Bush, the Born-Again Peacemaker (Time Mag.)

[underpants]

This is a doozy :silly: see if you can follow along

http://www.time.com/time/nation/article/0,8599,1687457,00.html

Condoleezza Rice summoned a small group of reporters to her State Department conference room last Wednesday to explain why President Bush, seven years after his election, is convening Middle Eastern leaders in Annapolis Tuesday for a final attempt at the creation of a Palestinian state and a declaration of peace between it and Israel. "At this point," she said, "the dangers of inaction are much greater than the dangers of acting."

It is not only on thorny Middle Eastern issues that Bush is drawing criticism from both the left and right. On his talks with North Korea and a slew of bilateral trade deals, right- and left-wingers alike mock the President's perceived diplomatic incompetence and argue against his efforts. But it is the prospect of Bush's diplomatic progress that is fueling their opposition — and that should be a sign of hope for centrists.

The right has cause to fear Bush's global diplomatic push. Bush's stated goal for the Mideast talks that begin Tuesday is the creation of a Palestinian state, something the neo-cons quietly oppose. They also believe any concession to dictators like North Korean leader Kim Jong-Il rewards bad behavior and have attacked all efforts at talks with autocrats. Meanwhile, the mercantilists in the party oppose those parts of Bush's free trade agenda that threaten their businesses.

If the far right is worried about this progress, however, the far left is confused by it. They have scorned Bush's diplomatic forays as crass legacy-hunting, and are at a loss when he follows through. What they fear most is the chance that Bush could turn out to be capable of the kind of centrist diplomacy for which his father was known.

But the North Korea talks show that Bush's centrist approach can produce results even on the toughest issues. Low expectations, his legacy-driven need to offset the Iraq fiasco, and sheer luck could help. The far right and left may find the possibility of moderate foreign policy successes by Bush troubling. But it should be easy for centrists to agree with Rice that diplomatic action is preferable to inaction.

[SteelPenguin]

1. low expectations

If Bush meets with another world leader and doesn't immediately vomit on them, threaten to invade their country, and then slap their ass and call them Sally, people gush about how well he did. That's how shitty a president he's been.

[underpants]

2. Yes but I really like how maybe someday could be that....

Bush actually achieves something

Don't want to be wrong do ya? What if? Huh? think about THAT for a while

:eyes: No we all know his track record and him not screwing something up would be remarkable at this point or even just not getting completely played like Musharaf and Sistani and alSadr and Chirac and etc. have

I just LOVE the "luck" element. How far in the hole do you have to be (this writer) to be banking on sheer "lightning-strikes-indoors AND Salma-drops-into-yourlap" luck?

[bemildred]

3. I see your doozy and raise you one chutzpah:

Bush's big moment in Annapolis

---

This is Bush's bash. His name is on the invitation. The party is at his place. The guests are strictly A-list. Every country that matters, and a lot that don't, will be represented. The European Union, the United Nations and the Arab League will be there too. They are all coming for the same reason: They have been summoned by the one man in the world to whom no one wants to say no.

It turns out that Bush, far from wrecking America's prestige and influence, has compounded it. Every government in the world knows that attending the Annapolis conference under the aegis of the president of the United States is an unmistakable acknowledgment that America remains the world's indispensable state.

---

And then there is a question about what Annapolis actually means for the Arab-Israeli conflict. For years, George W. Bush has been pilloried by all Right-Thinking People for ignoring the Palestinian issue -- by which they meant that he took the Israeli side.

But the truth is that as a result of Bush's unwavering Zionism, he is deeply admired and trusted by most Israelis. Prime Minister Ehud Olmert is neither admired nor trusted; he can't, on his own authority, sell a two-state compromise, with all the necessary concessions, to the Israeli public. Any agreement he reaches will rely for Israeli domestic ratification on the public's belief that Bush will not countenance a sellout. This is the result of seven years of active American policy -- the very opposite of the neglect Bush's critics allege.

http://www.latimes.com/news/opinion/la-oe-chafetz27nov27,0,4441617.story?coll=la-opinion-rightrail

[opihimoimoi]

4. There is a greater danger of InEptness leading to a worse Level...

A level of catastrophic results...like a really fucked up WAR....many millions/billions dead.....