Ari, is the President concerned that in the Middle East while Arafat may be out of the visible picture, he’s still pulling some strings from behind the scenes? And that while we’ve gotten rid of him as a negotiator, he’s still a problem for us?

MR. FLEISCHER: Well, the President’s point of view is that if Yasser Arafat had wanted peace, peace would have been achieved years ago; that Yasser Arafat had his chance; Yasser Arafat is an obstacle to peace; and that Yasser Arafat lied to the President about an extraordinarily serious situation, because it involved a shipment of weapons to terrorists that Yasser Arafat said he had nothing to do with, had no knowledge of, when it was proven that he was involved in it.

Q Is he still involved, Ari? Do we feel as though he’s really —

MR. FLEISCHER: As far as President Bush is concerned, the answer is, no. And the more people around the world who think he’s not involved, the better the prospects for peace.

Now, as far as the Palestinian people, it’s a much more complicated issue, of course. Yasser Arafat does play a role within the Palestinian Authority. That is a role that Prime Minister Abbas has to work through and with. And President Bush understands that.

Coming from the White House spokesman for a president elected by voters hoping to replace Clintonian doubletalk with Texas straight talk, these comments yesterday were stunning. They were doubly so on a day when the newly appointed Palestinian Arab prime minister, Mahmoud Abbas, held a press conference to insist, as the Associated Press reported from Ramallah, that “he coordinated every move with Arafat.”

Something is wrong with a process in which President Bush’s spokesman is insisting to the American people that, as far as President Bush is concerned, Yasser Arafat is not involved — while at the same time, Mr. Abbas is telling the Palestinian Arab people that Mr. Arafat is involved. This is a simple question of checkable fact, after all. Either Mr. Arafat is involved or he is not. The reality of his involvement shouldn’t depend on whether you’re George W. Bush or Mahmoud Abbas. To suggest it is constitutes relativism of the sort that American conservatives have been fighting against. And for a reason. If the White House is willing to turn a blind eye to Mr. Arafat’s involvement, who is to say that it won’t turn a blind eye to terrorist activity by the “new” Palestinian leadership?

Mr. Abbas’s track record so far is discouraging. At yesterday’s press conference, the AP reports, Mr. Abbas said that he would keep trying to negotiate with the terrorist groups like Hamas and that he would not consider using force against them. There’s a tendency in Washington to cut Mr. Abbas slack, to say that he needs to be given time to build support among the Palestinian Arab people.

This is rank hypocrisy. When it comes to the Iraqi Arab freedom fighters, like the Iraqi National Congress, who have been working against terrorism and for democracy, American government officials complain they lack popular support in Iraq and refuse to help them — indeed, government officials actively undercut them. When it comes to Iraqis, lack of popular support is an excuse for America not to work with them. When it comes to Mr. Abbas, the lack of popular support is an excuse for America not to hold him accountable — or even to prop him up further.

After Mr. Abbas’s press conference yesterday, Mr. Bush spoke about America “working to strengthen Prime Minister Abbas.” Iraqis and Palestinian Arabs are capable of deciphering the messages being sent from the White House. If the Palestinians coordinate with Arafat and “dialogue” with terrorists, America will be optimistic and work to give them a state. If the free Iraqis fight Saddam and insist on deBaathification, America will complain about their lack of popular support. It’s a recipe not for fighting terrorism but breeding it.