[11:59 AM] Slate’s daily war on terror roundup, looks at how the New York Times and Washington Post have revised their analyses of why Bush says Arafat must go. Initially the papers reported Bush took that stance and revised his June 24th speech because of “new Israeli intelligence that Arafat had authorized a $20,000 payment to the terrorist Al Aqsa Martyrs Brigade.” Follow-up articles by the Post and Times, however, see Bush as being swayed by his own moral principles rather than the payment.
Regardless of what chain of events influenced the late changes in the speech, I have a bigger question. Why would the $20,000 payment, which would show Arafat directly financing terrorist be an issue? Remember Ariel Sharon’s May visit to Washington. He brought with him a dossier full of documents linking Arafat to terrorism. The administration seemed to think they were legit. So why would this new revelation of a $20,000 payment suddenly open Bush’s eyes? This is not so much a question suspicious of Bush’s motives, but a question for the Times and Post.
#
posted 12:14 PM
Regardless of what chain of events influenced the late changes in the speech, I have a bigger question. Why would the $20,000 payment, which would show Arafat directly financing terrorist be an issue? Remember Ariel Sharon’s May visit to Washington. He brought with him a dossier full of documents linking Arafat to terrorism. The administration seemed to think they were legit. So why would this new revelation of a $20,000 payment suddenly open Bush’s eyes? This is not so much a question suspicious of Bush’s motives, but a question for the Times and Post.
<< Home