clinton had both country's leaders at the white house a number of times, also there was no conflict of this magnutude during clintons presidency. did iraq casue bush to make the middle east even more dangerous.
2006-07-17 03:16:05 · 15 answers · asked by david c 4 in Politics & Government ➔ Politics
its another example of ignoring diplomacy, do neo-cons understand that the president must use the skill of diplomacy?
2006-07-17 03:22:05 · update #1
Paul O'Neill, President Bush's former treasury secretary in the first term, told us what happened. The President wanted to devote US resources to invading and occupying Iraq. The US was to turn its back on the Israeli-Palestinian problem because he thought it doesn't benefit us. It was pointed out to him (by Colin Powell) that this would mean the butchering of the Palestinians by the Israelis. The President thought this was what they needed.
The President is a moron!
2006-07-17 03:30:35 · answer #1 · answered by ideogenetic 7 · 1⤊ 1⤋
Because Bush is way smarter than Clinton will ever be. See, Clinton is a self rightous appeaser who thought that he could change the MIddle Eastern conflicts by discussions & diplomacy. Clinton only looked at the small picture and not the big picture - which Dubya has. Dubya understands that Iran & Syria have financed and has been pulling the strings of all these various terrorist organizations attacking the Israelis. Dubya knows history and knows that every single time that peace has been close to occurring - a terrorist organization would senselessly attack the Israelis - keeping the conflict boiling (This even happened to him - Remember how close to peace the Plaestinians & Israelis were after the death of Ararfat? Those disscusions were closed due to more suicide attacks in Israel) Dubya knows that Iran & Syria are the culprets and they will be dealt with in the upcoming months. Israel will crush Hezbollah and that means eventually going into Syria & Iran. When that happens WE will be knocking on the door is Iran at the same time requesting a regime change.
Have you seen where the moderate Arab nations have placed the blame on Hezbollah & Hamas for starting this conflict. This is very crucial because it shows the slow change in mentallity for Arabs. They now see that terrorist viloence doen't gain them anything but death, destruction, and an invitation for american troops to install a regime change. Look to Afghanistan & Iraq as examples.
2006-07-17 10:32:45 · answer #2 · answered by therandman 5 · 0⤊ 0⤋
Because there has been no Israel - Lebanon conflict since even before Israel withdrew from Southern Lebanon.
The issue in Lebanon is that it is a terrorist group, Hizballah, that has ruled Southern Lebanon since the Israeli withdrawl, and has ruled it like the terrorists they are. Now they attacked Israel, and Israel is responding accordingly.
Not sure what all this supposed 'diplomacy' will do for peace. Clinton never solved anything, and his repeated failures to act decisively left the world a more dangerous place.
2006-07-17 10:30:28 · answer #3 · answered by Anonymous · 0⤊ 0⤋
Why should he....Israel is doing fine....bring who to the table....a terrorist organization?????? I don't think that will happen...you do realize that Israel is the only nation that is fighting right now and they are attacking a bunch of terrorists. If the palestinians really wanted to end it they could, but what do they do??? They elect a terrorist group to represent them.....they are getting what they had coming to them. And for everyone else...yeah Clinton did such a great job with the Middle East....I didn't see any suicide bombs going off in Israel while he was Pres (lots of sarcasm there) Clinton did **** for foreign policy......except allow our troops to get dragged through the streets in Somalia, and bomb the Chinese Embassy in Kosovo....great President (more sarcasm)
2006-07-17 10:28:05 · answer #4 · answered by jpxc99 3 · 0⤊ 0⤋
Yes but Clinton had the leaders of Palestine and Israel. Get it straight. I am a Clinton supporter. I do not like GWB or his policies. But in this case Lebanon has been quiet for years. He would not have seen this coming. He should have however done more between Israel and Palestine when Hamas got nuts.
2006-07-17 10:24:13 · answer #5 · answered by olderandwiser 4 · 0⤊ 0⤋
Because Israel ended their 20+ year occupation of Lebanon in 2000. Bush took office in January 2001.
2006-07-17 10:24:01 · answer #6 · answered by Aegis of Freedom 7 · 0⤊ 0⤋
This is a new war. They weren't fighting until a week ago. Besides, it's not with Lebanon, it's with hezbollah. They kidnapped Israeli soldiers. Maybe Bush should have been there when they were kidnapping the soldiers and said "Look here kiddies, is this really the thing you want to do"? Not his fault!
2006-07-17 10:28:04 · answer #7 · answered by Cheesedippedincheese 3 · 0⤊ 0⤋
Just because you don't like bush and ask why he ignored Israel and Lebanon dose not make it so. he has worked on getting them to come to a peace full agreement to end the fighting for years "Road Map" or did you just forget that for the sake of making a argument? Your question is a lie. You are a hate monger. get your facts right and ask better questions.
2006-07-17 10:34:22 · answer #8 · answered by DaFinger 4 · 0⤊ 0⤋
If Clinton would have been watching Bin Laden instead of having slumber parties with Lebanon, they wouldn't have making the plans to fly planes into the towers. This is exactly what the problem is in the world. the U.S. is told to stay out of everybody's business and when we do, it's our fault when they go to war.
2006-07-17 10:27:04 · answer #9 · answered by Bill S 3 · 0⤊ 0⤋
Isreali-lebannon? Isn't that a new (old, but kinda of sleepy in the first years of Bush) conflict???
2006-07-17 10:23:18 · answer #10 · answered by anni_shaa Yeap Yip 3 · 0⤊ 0⤋