"We must get rid of Arafat" warns Bush

[ConcernedCanuk]

. . JERUSALEM (AFP) - US President George W. Bush (news - web sites) told an Israeli journalist that "we must get rid of" Palestinian leader Yasser Arafat (news - web sites).

Bush's comments came in a brief exchange with the mass-circulation Yediot Aharonot's correspondent during a Christmas drinks party in Washington.

/snip/ ( Junior into the drinks maybe ? )

Israel has also shunned the 74-year-old, branding him an absolute obstacle to peace and confining him to his West Bank headquarters for more than two years.

/snip/

"Now is the time to do a lot in the Middle East, and I am determined and committed to doing that. You can be sure that I have done a lot until now, but I am going to keep on doing. I am going to continue to be active and committed to (my) vision."



oh yah, da Cowboy has "visons" alright

. . . . .

[The Zanti Regent]

1. Can someone ask the Chimp to STOP pouring gasoline on fires?

Does this asshole have any comprehesnion about what he is saying?

Does he realize the firestorm that will trigger if Arafat is murdered?

Des he comprehend how much the US is hated now and how that will multiply?

BTW, I wonder if he confuses his perverted "vision" with the DTs?

[zonmoy]

53. Can someone ask the Chimp to STOP pouring gasoline on fires?"

Does this asshole have any comprehesnion about what he is saying?

No but his master (sharon) in israel does and wants any excuse to get rid of a palistinian leader that he doesnt either control or can use to commit more ethnic cleansing of the palistinians and all muslims in general.

Does he realize the firestorm that will trigger if Arafat is murdered?

See above. His masters are planning genocide of all muslims.

Des he comprehend how much the US is hated now and how that will multiply?

That is their plan in order to get us to exterminate and enslave their enemies.

BTW, I wonder if he confuses his perverted "vision" with the DTs?

Once again bush is merely a puppet and not the puppetmaster.

[54anickel]

2. Geez, I wish he'd share that "vision" so the whole world could see what

a nut cake he is.

[SiobhanClancy]

3. If he's so concerned about an "absolute obstacle to peace"....

why doesn't he try to get rid of the "Rev." Ian Paisley? For that matter,he should really begin by stepping down himself.

[loudnclear]

4. A Vote for Bush is a vote for more war. Are Americans ready for this?

That's my campaign message.

[durutti]

46. A vote for *anyone* is a vote for more war.

Well, anyone who's a Republican or a Democrat, excluding Sharpton and Kucinich.

But don't believe me. Just watch.

[Sorcerer3]

5. well maybe...

Arafat is not a nice guy either. I haven't seen him do anything to try and stop the terrorism in Isreal. Arafat and the Palestinians would be much better off had they stuck to the Oslo Accord they signed on to. I haven't paid attention to the Isreali/Palestinian conflict that much during the past 2 decades but it seems to me that there has always been violence there. Isreal has had several different prime ministers yet Arafat has been there within the last 20 years. So it appears that arafat is the constant in the equation. Would be interesting to see what changes if he is deposed.

Just pondering...

[Name removed]

6. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[sistersofmercy]

8. Go back to where you came from

[twilight]

62. I'll second that!!!!

Long live Arafat! Long live Arafat!!!!



P.S. I believe Arafat is a lot more that 74 years old btw! More LIES! More LIES!!!




:dem: :kick:

[0007]

16. Check out this five minute video and see if you feel the same!

http://www.angelfire.com/creep/gwbush/remindus.html

You must have indeed thought highly of Clinton? No one died for his little lie, 'eh?

[soleft]

25. It lost me with the bleeding flag

The shots of Bush talking with the statements he, and Powell, and Rumsfeld, and Cheney made about WMD are great - what would have been powerful would have been images of respected experts contradicting those statements with the truth.

Once it started with the machine gun fire and the bleeding flag, it crossed the line into propaganda. This will not change the mind of anyone who previously supported the war, it won't even get them to start thinking.

And I criticize it because I AGREE WITH THE MESSAGE and I want it to make a difference.

[TankLV]

35. It's perfect just the way it is.

It certainly makes all the excuse-makers feel uncomfortable - and that is what all the bleeding and machine gun fire is about.

Got to get the sheeple feeling uncomfortable. That is the first step towards realization and greater understanding.

The last step - and the hardest - is to change your viewpoints based on the evidence.

And I'm not sure the average amerikkkan sheeple is capable of that, ever.

And that is what is really so sad about this whole thing.

[sistersofmercy]

7. Ok since you claim to not be following I'll fill you in on a few details

First of all, under Clinton in 96 there was a peace process that came close to going through with Arafat and Rabin. The process involved relocation of some Jewish settlements within the West Bank. But guess what happened before the deal could get sealed? Rabin was assassinated by a radical Jewish settler and in very poor taste by the hardliners in Israel there was a fan club formed in his honor, the assassin that is. I can not recall the name of the assassin at the moment but would be happy to retrieve it if you like.
The information about I/P issues in this country has been so skewed it is a joke, I would suggest doing some reading on the subject but don't start with the 67 war you will need to go back much further. WWI but particularly 48 (IIRC)when a mass exodus was forced on the Palestinians, many took refuge in Lebanon.

[Sorcerer3]

9. I won't support any organization that....

I will never support any organization that uses terrorism to slaughter little children the way they do there.

[Tuttle]

10. But wholesale slaughter from the US of A is okay?

I don't see where a 'smart bomb' is better than a 'dirty bomb' - this administration is immoral and has slaughtered tens of thousands of Iraqs because somebody thought they had WMDs.

Sorcerer3 please explain your position of mass murder and genocide - okay?

Tut-tut

[Sorcerer3]

24. even the antiwar sites I saw claim that the iraqi civilian casulties...

are less than 10,000 and how many of those were killed by saddam's leftover supporters? The vast majority of the Iraqi people seem very greatful that Saddam is gone.

Even some of those 'Human Shields' had their minds changed...

A group of American anti-war demonstrators who came to Iraq with Japanese human shield volunteers made it across the border today with 14 hours of uncensored video, all shot without Iraqi government minders present.

Kenneth Joseph, a young American pastor with the Assyrian Church of the East, told UPI the trip "had shocked me back to reality."

Some of the Iraqis he interviewed on camera "told me they would commit suicide if American bombing didn't start. They were willing to see their homes demolished to gain their freedom from Saddam's bloody tyranny. They convinced me that Saddam was a monster the likes of which the world had not seen since Stalin and Hitler. He and his sons are sick sadists.

"Their tales of slow torture and killing made me ill, such as people put in a huge shredder for plastic products, feet first so they could hear their screams as bodies got chewed up from foot to head."

Winning freedom from oppression, torture, terrorist tyrannical fascist dictators is costly in both lives and dollars but when it is accomplished the world would much better off. Just ask France when the US, UK, Russian troops that freed them from Hitler's Nazi Germany.

[psychopomp]

29. Just how many thousands of civilian dead would be unacceptable?

The cost in human life and in real dollars are the sad halmarks of this unneccesary war.

[oldcoot]

42. We do not know how many civilians were killed

The Bush administration does not keep track of the number of Iraqi civilians killed. If the Bush administration cared so much for the Iraqi people, why isn't Bush keeping those numbers?

We also should recognize that there are major differences between France during the Second World War and modern day Iraq. First, we liberated France from a foreign invader. We "liberated" Iraq from an Iraqi. This leaves the Iraqis in an awkward situation. They have to choose between an evil dictator and a foreign enemy. Some reluctantly support the United States and the coalition troops because they think that these troops are the only ones preventing total chaos while others want the United States gone.

Second, the French did not have reason to suspect the United States of having ulterior motives for liberating France while the Iraqis have ample evidence that Bush had ulterior motives for invading Iraq. As most Iraqis probably know, U.S. troops protected the Oil Ministry during the looting but ignored Iraq's hospitals and cultural treasures. Without consulting the Iraqi people, the Bush administration plans to start selling off Iraqi state-owned businesses (what happens to the Iraqis employed by these businesses?) to foreign investors and plans to force a flat tax on the Iraqi people (taxation without representation). The U.S. also cancelled municipal elections in Iraq last June and has even kept some of Saddam Hussein's laws. For example, the United States has kept a 1987 law barring union activity in state institutions. Now if liberating the Iraqi people was a goal of the Bush administration, why would the United States keep a law that denies Iraqis freedom of association?

[Tinoire]

52. Fox News? TownHall? NewsMax? Now there's a source for you!

http://www.google.com/search?sourceid=navclient&ie=UTF-8&oe=UTF-8&q=%22told+me+they+would+commit+suicide+if+American+bombing+didn%27t+start%22
http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,82237,00.html

It's strange that this story only appears on the most right wing sites.

Dude, that swill will rot your brain.

I know you're already as dead as a door-knob, 'shocked back to freeper reality' this Christmas season (early present from the amazing DU Admin) but here goes anyway:

Kenneth Joseph Unknown to Human Shield Organizations

The Philadelphia Daily News covered the human shield expedition from London to Iraq, which comprised over 200 people from 30 countries travelling in red double-decker buses on a gueling 3,000 mile10-day trek. They went to guard civilian sites, such as schools, hospitals, water-treatment facilities and electrical plants. After the Department of State travel ban prohibited American citizens from going to Iraq without obtaining special clearance, all human shield groups needed to apply for this clearance. <13>

A glaring ommission from these articles is how Kenneth Joseph obtained State Department clearance, which he seems to have circumvented as a result of his "invitation as a religious person and family connections'", and which spared having a government "minder" tail him 24 hours a day. <14>

None of the peace organizations or human shield groups whom I contacted had ever heard of Kenneth Joseph, nor is his name found on any human shield-related websites. <15>

<snip>

Joseph graduated from the Christian Academy in Japan, and Biola University in La Mirada, California, with degrees in Intercultural Communictions and Mass Communications, and after graduation, returned to Japan in 1987, which would make him at least 37 years old. Yet a recent interview in Japan Today magazine, discussing his work on the Japan Helpline states in bold letters that he is 28. <22>

<snip>

Thus, a full 5 months before UN inspections were cancelled and the Iraqi war began, this "antiwar activist" had an inside track on plans for a post-war Iraqi government.

<snip>

http://www.counterpunch.org/lipton04122003.html

A MOONIE? ARE YOU OUT OF YOUR MIND? Bwahaha!

don't like being lied to. As far as I can tell, the "people fed into a plastic shredder" story comes from Kenneth Joseph, the supposed pastor of the Assyrian Church of the East (nothing of the sort), who has 14 hours of video (that nobody has seen) and was a human shield who saw the light (except that he doesn't appear to have been in Iraq at the right time).

Put "Kenneth Joseph" into GOOGLE and you'll find dozens of references to his lies - and only a few references to the fact that this story is apparently completely made up. Just as the "babies tipped from incubator" stories in Gulf-1. Those stories are *definite* lies, a 15 year old was coached to tell them to Congress. And yet, the incubator story was on a Discovery documentary again only a few weeks ago. When are the lies going to stop?

Incite is almost certainly doing a fine job - but it's repeating this plastic shredder story, and publicising some very nasty tales of people mustard gassed in their cells.

Where is this plastic shredder and where are the cells contaminated with WMD agent? There are now 1400 inspectors in Iraq - where are the WMD?

Tom

Posted by Tom xxx at June 18, 2003 03:06 PM
http://www.tom-watson.co.uk/cgi-bin/mt-comments.cgi?entry_id=272

[SOS]

69. Since WW2

there have been plenty of horrific dictators. Yes, Saddam was a brutal guy. Now that Bush is determined to spread "democracy"* when will he attack China? How about Sierra Leone? Congo? Burma? North Korea? Equatorial Guinea? Rwanda? Burundi? Uzbekistan? Chad?
Here's a link to Human Rights Watch. They have LOTS of human rights abusers to read about:

http://hrw.org/

* the European colonialists in the 19th Century reffered to this as "civilisation"

[sistersofmercy]

11. So then you must not support Sharon either.

Last year, 2000 Palestinian homes destroyed, over a thousand Palestinians killed about 150 children and all this to assassinated 35 SUSPECTED terrorists.
Flip side roughly 180 Israelis killed approx 48 children by suicide bombers. Amnesty International annual report on Israel. Read them you just might be surprised about the info there.

[Sorcerer3]

19. Palestinians train their kids...

Palestinians train their kids from very early ages to kill as many Isrealis as they can and to die doing it. I've seen video of that. I don't see the Isrealis training their kids like that. I doubt the Palestinians or any of those other terror groups from neighboring countries are ever going to allow peace until Isreal ceases to exist.

[Robbien]

22. Then you are only watching videos supplied by

this administration. There is plently of material out there that is not propaganda and tells both sides.

[sistersofmercy]

23. See this "they want to drive the Israelis into the sea" stuff is actually

quite the opposite if you would bother to do a survey of the history there over that past 5 decades or so. Israel has mandatory armed service participation of all its citizens. I'm sure the documentary was made by an Israeli sources, to assume all Palestinians train their children to hate and kill Israelis is just as erroneous as claiming all Israelis teach their children to hate and kill Palestinians. There happen to be moderates on both sides.
They don't want Israel to cease existence but rather want the government to stop illegally taking their land. If the Israeli government needs land for a relocation settlement they just bombed the Palestinian homes to bits and say it was a suspected terrorist then deny rebuilding rights. They've done a similar thing to Lebanon over the years, who they are currently in a dispute over a water source.

[0007]

38. That not true. When the US quits arming Israel much terror will end.

Why does the US arm Israel?

[Robbien]

12. But we dropped bombs on Iraq

that terrorized and slaughtered children. And you are a Bush supporter, are you not?

[DoYouEverWonder]

34. So can I say that means you oppose

Bu$hCO and the neocons who have done this to 1000's of Iraqis in less than 9 months?

[havocmom]

14. Arafat isn't the only constant in the equation. The Likud Party loves war.

And Sharon is really good at instigating it. If he had not insisted upon an act he knew would cause a boilover of passion and anger, the latest era of attacks might yet have been forestalled. But, noooooo, he had to go to the temple mount and incite the people to new and bigger waves of anquish and attacks. It was a hot button most leaders managed to wisely aviod.

He knew what would happen and he did it for that reason. His actions were the "bring 'em on" nose thumbing of his deranged plans for all out war. He wanted nothing to do with the peace process and made sure it stayed derailed, big time. He buried hopes for peace along with the hundreds who have died in recent years. He is guilty of instigating the deaths of Palestinians and Isrealis alike. And he costs the rest of the world plenty of heartache too, as his programs spill hate and war well past his borders. He is an interntaional terrorist ring-leader as sure as Arafat is.

If we are making lists of who needs to be removed, Sharon and his ilk should top the list. Definately naughty, not nice at all.

[Sorcerer3]

21. If Sharon and his "ilk" wanted too...

they could wipe out the palestinians like they were nothing. If they love war so much then what's stopping them from doing so?

[Scurrilous]

26. The Hague...

...Sharon doesn't want to join Milosevic.

[sistersofmercy]

28. Do you really need an answer to that question?

It would force the US government into condemning the Israeli government. Very naive question.

[0007]

31. A smiple answer for a simple question

THE U.S.

[DoYouEverWonder]

36. Fortunately wiping out millions of people

is not that easy unless you want to go nuclear and the only thing that holds Israel back is that they will nuke themselves in the process.

[sistersofmercy]

37. Yet another excellent response for a silly question

[0007]

15. Clinton didn't provoke all the terrorist

and there was peace without killings.

[mbperrin]

20. Well, gee, maybe if we'd let him out of the building he's been trapped

in for nearly two years, he'd feel like being a little more helpful, eh?

Say, why don't you stop all the burglaries in your hometown, right? You live there, burglars are robbing people, all your fault. (And burglars are a lot less dangerous than these dang people who are willing to die for their beliefs, so it oughta be real easy.)

[loudnclear]

43. Hey, I haven't seen Bush do anything to try to stop the terrorism in

many African countries, nor has he done anything to try to stop the terrorism of Sharon. By your standards, that makes Bush a very bad person.

[durutti]

51. Oh, geez...

Arafat is not a nice guy either.

Actually, I hear he's a very nice guy. Unfortunately, he's also a corrupt, despotic sellout. However, he's the legitimate leader of the Palestinian people. Only they have the right to remove him.

I haven't seen him do anything to try and stop the terrorism in Isreal.

He actively participated in acts of terrorism for much of his career. But then, so did Sharon. So did many of Israel's prime ministers. So, I would argue, does the IDF today.

Since the late 1970s, Arafat has promised attacks on Israel would cease if the Palestinians were guaranteed a state in the West Bank (including East Jerusalem) and the Gaza Strip. And since around the late 1980s, there's been no evidence that Arafat continues to support terrorist attacks.

Under Oslo, incidents of terrorism decreased dramatically. Arafat vigorously opposed the Islamists, often to the point of persecution.

Today, there's not much that Arafat can do to prevent terrorism. After the al-Aqsa Intifada started in 2000, Israel invaded the PA areas, destroying the Palestinian security forces, and taking many areas over. Today, Arafat really controls just a small sliver of territory, and has very little means to enforce his dictates. If Israeli troops, with curfews, checkpoints, etc. can't stop terrorism, then how can you expect Arafat to do the same?

Arafat and the Palestinians would be much better off had they stuck to the Oslo Accord they signed on to.

Ridiculous. Oslo established a bantustan for the Palestinians -- a web of Jewish-only roads, checkpoints, and the like, that prevented the Palestinians from having any real control over their own supposedly autonomous territories. Furthermore, the number of settlements doubled between 1993 and 2000.

I haven't paid attention to the Isreali/Palestinian conflict that much during the past 2 decades but it seems to me that there has always been violence there.

And the root of it all? Israel deciding to take over half (and 78 percent shortly thereafter) of Palestine, despite the fact that Jews were only one-third of the population; and deciding to violently expel 700,000 Palestinian Arabs from their ancestral homeland. But that's not terrorism, right?

Isreal has had several different prime ministers yet Arafat has been there within the last 20 years. So it appears that arafat is the constant in the equation. Would be interesting to see what changes if he is deposed.

And those prime ministers haven't differed significantly in their stance towards the Palestinians. If Arafat were deposed, it could very well pave the way for Hamas to seize power.

[The Stranger]

58. You can't be serious.

I haven't seen him do anything to try and stop the terrorism in Isreal. Arafat and the Palestinians would be much better off had they stuck to the Oslo Accord they signed on to. I haven't paid attention to the Isreali/Palestinian conflict that much during the past 2 decades but it seems to me that there has always been violence there. Isreal has had several different prime ministers yet Arafat has been there within the last 20 years. So it appears that arafat is the constant in the equation. Would be interesting to see what changes if he is deposed.

Please, please try to educate yourself on this issue. It is embarrassing to have to read something like this. Here's a quick update. Likud has been running a campaign to attack any Palestinian leaders that they cannot control, so that they can continue to arrest, occupy, steal, and ethnically cleanse the West Bank. Arafat was one of the first targets (also, please not that he negotiated and agreed to Oslo with Peres and Rabin, who was assassinated by an Israeli extremist, which is what killed Oslo, when Netanyah would not pull back in accordance with the terms of Oslo).

Likud has continually deflected attention from expanding settlements, continuing occupation and now a Berlin Wall confining the Palestinians in small areas, by setting up senile Arafat. Meanwhile, in reality, Arafat sits, surrounded in a destroyed concrete bunker by IDF troops. The Chimp administration has bought it hook, line and sinker, and, alarmingly, so have you.

[GRClarkesq]

13. Arafat is a crook and an obstacle to peace

and I think this is a carefully managed trial balloon to guage the fallout from promoting such a policy.

Arafat will eat this up, he likes being the story.

If you want to get rid of Arafat ignore him, stop talking to him. Say you will talk to anyone else.

[0007]

17. So is George W. Bush & Ariel Sharon

Let's get rid of them also, 'eh?

[twilight]

63. Great idea!

Best idea I've read in awhile now ... :D



:dem: :kick:

[GRClarkesq]

18. With the other players being the same

I think the prospects for peace would increase without Arafat. Sharon does not help but it is up to the Israeli voters to be rid of him. Arafat will never lose an election.

[0007]

27. I respect your opinion but I disagree with you!

junior is responsible for all this unrest. We didn't have it when Clinton was in office it only came with junior and Sharon, isn't that true?

[Sorcerer3]

30. No, it is not true

I suggest you do some reading on this...

[0007]

32. You mean some of your reading material?

[sistersofmercy]

33. With all due respect, you are the one in need of reading

I believe you have a limited perspective of history. You have not presented any sufficient facts to evidence any superiority in this debate.

[GRClarkesq]

41. The Second Intifada started in 9/2000

after Sharon's visit to the Temple Mount. The PLA position is that this uprising was a spontaneous event due to Sharon's visit.

I think Arafat and the PLA too notice of Israel's withdrawal from Lebanon in the face of Hezbollah and decided they could obtain a better result through violence than the offer made by Isreal at Camp David summit with Clinton, Barak and Arafat in 7/2000.

I believe Arafat still favors a policy of low intensity conflict as the best means to advance his agenda. In the PLA system of government noone can really oppose him on this policy.

If Arafat is no longer part of the equation perhaps something better can happen.

[The Stranger]

59. Then think again.

September 2000 was the time under the Oslo Accords when the Palestinians were supposed to have their state. Instead, they had Netanyahu reneging on the treaty and Sharon trying to inflame the situation, which he did, and which enabled him to be elected.

[GRClarkesq]

66. Oh please

by this point Oslo was long dead. Arafat and the PLA had some commitments under OSLO too, which they never kept.

Arafat changed his tune and was demanding items he knew were deal breakers for the Isrealis.

To paraphrase Hosni Mubarak, "Arafat never crossed a bridge he didn't double cross.".

[The Stranger]

67. Oh please yourself.

Oslo was dead because Netanyahu wouldn't abide by its terms, and began systematically refusing to withdraw in accordance with the specific timetables set forth therein. The relationship to the latest intifadah is undeniable, and disputing this hurts your credibility. And, honestly, Arafat wasn't demanding anything that wasn't in Oslo in the first place. Rabin's assassination by an Israeli extremist, if anything, is what killed Oslo, because it brought Netanyahu to power. Quoting (or misquoting) Hosni Mubarak is furthering the Likud Party line of attacking Arafat to hide the lies, occupation and breaching treaty obligations.

[Sapphocrat]

54. I would be most interested to hear...

...suggestions for appropriate reading material from one who says, "I haven't paid attention to the Isreali/Palestinian conflict that much during the past 2 decades."

[CO Liberal]

39. "We must get rid of Bush" warns CO Liberal

And the sooner, the better.

[number6]

55. I heed your your warning

...

[arwalden]

40. Here We Go Again....

War war war war. War war war. War war war war war. War war! War war war war war WAR WAR war. War!

-- Allen

[Gloria]

44. Isn't this a flip flop?? Weren't they wanting to keep Arafat just a

couple of months ago?? When he was holed up and surrounded"

Am I nuts?? Or are they making me nuts???

[GRClarkesq]

70. I think it was more of a "not get rid of him now" vibe

n/t

[durutti]

45. Imagine if he'd said, "We must get rid of Sharon."

I can almost hear the accusations of anti-Semitism.

[Nevernose]

47. First time I've ever agreed with him

Now if we can just get him to say "we must get rid of Ariel Sharon" and "I must resign as President of the United States", we might be getting somewhere.

[sistersofmercy]

56. ....

I'd agree to the three but nothing less. You've got my vote on this one,Arafat is no more criminal than the package of useless thugs accompanying. Difference happens to be the package of useless thugs have nukes and a military behind them.

[number6]

48. I'd like to see all three go

Arafat, Bush, and Sharon....

[TheWebHead]

49. it'll be interesting to see

if any U.S. media reports this... so far they haven't:

http://news.google.com/news?q=%22we+must+get+rid+of%22+bush+arafat&hl=en&lr=&ie=UTF-8&oe=UTF-8&filter=0

given the source is only an Israeli journalist, there could be a perception of bias that would prevent widespread reporting without some confirmation from Scotty -- if anyone has the guts to ask him about it.

[Nevernose]

50. Then again

It's not like this is the first time he's said this, either, so how much of a splash would this story make?

[Matilda]

57. I think Bush is getting a bit carried away. He thinks he

personally got rid of Saddam, and now there'll be no stopping him.

[cosmicdot]

60. will getting rid of Arafat play well in selling WMD or Carlyle's portfolio

... who will buy our weapons of mass destruction from our corporate weapon manufacturers? what was George drinking?

*'s credo, unchallenged when stated, c. Afghanistan: 'this is the first war of the 21st century'

Imagine: what the opposite would have inspired

[Triana]

61. Vision: $$$$$ and PNAC (n/t)

[Forkboy]

64. What? And lose their number one scapegoat?

Arafat is safer than I am!

[Sideways]

65. The Trifecta Of Evil And The Axis Of Bullshit Is Running On Empty

Scapegoat...You got one? Shit call the Whitehouse they need one really quick. Quick Quick....Call NOW!!!

[bushisanidiot]

68. Dumbas* has "done a lot in the middle east"? A lot of what? Killing?

what a dipsh*t! his drunken tirades are going to start WWIII! I can't believe anyone would be stupid enough to vote for this idiot!!

good gawd!

[ibegurpard]

71. Oh Jesus!

Way to go!
Whether or not anyone thinks getting rid of Arafat would help the mid-east peace process, saying it on the record is TOTALLY inflammatory and counter-productive, IMHO.