|
||||||
| FAQ | Members List | Calendar | Today's Posts | Search |
Topic Review (Newest First)
|
| May 27th, 2003 07:36 PM | |
| The_Rorschach |
Pipes, the only logical choice. Lieberman would never accept an Israeli victory, nor even consider it. Newt isn't that well versed in Middle Eastern affairs as he showed during the early days of the Gulf conflict. Pat would have asserted something vaguely religious in there somewhere. |
| May 27th, 2003 03:04 PM | |
| mburbank |
MULTIPLE CHOICE POP QUIZ! Who wrote: "Much as the Israelis have to gain from a victory over the Palestinians, the Palestinians have more to gain from defeat. From the point of view of American policy, helping them to achieve a change of heart is thus an unobjectionable goal, beneficial to both parties. And while ultimately it is up to the Palestinians to liberate themselves from the demons of their own irredentism, others, especially Israelis and Americans, can indeed help—by holding firm against the seductive appeal of road maps that lead exactly in the wrong direction." Was it: A.) Joe Lieberman, Democratic Candidate,arguing against the Bush administration 'road map to peace' in a leaked stump speech draft B.) Newt Ginrich, resurfacing pundit, on "The Tonight Show" promoting his new book "Liberal bastards: The undermining of the Contract with America" C.) Daniel Pipes, George Bush apointee to the board of the United States Institute of Peace, a Congressionally sponsored think tank dedicated to "the peaceful resolution of international conflicts." D.) Pat Buchanan, in an Op Ed to the Wall Street journal, concidering a run against Bush for the Republican nomination |
