English and Technology Class

30 responses so far ↓

• 1    Dmitri Uvarov // Apr 4, 2007 at 10:31 am

  This article is about how everything that was planned throughout the world came out in a different way. Former President Clinton was going to end the warfare and hate between Israeli’s and Palestanian’s. His plan did not come out as planned and warfare and violence still stood in the Middle East. When Bush became president in 2000, he decided to stick with Clinton’s plan. It turned out that there were more deaths between the Israeli’s and the Palestanians from 2001 to 2005 than Clinton’s position as President.

  I disagree to the author’s opinion. The author of the article said that the Bush philosophy seems to be “ABC” (Anything But Clinton). Since many people liked Clinton as President, the citizens would’ve still want Clinton to becoem President since Bush declared War On Iraq. I believe that there is always a different way to settle things. Maybe people believe that Clinton would’ve taken a different approach.

• 2    Ellen // Apr 4, 2007 at 1:12 pm

  This Article is about Clintons plan for the Palestines and Israiles, and about Bush. When Bush was president there were more people getting killed in the palestine and israel wars, than there was when clinton was president.During Clintons presdent time, he made a plan for peace that could be used for the palestines and israiles, but when Bush became president he didntuse Clinton plan.

  I disagree with the authors opinion because, I think that even if Bush would have stayed with with the Clinton plan, it wouldnt have stopped the war with palestine and Israel.The author is also saying that by not using Clintons plan, things got much worse. I disagree with that becasue they never know what coulh happen, and things could have also gotten worse with Clintons plan.

• 3    Martha Espinal // Apr 4, 2007 at 2:14 pm

  This is article is about Clinton’s plan to make peace between the Palestines and the Israiles. Its says when Clinton was president he wanted to make the plan into a reality but when Bush was voted president he put the plan a side. All the plans that Bush made was not a success. More deaths occured now that Bush is president.

  I do disagree with the author’s opinion because she is not thinking outside the box. What would happen if Bush followed Clintons plan and it didn’t work? She says Bush philosophy was anything but Clinton but I think Bush just wanted to do things his way or maybe he didn’t believe peace got happen between the Palestines and the Israiles.

• 4    Dennis Abenanty // Apr 4, 2007 at 3:25 pm

  This article is talking about the differences in how something is planned and executed. The main concept of the article is to show us Clintons support for over sea matters. In the article he is trying to establish a “Clinton Plan” to aid our friends and to try and settle all conflicts between them. The article also argues the point that President Bush completely disagrees with Clintons ideas and plans.

  I disagree with the authors thoughts and opinions. The author hasn’t examined all of the aspects of the arguement. She didnt think of disagreements between Bush and Clinton, that could play a major part in the ways that both of them ran the country, wiether it be a hands on approach or a laid back isolated approach.

• 5    Rimsha Syeda // Apr 4, 2007 at 6:07 pm

  This article discusses the concern of Clinton of over-sea issues. The author is supporting “Clinton’s Plan” to bring peace between Israel and Palestine. The author disagrees with Bush, who disagrees with Clinton’s plan. She believes that the plans made by Bush have failed, and therefore Clinton’s plan is correct.

• 6    Rimsha Syeda // Apr 4, 2007 at 6:09 pm

  I disagree because what if Clinton’s plan didn’t work? It might be a failure. Besides, we should mind our own business and let them be. They ran the country in their own ways, and actually, Bush has some postives or Clinton to several people.

• 7    Elise Park // Apr 4, 2007 at 8:23 pm

  The article was about the Clinton’s plans to make peace between the Palestine and Israel war. Clinton had a plan to make peace when he was the president, and then when Bush had became the president, Bush refused to use the “Clinton Plan”. Clinton was trying to solve a problem, but Bush doesn’t want to use somebody else’s plan. So now the author was trying to explain how the problem came to be. Clinton gave ideas but Bush refused. Now Bush came up with an idea, but it failed! Thomas Friedman was supporting Clinton’s idea, the “Clinton Plan” because Bush’s plan has failed.
  I disagree with the author like the others because Bush’s plan didn’t work, but that doesn’t mean that Clinton’s Plan would’ve worked one-hundred percent. Maybe Bush could’ve tried to use his plans, but if it doesn’t work, it will be the way it is right now. There is no proof that Clinton’s Plan would’ve worked and solved the problem in a snap. Listening to other’s opinions and making your choice, it may be right or wrong.

• 8    Fanny Ng // Apr 4, 2007 at 8:55 pm

  This article was about Clinton’s plan for peace between the Israel people and Palestinians. Bush did not accept the plan and everyone else rejected it also. Bush decided to make his own plan instead of using Clinton’s plan, but his plan failed. The author is trying to prove that Clinton’s plan would’ve worked but instead Bush used a plan of his own and he failed to succeed. There is more war than peace now that Bush is president.

  I disgree with the author’s opinions and his point of views. Bush’s plan may have failed but since Bush rejected the plan, how does he know Clinton’s plan would have worked? He shouldn’t be so sure until they use it. Even if Bush hasn’t solved anything, doesn’t mean Clinton can. The author isn’t right nor wrong. The Palestinians and Israelis might not want to create peace even if they used the plan. So, the author can’t be really sure Clinton’s plan would work.

• 9    Eugene Shramko // Apr 5, 2007 at 11:27 am

  The Article discusses the current status of Israeli relations with palestinians and its neighbooring countries. The author writes that Bush’s plan is ineffective and that he attempts anything as long as it does not include Clinton plan of Israel surrendering 95 percent of the West Bank, Gaza and Arab East Jerusalem. He also mentions that Israel is not recongnized in Mecca agreement, which is used to show that Israeli relations with its neighbooring countries and that those relations are poor due to it being poorly handled by the Bush Administration.

  The author’s opinion is very present in the article. This is easily seen as the whole article in itself is an editorial. While the author does report a few facts, he does so for the sake of his benifiting his argument, rather then just reporting them. He places his blame on Bush and uses a few quotes to back his argument, while also stating the argument of the opposing side and attempting to disprove and dismantle it.

• 10    Tanisha Robinson // Apr 5, 2007 at 3:51 pm

  This article is about a situation dealing with the Clinton’s plan and Bush. It is represented in the article that Clinton and Bush had two different plans. Clinton’s plan was to create some sort of peace between Israelis and Palestinians. It has been thought that Bush plan was to do nothing that included any aspect of Clinton’s plan. Even though Yasir Arafat rejected the plan it could have became effective if Bush would have continued recognizing the plan.
  The author’s opinion in the article is that Clinton’s plan could have become more effective. I agree with the author’s opinion. However, the Clinton’s plan could have been tested again. It could have been more effective than Bush’s plan. It would have been a whole lot better than Bush’s plan considering Bush wanted war with Iraq. We wouldn’t know now because Bush rejected the plan and refuse to acknowledge the plan.

• 11    Michelle // Apr 6, 2007 at 12:11 pm

  “Many Plans, No News” was about President Clinton’s plan for peace. He wants to stop fighting with Israel and the Palestinians. He made a plan to stop the war. He decided to followed “ABC”- Anything But Clinton. So, Bush made up his own plan. The two presidents had different plans on what to do. Bush rejected Clinton’s plan and instead use his own. It turns out that Bush’s plan didnt’t work. It failed. Thomas L. Friedman (the author) is trying to prove that Clinton’s plan was more effective. Instead of making things better, Bush made it worse.

  I do not agree with the article. Sure, Bush’s plan didnt turn out so good. Maybe Clinton’s plan was better, but he shouldnt’t just assume that Clintion’s plan would have work! We should not fight, or participate in wars. We should live in peace together. Fighting is very violent and deadly. Bush should not have followed ABC. He should have listen to Clinton’s ideas, and together they should compromise, and think what is best for the country and not the individual. Maybe with the two brains togather, they might come up with a plan thats even better!!

• 12    Evelia // Apr 6, 2007 at 11:13 pm

  This article is about Clintons plan for the Israiles and Palestines, and also about Bush. When Bush was president there was many more people dying in the palestine and israel wars, but then it change when Clinton became president.When Clinton was president, he planned for peace so that it could be used for the palestines and israiles, but then when Bush became president Clintons plan was stopped.

  I dont agree with the authors opinion because, I dont think that even if bush stuck to clintons plan the war between israelis and palestines would have still continued.The author saif that by not using Clintons plan, made things worse than they were. I disagree with that because we as humans dont have the power to know stuff that didnt happen, and theres always the possibility that things could have gotten worse with Clintons plan.

• 13    Aroub Khan // Apr 7, 2007 at 12:41 pm

  This article,” Many Plans, No News,” is talking about a plan by Bill Clinton and Bush. Bill Clinton’s plan was called the,” Clinton Plan.” It was made to make peace between Israelis and Palestinians. Clinton’s plan was that Israel to give up 95 percent of the West Bank, Gaza and Arab East Jerusalem. It was so that the Palestinian refugees to be able to return to Palestinian areas but not to Israel. Bush’s plan was to do nothing that had something to do with Clinton’s plan, and he failed. The author is saying that Clinton’s plan would have worked if it wasn’t for Bush.

  I disagree with the author’s opinion that Bush’s plan didn’t work but clinton’s plan would be a success. What if Clinton’s plan dosne’t work either. No one knows. What if Israel and Palestinians don’t want peace at all. In the article it say that Bush would do any pan but not Clinton’s plan. Bush want to go his own way and what’s wrong about that. He is the president of this country and no one should interfere. If Bush had a little more power in the plan, it might have succecced.

• 14    Johnny Soriano // Apr 7, 2007 at 9:20 pm

  The article “Many Plans – No News” by Thomas Friedman is about Clinton and his plans to make peace between the Palestine and Israel war. Clinton had a plan to make peace when he was the president. When Bush became president in 2000 he didn’t want to use the ”Clinton Plan”. Bush used his own plan which did not come out as he intended, the warfare and violence still stood in the Middle East. There were more deaths between the Israeli’s and the Palestanians from 2001 to 2005 than Clinton’s position as President.

  I disagree with the author because Bush’s plan didn’t work, but that doesn’t mean that Clinton’s Plan would’ve worked. Bush wanted to do things his way and if he would have used Clitons plan it could’ve worked, but if it didnt work, it will be the way it is right now. There is no proof that Clinton’s Plan would’ve worked and solved the problem in the middle east.

• 15    Jessica Gonzalez // Apr 8, 2007 at 3:15 pm

  The main points in the article is for trying to establish a peace plan in the Middle East between Arab, Palestinian and Israel peace plan between the two. It also talks about Americas involvement in the Middle East which has done very little to improve the relationship between the Palestinians and Israelis. It speaks of past presidents, and leaders of the Palestinians and Israelis that have failed to come up with any type of peace plan that they would accept.

  The author’s opinion is plainly visible in this article he wrote the author knows much about the problems in the Middle East between the The author’s opinion is plainly visible in this article he wrote the author knows much about the problems in the middle east between the Palestinians and Israelis. He clearly does not agree with the actions or advice our secretary of state Condoleezza Rice has brought to the table between the Palestinians and Israelis. He also does not agree with President Bush’s road map to peace, but the author does agree fully with our past President Bill Clinton’s idea called the Clinton Plan for peace. It seems to me that the author favors former President Bill Clinton, and has a lot to say against our present President Bush. In my opinion both presidents did not have a solid plan for peace between the Palestinians and Israelis. The author does not have a plan as well he seems more to judge the two presidents. If the Palestinians leader and the Israeli leader does not make a strong commitment to stop the killing, and violence and recognize each other as humans to live side by side in peace.

• 16    Marie Oneto // Apr 8, 2007 at 3:50 pm

  This article is about a peace plan in the middle east. It talks about the presidents plans and ideas and how Clintons plan was better then Bush. It talks about how when Bush became president he didnt want to use Clintons plans and made his own which didnt work out as he wished.

  I disagree with the author because Bush should be allowed to make his own plans and not get penalized for it. He is the new President and people should accept it. Even though his plans didn’t work out the way he would of liked them to, who knows if Clinton’s plans would of worked out too.

• 17    Jessica Gonzalez // Apr 8, 2007 at 10:11 pm

  The main points in the article is for trying to establish a peace plan in the Middle East between Arab, Palestinian and Israel peace plan between the two. It also talks about Americas involvement in the Middle East which has done very little to improve the relationship between the Palestinians and Israelis. It speaks of past presidents, and leaders of the Palestinians and Israelis that have failed to come up with any type of peace plan that they would accept.

  The author’s opinion is plainly visible in this article the author knows much about the problems in the Middle East between the Palestinians and Israelis. He clearly does not agree with the actions or advice our secretary of state Condoleezza Rice has brought to the table between the Palestinians and Israelis. He also does not agree with President Bush’s road map to peace, but the author does agree fully with our past President Bill Clinton’s idea called the Clinton Plan for peace. It seems to me that the author favors former President Bill Clinton, and has a lot to say against our present President Bush. In my opinion both presidents did not have a solid plan for peace between the Palestinians and Israelis. The author does not have a plan as well he seems more to judge the two presidents. If the Palestinians leader and the Israeli leader does not make a strong commitment to stop the killing, and violence and recognize each other as humans to live side by side in peace.

• 18    Alyssa Alexander // Apr 9, 2007 at 11:21 am

  This article is discussing the issues between the Israelis and the Palestinians and what America has planned to do in the past the bring peace. We have come up with many plans but according to this article on one has worked, the Clinton plan. This article provides facts such as “notes Mr. Clinton’s top negotiator, Dennis Ross, but the fact is four times more Israelis and Palestinians died fighting each other during the “realistic,” “pro-Israel,” sideline-sitting Bush years of 2001 to 2005 than in the “naïve” decade of intense U.S. peacemaking — dominated by President Clinton — from Madrid to Oslo, 1991 to 2000″. The author of this article doesn’t seem to be in favor of Mr. Bush, he continously talks about all the things Bush has done wrong and all the things that Clinton has done right. In my opinion i think that no peace plan is going to bring absolute peace between the Israelis and Palistinians. Even though Mr. Clinton’s “Clinton Plan” may have brought a bit of peace we have to realize that we are also living in different times. Over time tension continuosly grows between the Palistinians and Israelis the most we can do is put a bit of peroxide on the cut and see what happens.

• 19    Demi M. // Apr 9, 2007 at 1:12 pm

  This article is mainly about Clinton’s plans to stop the hate and violence between the Palestinians and the Israelis. It says that when our former president Bill Clinton was president, he had a plan to stop the violence; but once Bush was elected President, he didn’d go through with Clinton’s plans and made his own plan. Bush’s plans had backfired on him, making the issue only even worse.

  I disagree with the author because since Bush is president, he has every right to do what he wants. I mean, even though his plan didn’t exactly work out the way he wanted, he can always think of different ways that might work. And just because Bush didn’t go with Clinton’s plan, who’s to know if his plan would’ve worked.

• 20    Ashley Wofse // Apr 9, 2007 at 3:22 pm

  This article talks mostly abouthow the worlds plans are now going backwards in life, and how no one is willing to do something except for one of the presidents the United States has had. Clinton wwanted Palistine and Israel o work out an agreement with Israel giving up some of thier land. This was not working since the Israeliies and Palistinians did not agree.

  I do not agree with the author of this article he says we are going backwards when clinton would have made things worse. He would have made the Israelies have a bad life and the Palistinians gain a lot of power, too much. We are moving ahead to better things in life and rethinking a lot of things so the world can be better.

• 21    Jorge Herrera // Apr 9, 2007 at 10:37 pm

  This whole article By Thomas L. Friedman is about plans to stop violence and create peace between Palestinians and the Israelis. Wheather if it was former president Bill Clinton or current president George Bush it talks about their plans and how they each viewed was the possible way to create peace. Through out the whole article the author states facts on how Bill Clintons plan was a great plan and much superior to the one that the current president George Bush made.
  I totally disagree with the authors opinion which was that if George Bush would have followed Bill Clintons plan that their would now be peace in the middle east. I dissagree with the author because there is no proof and there is no way that you could be 100% sure that Clintons plan would have succesfully worked. Also everybody does not put them selves in the spot that George Bush was in, Bush did not know that his plan was not going work and i am sure that if people was in his shoes they would have done the same thing and followed their instincts.Another reason that i do not agree with the author is that if Bush would have followed Clintons plan and it still didnt create peace, people would still argue against Bush and say that he should have made his own plan in the first place, either way if your plan does not work people are always going to disagree.

• 22    shawn smith // Apr 10, 2007 at 1:38 pm

  The article “Many Plans – No News” by Thomas Friedman is about Clinton and his plans to make peace between the Palestine and Israel war. Clinton had a plan to make peace when he was the president. When Bush became president in 2000 he didn’t want to use the ‘’Clinton Plan”. Bush used his own plan which did not come out as he intended the warfare and violence still stood in the Middle East. I disagree with the author because Bush’s plan didn’t work but that doesn’t mean that Clinton’s Plan would have worked. Bush wanted to do things in his way and if he would have used Clitons plan it could have worked but if it didnt work, it will be the way it is right now. There is no proof that Clinton’s Plan would’ve worked and solved the problem in the middle east.

• 23    Andrew You // Apr 10, 2007 at 7:21 pm

  This article is about Clinton’s plan in creating peace for the Palestinians and the Israelis, but Clinton’s time was up before he knew it and failed to succeed in forfilling his goal. Now since George Bush is president, he has power over some people and he decided to reject Clinton’s Plan. Since Bush rejected Clinton’s plan, so did Bush’s Followers. Instead Bush created his own “Peace Treaty” but failed to succeed in it. Ever since Bush was elected there was more chao in the world then there were before he was elected.
  I disargee with the author because after Bush’s plan failed, they could have used Clinton’s plan and see the outcome of that but they didn’t do that. Clearly they didn’t have any evidence that this plan would fail to succeed. Even though Bush’s plan failed, bush went though a lot of trouble and hard decision to come up with this. He was probably hoping for the best for his country.

• 24    Mike Rybinksov // Apr 10, 2007 at 7:55 pm

  This article was about how former president Clinton tryed to make a peace treaty between the Israeli’s and Palestinieans, but unfortunatly his plan didnt succeed or it might have but Clinton’s time as president was up. So Bush Tryed to creat his own treaty but didnt succeed in it either, and not only did he not succeed the deaths in the middle east since bush became president raised.
  I Think That Bush Would had been better stickin to Clintons Plan and not use his own because it proves to be worst. If Bush wouldn’t be selfish and use Clintons Plan just for a lil while and try out if it workes, it probably would have worked but he didnt do it and the outcome is worse.

• 25    Shannon J // Apr 10, 2007 at 8:17 pm

  This article is basically discussing the differences between two presidents’ plan. This debate is between President Clinton and President Bush. Clinton had planned out that he wanted peace between the Israelis and the Palestinians. Bush obviously had the attitude that if its not Bush’s way, its the highway. He totally threw away Clinton’s plan and executed the plan and promise of peace.
  I think that either way it wouldnt have mattered what Bush did. There has and will always be violence in the world according to my opinion and whats going on in the world today. I disagree with the author on their views on Bush because since Bush is president, we the people, although have say cannot tel him what to do. Though I dont care about Bush, his plans will always affect America and the oh so famous promise of worldwide peace.

• 26    Rocio Hernandez // Apr 10, 2007 at 9:37 pm

  This article is about Clinton and Bush. It discusses the plan of Clinton and how he was going to stop the warefare between the Israelis and the Palestinians. He waanted peace there but when Bush became president in 2000 this did not happen. Bush had his own plan but it didnt work out for him. It was the opposite of what Clinton wnted it to be. There were more deaths between the Israeli’s and Palenstanians from 2001-2005 than when Clinton was president and was making the plan. Bush made matters worse.

  I disagree with the author because anything could have happened either way. There was a chance that Clinton’s plan could have worked but would it have given the rigt amount of results. Bush’s plan didnt work out as planned but he is the president, so it was his choose to do whatever he felt was best. Either way Bush’s ideas and plans wil affect the United States and we cant really do anything about it.

• 27    John Wu // Apr 10, 2007 at 10:53 pm

  This article is about former president Clinton. It discusses the plan Clinton thought of to stop warefare between the Palestinians and Israelis. Clinton planned on creating peace between these two nations but it did not suceed. So when Bush came into power, he decided to not stick with Clinton plan and made his on. The fact is when Bush became president, the death between these two nations increased.

  I disagree with the author because since Bush is the president, he has the right to decide what to do with his country. Being a president isn’t as easy as we all think it is, it not something like only saying yes and no. Also no one could of guaranteed that Clinton’s plan would of work anyway, If Bush plan didnt work doesnt make Clinton’s will.

• 28    Yana Berezina // Apr 11, 2007 at 12:01 am

  The article, “Many Plans – No News”, by Thomas Friedman talks about how the Bush administration made a big mistake by being stubborn and neglecting to follow Bill Clinton’s plan to bring peace between Israelis and Palestinians. Yes, it is unsure if the “Clinton Plan” would actually work, but the Bush administration didn’t take action, and the death toll of Israelis and Palestinians from fighting each other during the Bush years of 2001-2005 was four times more than the death toll during Clinton’s presidency.

  The author’s opinion is present all throughout this article. The author is strongly against Bush’s administration’s actions on dealing with peace in the Middle East. An example of how the author portrays his opinion would be: “We could be and should be doing better.” This clearly shows the reader how the author’s opinion on this topic.

• 29    Dana R // Apr 11, 2007 at 7:02 am

  The article “many plans -no news” by Thomas Friedman talks about the Israelis, the Palestinians and how well they worked with one another under the Clinton plan, under this Clinton plan the Israelis gives up 95% of the West Bank, Gaza and Arab East Jerusalem and for Palestinian refuguees to be able to return to Palestinian areas but not to Israel but when Bush became President he believed the Clinton plan was a dead letter because he felt Arafat would not accept it anyway.Since Bush has been President four times more Israelis and Palestinians died fighting each other.
  The author’s opinion is present in this article. Thomas Friedman believes the Clinton plan is a smart idea that creates peace and actually works. He feels Bush should have continued the plan and Friedman proves this in his article with facts, and comments from other people such as Dennis Ross, Clinton ’s top negotiator but i think president Bush should have at least tried the Clinton plan because it will help him in his time as a president he could have used this plan as a guideline.

• 30    Akeem Parkinson // Apr 11, 2007 at 6:28 pm

  This article is stating the plans Bill Clinton, has to maintain peace between the Israelis and Palestinians. Clinton had put forward something called the “Clinton Plan” this plan called for Israel to give up 95 percent of the West Bank, Gaza and Arab East Jerusalem. So that Palestinian refugees to be able to return to Palestinian areas but not to Israel. This plan was later rejected by Yasir Arafat.
  If the Bush-Rice team had kept with the Clinton Plan, today it will be more peaceful than it is right now. He didn’t want anything supported by Bill Clinton, stating “A.B.C” (anything but clinton).

  The authors opinion in this article, clearly states that he opposes , Bush-Rice team for throwing the Clinton plan “under the bus”. The author is really upset, that Bush-Rice team didn’t go through with this plan because he states his opinon, ”
  Had the Bush-Rice team stuck with the Clinton plan, today, at a minimum, it
  would have been locked in as the only acceptable formula for peace, ” In that quote you can tell he opposed him, he gave a clear understandment.

Leave a Comment