Arafat lied, thousands died; Clinton is not mortified

Former president Bill Clinton, seemingly desperate to spin his legacy as one of accomplishment, facts be damned, in total denial, obviously inhaled something quite strong in England. Asked if he would shake hands with Hamas in the name of negotiation as he did with Arafat in 1993, Clinton said:

If they made the same assurances that Arafat did.

He had made private assurances, and he made public assurances, that he did not support terror any more and would try to restrain it.

So if Hamas would say, suppose they say, OK, look, we can't change our theory, we can't change our document, we can't change our history, but we're in government now and the policy of the Palestinian government is no to terror and yes to negotiations. As long as we're in government, we'll honour that policy.

If they did that, I would support dealing with them.'

So for Clinton reassurances make it so; Arafat's later reality of reassuring his people in Arabic of his wholehearted support of "Jihad! Jihad! Jihad!" and the terror that engulfed Israel was irrelevant?  And now he thinks a few insincere words from Hamas leaders would wipe out everything they have staunchly stated they believed, backed up with actions?  

Hey it might have worked with "I did not have sex with that woman" but Bill, playing with people's lives is not like playing with Monica. 

Ethel C. Fenig   4 2 06

Bill Palmer adds:

Isn't it amazing that Clinton and the Left will accept Arafat's word and the word of Hamas on terrorism, but can't accept President Bush's word on the Terrorist Surveillance Program? Kind of lets us know who they think the enemy is.

Former president Bill Clinton, seemingly desperate to spin his legacy as one of accomplishment, facts be damned, in total denial, obviously inhaled something quite strong in England. Asked if he would shake hands with Hamas in the name of negotiation as he did with Arafat in 1993, Clinton said:

If they made the same assurances that Arafat did.

He had made private assurances, and he made public assurances, that he did not support terror any more and would try to restrain it.

So if Hamas would say, suppose they say, OK, look, we can't change our theory, we can't change our document, we can't change our history, but we're in government now and the policy of the Palestinian government is no to terror and yes to negotiations. As long as we're in government, we'll honour that policy.

If they did that, I would support dealing with them.'

So for Clinton reassurances make it so; Arafat's later reality of reassuring his people in Arabic of his wholehearted support of "Jihad! Jihad! Jihad!" and the terror that engulfed Israel was irrelevant?  And now he thinks a few insincere words from Hamas leaders would wipe out everything they have staunchly stated they believed, backed up with actions?  

Hey it might have worked with "I did not have sex with that woman" but Bill, playing with people's lives is not like playing with Monica. 

Ethel C. Fenig   4 2 06

Bill Palmer adds:

Isn't it amazing that Clinton and the Left will accept Arafat's word and the word of Hamas on terrorism, but can't accept President Bush's word on the Terrorist Surveillance Program? Kind of lets us know who they think the enemy is.