organization.

Posted by: M.L. Schneider at May 12, 2006 8:46 AM
Comment #147568

The goal is stability and peace in the Middle East. Starving the Palestinian people, cutting off their fuel, and halting their pay checks, is not the road to stability and peace. I applaud the President’s reluctant and hesitant compromise largely strong armed by Iran’s and Russia’s announcements in the last week that they would provide aid.

Do you want Palestinian’s sucking at Russia’s and Iran’s teet, or the U.S.’s. The choice sucks, I know. But, its the only choice in town.

Posted by: David R. Remer at May 12, 2006 9:13 AM
Comment #147576

M.L. Schneider,

If you want to discuss the shift in U.S. policy, but don’t want to discuss why the U.S. policy shifted, it’ll be a lonely debate.

The fact is that you won’t understand why we’ve decided to fund Palestine until you understand the situation that the Palestinians are in. Once you understand that, you will understand WHY they elected a “terrorist regime”. And, you’ll understand that, no matter how much we dislike Hamas, we don’t want to abandon the people that Hamas represents.

America has put herself in a no-win situation as regards the Palestinians. We claim to support democracy while fighting terrorism. So what do you do when the people elect terrorists? Do you oppose their rights to choose their own rulers (and thus undermine our own rights to do the same), or do you condone terrorism? If you expected the world to be black-and-white, get ready for a heck of a lot of grey.

The best solution available is to work with Hamas to get them to the bargaining table. Get them to embrace diplomacy. Unfortunately, you can’t force that… you have to dangle the occasional carrot.

Yes, Hamas has refused to renounce terrorism. But, at the same time, they HAVE maintained a cease-fire since the elections. I would guess (and sincerely hope) that Bush is planning to continue providing aid only so long as that cease-fire continues.

That’s been my stance all along. Of course, my stance has also included the need to put some pressure on the OTHER side of the conflict (Israel) to reform its ways as well.

Posted by: Rob Cottrell at May 12, 2006 9:36 AM
Comment #147577

U.S. aid and Russian guns

‘Five wounded during Palestinian interfactional fighting in Gaza’

Posted by: dawn at May 12, 2006 9:52 AM
Comment #147585

This is so funny.

Trying to treat Palestine and Israel as separate entities is foolish. The Occupied Territories is what Israel made it to be.

Posted by: Aldous at May 12, 2006 10:25 AM
Comment #147586

Sounds like RealPolitik win over Ideology. Or, if you like better that way, a realism wind blow away the ideology smoke screen…

Funny how the famous “Us or Them” didn’t work that great…

Posted by: Philippe Houdoin at May 12, 2006 10:29 AM
Comment #147597

Look up the defination of terrorism and terrorist in the http://www.m-w.com/ and it should have a picture of Buhs…..the defination certainly applies!
Main Entry: ter·ror·ism
Pronunciation: ‘ter-&r-“i-z&m
Function: noun
: the systematic use of terror especially as a means of coercion
Isn’t terrorism a tool of this GOP and the administration. That is, after all, how they are keeping the American public complacent on the policies which are eroding our civil rights!

Posted by: kimber at May 12, 2006 11:04 AM
Comment #147600

kimber,

This administration wouldn’t call that “terror”… they’d call it “shock and awe”….

Posted by: Rob Cottrell at May 12, 2006 11:06 AM
Comment #147640

Since many of the above comments center on the relationship between Israel and the Palestinians, we must separate fact from fiction. To understand the root causes, as many have suggested, we must examine the relevant source documents in order to understand the issues.

The Palestinian National Covenant, the PLO Charter on the website states

Article 4
The Palestinian personality is an innate, persistent character that will not extinct, and is inherited by sons from parents….

Article 5
The Palestinians are the Arab citizens who were living permanently in Palestine until 1947, whether they were expelled or remained there. Whoever is born to a Palestinian father after that date, within Palestine or outside is a Palestinian.

Article 6
Jews who were living permanently in Palestine until the beginning of the Zionist invasion will be considered Palestinians. For the Zionist invasion is considered to have begun in 19171 sic This has been changed in the current version

Article 6 requires that a Jewish family must have been in residence from 1917. Yet, an Arab need only have lived there in 1948, a thirty year discrepancy based solely upon whether the individual was a Jew. Were the residence requirements the same for both groups, the key factor would not be where a typical 30 year old was born, nor his parents, nor his grandparents, but where his great grandparents resided in 1918.

The Charter establishes the situation where a Jew, who moved from Damascus to Jerusalem in 1918 (i.e. moving from one part of Syria to another), is not considered a Palestinian. But a Muslim making the same move in 1948 has automatic citizenship. As in the case of Nazi Germany, Palestinian citizenship is not solely based upon where a person lived in 1917 or in 1948, but whether the individual is a Jew.

The fate of the Jews is clearly stated in Article 15 where it calls for the liquidation of the Zionist presence in the original Arabic.

Hamas, clearly supports the view in their charter that this is a religious issue, not a political one:
Article Seven …the Hamas has been looking forward to implement Allah’s promise whatever time it might take. The prophet, prayer and peace be upon him, said: The time will not come until Muslims will fight the Jews (and kill them); until the Jews hide behind rocks and trees, which will cry: O Muslim! there is a Jew hiding behind me, come on and kill him!

Article Thirteen
Peace] initiatives, the so-called peaceful solutions, and the international conferences to resolve the Palestinian problem, are all contrary to the beliefs of the Islamic Resistance Movement. For renouncing any part of Palestine means renouncing part of the religion….

Aticle Fifteen
The day that enemies usurp part of Moslem land, Jihad becomes the individual duty of every Moslem. In face of the Jews’ usurpation of Palestine, it is compulsory that the banner of Jihad be raised…. We must imprint on the minds of generations of Muslims that the Palestinian problem is a religious one, to be dealt with on this premise.

These quotations from original sources indicate that the situation has racial and religious origins. The issue of land is secondary. Prior to 1967, groups called for the elimination of Israel as a state. Hamas and other terrorist organizations started the second Intafada. The initial terrorist acts included a nightclub, pizza parlor and a religious celebration. All of which, one must assume, were serious military targets. Prime Minister Ehud Barak offered the PA 95 percent of their requests, but was met with silence.

Now, we can return to the issue of the U.S. supporting terrorism.

Posted by: M.L. Schneider at May 12, 2006 1:04 PM
Comment #147653

M.L.

Thank you… you’ve done a very good job of providing a well-documented examination of ONE-HALF of the Israeli-Palestinian equation.

Do you plan to address the other half, or do you need someone else to finish the job for you?

Posted by: Rob Cottrell at May 12, 2006 1:39 PM
Comment #147678

M.L.

You do a good job on Hamas beliefs and statements. The stated goal of Hamas is to get rid of Israel. Throughout their existence they killed innocent Israeli citizens. Occasionally they killed other innocent people just to make a point.

If Hamas is not a terrorist organization I don’t know what is.

U.S. should not help a terrorist organization. Yes, an organization can change its ways. After it changes, we can support it. In this case, if Hamas agrees to change its charter so that it is not in favor of destroying Israel, then we could reward it. Not now.

Posted by: Paul Siegel at May 12, 2006 2:43 PM
Comment #147709

Channeling aid to the Palestinians is a disastrous decision. It will ease the pressure on Hamas to renounce terrorism and to recognize Israel’s right to exist. Palestinian suffering could end immediately and without any real action. Hamas need only make some minor concessions and the money will pour in. Indeed, the international community wants nothing more than to channel funds to the Palestinians.

As for the tired argument that the US has acted hypocritically by boycotting a democratically elected regime: it’s complete BS. We support democratic elections insofar as the will of the people is represented. Unfortunately, the will of the Palestinians align well with that of a terrorist organization. The Palestinians must bear responsibility for their decisions. They empowered a terrorist organization that is openly hostile toward Israel and the West. We support democracy, but it comes at a price: accountability. The people are accountable for their votes.

Posted by: Dr Politico at May 12, 2006 4:37 PM
Comment #147710

I want the people who voted for Bush held accountable. How do we do that?

Posted by: womanmarine at May 12, 2006 4:43 PM
Comment #147720

By cutting off the resources of the Palestinian authority, what good will come? Hamas was one of the few providers of services to the Palestinian people, services which their “government” couldn’t provide, and that the occupying Israelis don’t provide. The very reason they came to power was 1. because of rampant corruption within their old government. and 2. because so many palestinians were already recieving aid from Hamas.

So what do we do now? Hamas cannot provide for the people now, since the government has lost most of its funding, which makes the situation worse than before the election. If the Palestinian people voted this way before, does it not likely follow they will grow more readical the more dire their situation becomes? We aren’t talking about two sovreign nations here, it is Israel, a nation state, and the areas which are occupied by the Palestinians, which have no infrastructure or economy. Cutting them off will not solve anything, it will make things worse.

Posted by: iandanger at May 12, 2006 5:05 PM
Comment #147724

Rob

All I have done is present the facts, most of which come from the writings of the PLO and Hamas. The writings of these organizations amount to a deceleration of way with Israel. If I may draw a comparison with Germany after 1933. The Nazi party was democratically elected. The direction the country would take was clearly spelled out in Hitler’s writings. In the case of Hamas, it too has spelled out what it will do. They have acted in accordance with their charter in the past and, together with its continued support for terrorism, will do so in the future. Even if Israel returns all the contested land, they have said they are obligated by Islam to continue the war until Israel ceases to exist.

Would you like me to provide census data from the time of the Ottoman control of the area and the rate of growth on Arabs in the Jewish section of the mandate as compared with the growth in the Arab areas? Would you like me to examine the distribution of the land originally designated as the Mandate in 1919 peace conference and the division of the eastern half to TransJordan, then the division of the remainder in 1948? Or, maybe you would like me to look at the Israel Arab wars of 1948 and 1967? Of course, I could mention the return of Gaza to the PA.

I discussed the offer by Barak, whereby most of the contested land was to have been turned over to the Palestinian Authority. I could compare the targets of Palestinian terrorist organizations, of which Hamas is one of many with the target of Israeli attacks. Since 1967, there were offers placed in front of the legitimate Palestinian government, only to be ignored.

I would rather discuss the U.S. funding an organization that, by its own policy is a terrorist group.

Posted by: M.L. Schneider at May 12, 2006 5:33 PM
Comment #147764

The point Palestenians make is that Israel is a construct of Britian and the US. This is well documented. The European Jews wanted a homeland and decided on Palestine. They conscripted land and engaged in terrorism to expand their territory to accomodate the influx of Jews from around the world.

Are they pissed? Would you be, if Mexicans decided to retake Texas? Oops.

Posted by: gergle at May 12, 2006 7:54 PM
Comment #147834

Aldous and gergle, the only thing that is occupied is your minds, their full of Crap!

Posted by: Mb at May 13, 2006 3:13 AM
Comment #147841

Intelligent point Mb!! Care to expand?

Posted by: gergle at May 13, 2006 4:16 AM
Comment #147848

The only real solution is to integrate Palestine into Israel and allow Palestinians to vote.

That won’t happen because Israel is a racist state. They will never give Palestinians equal status.

FYI… according to International Law, the Occupying State has the responsibility in feeding and housing the Occupied Population, Israel did a very good job tricking the US to do it for them.

Posted by: Aldous at May 13, 2006 6:09 AM
Comment #147927

Aldous,

The reason that will never happen is that Israel is supposed to be a nation (the Jewish people) with a state (the land the occupy, with a sovreign government). Now, clearly it makes more sense to those of use how live in functional diverse countries (USA, USA!!!), but the Israelis don’t want to incorporate the rest of Palestine into their country because they would become a majority Palestinian state. The problem that everyone has right now is that Israel has been the occupying power in Palestine, but has not defined the borders of where the Israel ends and Palestine begins. They have settlements accross the territory which is not a part of Israel, which is against international law, and because of this they cannot realistically pull out of the area. They refuse to leave Israeli citizens in what would becoem Palestine, and they also refuse to force the settlers to leave. Israel is part of the problem here, they need to pull out the settlers and open up dialog. I don’t think a one state sollution is likely, but it would probably be best in the long run for the entire region. Until they pull back the settlers, and stop enforcing the laws they don’t have the right to make, due to not being the sovreign government of the territory (in other words, requiring permits to travel into and out of cities, requiring everyone to have an ID card with them at all times, and requiring Palestinians to get a permit from the Israeli government to build a home on their own land).

In the meanwhile, preventing the palestinians from dying without water (in many places, the wall Israel put up is between population and water supply) or other basic services (ambulences are routinely stopped from traveling through checkpoints, which leads to a high birthrate AT checkpoints, and also deaths due to not recieving care for trauma). If no one provides services, there will be rioting and violence and problems that make the last round of violence look like a cakewalk.

Posted by: iandanger at May 13, 2006 1:41 PM
Comment #147932

M.L.,

I don’t dispute your facts. I agree with them 100%.

But again, you’ve only addressed ONE-HALF of the Israeli-Palestinian equation. Specifically, you’ve addressed the Palestinian half. You’ve discussed their stance on the conflict, their racial/religious prejudices, and their track record when peace offers were made.

So, do you care to address the same issues on the Israeli side of the equation, or do you need someone else to do it for you?

Posted by: Rob Cottrell at May 13, 2006 2:00 PM
Comment #148201

Rob, I hope this answers your question. It also corrects some of the misunderstandings of Aldous, andanger and gergle, who look at the current situation without examining how it arose. To understand the Israeli side, it is important to look at the history of the area from the end of the First World War.

The Ottoman Empire was divided by the major powers at the 1919 peace conference in Paris, Palestine was not a country, but was a mandate as were other lands once belonging to either Germany or the Ottomans. It was reserved for the Jews of England France and Palestine who contributed to the war effort. The UK had control. The first action taken was to cut off 80 percent of the land and give to the newly created state of TransJordan, the king of which was not even a Palestinian.

In 1948, the remaining land was partitioned into a Palestinian and a Jewish state based upon where the two groups lived. Immediately, the surrounding countries attacked the Jewish state. When the smoke cleared, about 750,000 Arabs left the Jewish state despite the request by the Jewish government to stay. About 800,000 Jews were expelled from Arab lands. In effect a population exchange occurred, similar to India and Pakistan. The Arabs remaining in the Jewish state became citizens.

After 1948, Jordan annexed the West Bank and Egypt occupied Gaza. At no time were they considered by anyone as occupied. From 1948 until peace treaties were signed with Egypt and later Jordan Israel was in a state of war with the so called front line countries. . In 1967, the surrounding Arab nations again tried to attack Israel, with the result that they lost control of the West Bank and Gaza. These are contested areas. At no time in history was there a Palestinian government, only guerrilla groups. Since then, there has been a continued state of violence in the contested lands.

The Israeli constitution gives full rights to Arabs, both Christian and Moslem, living in the state of Israel. They are represented in the parliament (Knesset). They have access to the same legal system. They have religious courts where issues of marriage, divorce etc. are addressed. They are allowed to own land. They have the same rights as anyone living in Israel. There are laws, which are enforced, that forbid discrimination. Large numbers of Palestinians cross into Israel every day in order to work despite the fact that in a guerilla war, which exists between Israel and various Palestinian groups, of which Hamas is one. As far as I know, this is the only situation of which I know where potential combatants are allowed into a country.

Contrast this with the situation that Jews are forbidden to live in Jordan. Contrast this with my posting above that demonstrates that the Palestinians make citizenship a matter of religion. Racism is a word that is bantered about quite freely. The PLO and Hamas are up front about it – Jews are to be either expelled or killed. Hamas created this situation by refusing to disavow terrorism. Now, the Bush Administration has legitimized their terrorist position.

Posted by: M.L. Schneider at May 14, 2006 11:11 PM
Comment #148235
Now, the Bush Administration has legitimized their terrorist position.

Before Bush Administration, last democratic palestinian election legitimized a party with terrorist position.

Say goodbye to “democracy in Middle East will stop terrorist states” neocons policy…

Posted by: Philippe Houdoin at May 15, 2006 4:40 AM
Comment #148243

womanmarine asked:

I want the people who voted for Bush held accountable. How do we do that?

They are already living in their own personal Hell: Ignorance. (The first problem is, they don’t know it; see “Bliss” … The second problem is, they have dragged the rest of us down there with them!)

Posted by: Betty Burke at May 15, 2006 5:54 AM
Comment #148277

M.L.,

Allow me to add a few corrections/additions to the mix:

1) Israel doesn’t actually have a Consitution. It has a set of “Basic Laws” that form a de facto constitution-esque foundation for their government, but no formal “Supreme Law of the Land”.

2) It is true that the laws of Israel are possibly the most liberal in the region, and respect the rights of Christians and Muslims as well as Jews. There is one significant racial bias, however — the Law of Return. In short, Jews from anywhere in the world are automatically accepted as immigrants into Israel. Non-Jews, no matter who they are, must go through the typical immigration routines that other countries would have.

3) While the Israeli government is usually respectful of human rights, there are significant elements within the Israeli population that are not. These hardliners push for expanded settlements into occupied territories, continued relocation of Palestinians, and an eventual “river to river” dominance of the Middle East.
Unlike the Palestinians, the Israelis are not currently governed by these hardliners, but these groups do represent a large enough percentage of the voting populace that the government can’t ignore them.

4) Palestinians in the Occupied Territories are not considered Israeli citizens, and do not have representation accordingly. They have their own government (now run by Hamas), although Israel still mantains control over the region.

5) Israel has taken actions that are expressly forbidden by the 4th Geneva Convention. These acts, while paling in comparison to suicide bus bombings, still provide fuel for the flame.

6) There is no permanent border between Israel and the Palestinian Territory. The border shifts constantly, influenced primarily by Jewish settlements in the territory. These settlements are technically illegal, and have been nominally condemned by the Israeli government, but the government cannot push too hard against them for fear of alienating the hardline electorate.

7) The occupation of Palestine has gone on for decades. Occupations are supposed to be temporary measures. (I sincerely hope that our “occupation” of Iraq doesn’t last even half as long!)

Israel has been reluctant to draw the border between the two territories. It wants to maximize its land, while still maintaining a Jewish population majority. Israel benefits from from the Occupation in this respect, and so has little incentive to end it.

My ideal solution would involve the following steps:

1) The international community, led by the U.S., would pressure Israel to draw a definitive border. Leave it entirely up to Israel, as the occupying power, to choose where that border is.

2) Wherever that border was drawn, the land AND PEOPLE inside it would become Israeli. Any Palestinians living on that land would immediately gain full Israeli citizenship.

3) The land outside that border would eventually become Palestine. Control of the occupation would immediately transition to the U.N., thus removing the “Zionist overlords” element from the opposing arguments. Once a STABLE government was in place that could provide for the needs of the people, the occupation would be phased out.

I would have loved for Bush to have spent his “political capital” on handling this situation instead of invading Iraq. But he didn’t ask me.

As for the current situation with funding Hamas:

It’s about time we define what we mean by “terrorism”. It’s an elusive term that, at present, can be applied to anyone we want to consider an enemy. What are our grounds for labeling someone a terrorist?

The last I heard, terrorists were non-political entities. Governments couldn’t perform acts of terrorism, only acts of war. So, by becoming an elected government, Hamas would cease to be a terrorist organization by definition.

Of course, if they continued funding terrorism, they could be considered “as bad as the terrorists” — see Saddam Hussein. But remember, Saddam was not a terrorist — just a tyrant.

So where do you recommend we draw the line? How are YOU defining terrorism?

Posted by: Rob Cottrell at May 15, 2006 10:24 AM
Comment #149067

1. I agree

2. Any nation can define who can become a citizen. Non Jews can enter, live and become citizens in Israel. In most Arab countries, such as Jordan, Jews can not live. In Saudi Arabia, they can’t even enter.

3. You find these types of people everywhere. Hamas, however, calls for the destruction of Israel. That is “national” policy, not one of extremists.

4. It was their choice, through their elected representatives to ignore a solution that would have given them their own nation. Had they accepted it, they would have been citizens of a Palestinian nation today.

5. Were the terrorists stop their attacks on innocent civilians, Israel would have not taken the measures to protect its citizens. Any country has the right to protect its citizens from violence.

6. Barak offered permanent borders. Arafat ignored the offer. When Israel announced its intent to define borders, there was an outcry from the Palestinians. They can’t have it both ways.

7. You need someone with whom to talk. That has yet occurred in the past. Since the official position of Hamas is not to recognize Israel, but destroy it, this will not occur as long as they are in power.

Solutions

1. Israel is doing that just now. The problem is that the Palestinians don’t like the border.

2. This is the current position of Israel. It was the position in 1948. It was not in 1967, since Israel expected to exchange land for peace. It never occurred.

As to the funding issue.

Hamas was a terrorist organization. I assume that you believe that since it represents the Palestinians, it ca 1. I agree

2. Any nation can define who can become a citizen. Non Jews can enter, live and become citizens in Israel. In most Arab countries, such as Jordan, Jews can not live. In Saudi Arabia, they can’t even enter.

3. You find these types of people everywhere. Hamas, however, calls for the destruction of Israel. That is “national” policy, not one of extremists.

4. It was their choice, through their elected representatives to ignore a solution that would have given them their own nation. Had they accepted it, they would have been citizens of a Palestinian nation today.

5. Were the terrorists stop their attacks on innocent civilians, Israel would have not taken the measures to protect its citizens. Any country has the right to protect its citizens from violence.

6. Barak offered permanent borders. Arafat ignored the offer. When Israel announced its intent to define borders, there was an outcry from the Palestinians. They can’t have it both ways.

7. You need someone with whom to talk. That has yet occurred in the past. Since the official position of Hamas is not to recognize Israel, but destroy it, this will not occur as long as they are in power.

Solutions

1. Israel is doing that just now. The problem is that the Palestinians don’t like the border.

2. That is the current position of Israel. It was the position in 1948. It was not in 1967, since Israel expected to exchange land for peace. It never occurred.

As to the funding issue.

Hamas was a terrorist organization. I assume that you believe that since it represents the Palestinians, it can not be a terrorist group. If true, that would raise the severity of the problem to one between “nations.” It would amount to a declared war which would result in Israel behaving as if the PA were an attacking country.

Because a political party is elected into power, it does not change its nature; it only makes its policy legitimate. We can look at Nazi Germany as an example. If true, that would raise the severity of the problem to one between “nations.” It would amount to a declared war which would result in Israel behaving as if the PA were an attacking country.

Because a political party is elected into power, it does not change its nature; it only makes its policy legitimate. We can look at Nazi Germany as an example.

In the last three months, we have seen a replay of the refugee camps. The Arab countries refused to accept Palestinians as refugees; they couldn’t become citizens. They paid to keep them in poverty in the camps. With oil revenues at an all time high, they could easily support the PA. But they won’t. This is a power game and the US, as well as the other quartet members, blinked first.

Posted by: M.L. Schneider at May 17, 2006 8:10 PM
Post a comment