LawTalkers
Forums
User Name
Remember Me?
Password
Register
FAQ
Calendar
Go to Page...
» Site Navigation
»
Homepage
»
Forums
»
Forum
>
User CP
>
FAQ
»
Online Users: 105
0 members and 105 guests
No Members online
Most users ever online was 9,654, 05-18-2025 at 05:16 AM.
»
Search Forums
»
Advanced Search
Thread
:
Politics As Usual
View Single Post
06-03-2004, 09:02 PM
#
1376
Hank Chinaski
Proud Holder-Post 200,000
Join Date: Sep 2003
Location: Corner Office
Posts: 86,149
What happens when a majority wants to elect Hamas?
Quote:
Originally posted by Atticus Grinch
Oooh, oooh, I know how this turns out. In a poorly-lit German restaurant, Josh secretly meets with a representative of the Palestinian PM who says a new era has arrived requiring secret, direct peace talks and an end run around the Chairman, who is corrupt and now lacks legitimacy to lead the PA. It's a back channel overture! So Josh --- who's a fish out of water, this being a foreign policy matter, it's real funny, trust me --- conveys this to a particularly sour Leo, who advises the President it's all a waste of time; there's no one at the PA worth talking to; and an end run around the Chairman will close the wrong doors. (He wants airstrikes on some militants instead; he's pissed because Hamas blew up a bus or something. Anyhoo, it's personal.) Meanwhile, Kate (NSC aide) tells the President it's worth a shot. The President sides with Kate and shuts Leo down. But it turns out --- and here's the kicker --- the PM stabs the US in the back by publicly announcing the talks
with the Chairman
even before the US has agreed to them, putting the US on shaky ground with Israel. We've been played! But the President doesn't know this yet because he was walking down a noisy corridor at Camden Yards when the call came in to Leo.
Say what you will about television news; it's surprisingly detailed. It's also true what they say --- nobody gets anything done in D.C. during the summer.
point of clarification: in late '02, when the episode aired naming the "Bartlett doctrine" as " we will invade a soverign country for no immediate reason, if given how we think it seems right;"
Were use opposed?
Last edited by Hank Chinaski; 06-03-2004 at
09:11 PM
..
Hank Chinaski
View Public Profile
Find More Posts by Hank Chinaski
Powered by
vBadvanced
CMPS v3.0.1
All times are GMT -4. The time now is
04:07 AM
.
-- LawTalk Forums vBulletin 3 Style
-- vBulletin 2 Default
-- Ravio_Blue
-- Ravio_Orange
Contact Us
-
Lawtalkers
-
Top
Powered by:
vBulletin, Copyright ©2000 - 2008, Jelsoft Enterprises Limited.
Hosted By:
URLJet.com