Just some mild political irony from the day's news...
Bush Visits the Middle East...For the First Time.
So President Bush was in Israel today trying to promote peace negotiations in the Middle East. If that's not irony, then they need to change the definition of the word. This is the man who almost five years ago started a WAR there...now, in the last year of his presidency he's going there, for the first time, mind you, to promote peace in the one slice of the Middle East where there hasn't been peace in 40 years.
Are we expected to believe he actually cares about this? Because it sounds to me like a desperate effort to leave a legacy involving something other than the Iraq war, or at least give a few good sound-bytes and photos glad-handing with world leaders. In the newspapers he was quoted saying the region has an "historic chance" for peace....wrong. The region always has the chance for peace, it's just that he has a "last chance" to force some kind of artificial progress and claim he did something good there.
Everybody accused Clinton of doing the same thing: showing up in the background whenever there was a good photo-op of Israeli and Palestinian leaders shaking hands... But at least some of us actually BELIEVED Clinton cared about the whole mess. I'm not sure how many times Clinton went there, but at least he was actively involved in the process through his entire presidency. Yes, he too made a final, sloppy push for Middle East peace at the end of his term. But it wasn't the first time he tried.
Like it or not, people are going to think of one thing when they think of George W. Bush: Iraq. No 11th hour trip to shake a few hands and rattle off slogans is going to change that. It is almost as if he got to the last year of his presidency and said, "Shit! I forgot to do the whole Middle East peace thing!" Too little, too late...
And yes, his supporters will say Condi has been there a few times, and she has. It is not as if this administration totally neglected the idea of peace between Israel and Palestine. It's just that once again we're being sold the sizzle, but not the steak.
And Now, Eliot Spitzer...
In the New York Sun today there appeared an article in which New York Governor Eliot Spitzer called for "collegiality" amongst state lawmakers and asked them to "work together for the common good despite any political or personal differences." Wow... Sounds like wise words from a true statesman... Not quite.
Though the message is a good one, and worth striving for, it is amazing to me how quickly politicians can become solicitors of cooperation, voices of reason, when there tails are between their legs. Spitzer knows his first term was a train wreck...in short, he spent most of it wrapped up in a ridiculous partisan scandal that he caused (Troopergate, read about it), he alienated politicians in both parties, and hardly got anything done. If he wants to save his governorship, he knows he has to start now. Hopefully he learned the lesson that being a prosecutor (he was Attorney General of New York before this) is fundamentally different than being a Governor.
As a prosecutor, Spitzer had the legal means at his disposal to pursue anything found to be outside the law. He wielded it powerfully, bluntly, and often. Some would say he abused it. For sure, there were cases when he was more concerned with making headlines than getting things done. But, the only thing he had to consult was New York state law...
Now, he's in the awkward position of having to work with politicians and make compromise. To have to deal with the fact those politicians have connections, and that his power derives from being able to influence them to his side of an issue, not just from the mere fact that he's Eliot Spitzer and that he's the governor. Fortunately for him, unlike for the president, it's not too late. But, we'll see if he actually means it, or if he's just saying what he thinks is the right thing.
It reminds me of a blog I wrote last year after Bush's 2007 State of the Union speech. He called for Congress to see across the aisle, and not just think in terms of Blue and Red (Democrat and Republican). This was, however, after six years of having a Republican majority in both the House and Senate, and only three months after the Democratic "revolution" that changed all that. It was amazing to me how quickly he became a voice for inter-party cooperation once he knew that was his only way forward.
The Point
To conclude, I'll use a pithy saying I read on the wall of some doctor's office somewhere: Sincerity is always subject to proof. Even, and ESPECIALLY, in politics.
So President Bush was in Israel today trying to promote peace negotiations in the Middle East. If that's not irony, then they need to change the definition of the word. This is the man who almost five years ago started a WAR there...now, in the last year of his presidency he's going there, for the first time, mind you, to promote peace in the one slice of the Middle East where there hasn't been peace in 40 years.
Are we expected to believe he actually cares about this? Because it sounds to me like a desperate effort to leave a legacy involving something other than the Iraq war, or at least give a few good sound-bytes and photos glad-handing with world leaders. In the newspapers he was quoted saying the region has an "historic chance" for peace....wrong. The region always has the chance for peace, it's just that he has a "last chance" to force some kind of artificial progress and claim he did something good there.
Everybody accused Clinton of doing the same thing: showing up in the background whenever there was a good photo-op of Israeli and Palestinian leaders shaking hands... But at least some of us actually BELIEVED Clinton cared about the whole mess. I'm not sure how many times Clinton went there, but at least he was actively involved in the process through his entire presidency. Yes, he too made a final, sloppy push for Middle East peace at the end of his term. But it wasn't the first time he tried.
Like it or not, people are going to think of one thing when they think of George W. Bush: Iraq. No 11th hour trip to shake a few hands and rattle off slogans is going to change that. It is almost as if he got to the last year of his presidency and said, "Shit! I forgot to do the whole Middle East peace thing!" Too little, too late...
And yes, his supporters will say Condi has been there a few times, and she has. It is not as if this administration totally neglected the idea of peace between Israel and Palestine. It's just that once again we're being sold the sizzle, but not the steak.
And Now, Eliot Spitzer...
In the New York Sun today there appeared an article in which New York Governor Eliot Spitzer called for "collegiality" amongst state lawmakers and asked them to "work together for the common good despite any political or personal differences." Wow... Sounds like wise words from a true statesman... Not quite.
Though the message is a good one, and worth striving for, it is amazing to me how quickly politicians can become solicitors of cooperation, voices of reason, when there tails are between their legs. Spitzer knows his first term was a train wreck...in short, he spent most of it wrapped up in a ridiculous partisan scandal that he caused (Troopergate, read about it), he alienated politicians in both parties, and hardly got anything done. If he wants to save his governorship, he knows he has to start now. Hopefully he learned the lesson that being a prosecutor (he was Attorney General of New York before this) is fundamentally different than being a Governor.
As a prosecutor, Spitzer had the legal means at his disposal to pursue anything found to be outside the law. He wielded it powerfully, bluntly, and often. Some would say he abused it. For sure, there were cases when he was more concerned with making headlines than getting things done. But, the only thing he had to consult was New York state law...
Now, he's in the awkward position of having to work with politicians and make compromise. To have to deal with the fact those politicians have connections, and that his power derives from being able to influence them to his side of an issue, not just from the mere fact that he's Eliot Spitzer and that he's the governor. Fortunately for him, unlike for the president, it's not too late. But, we'll see if he actually means it, or if he's just saying what he thinks is the right thing.
It reminds me of a blog I wrote last year after Bush's 2007 State of the Union speech. He called for Congress to see across the aisle, and not just think in terms of Blue and Red (Democrat and Republican). This was, however, after six years of having a Republican majority in both the House and Senate, and only three months after the Democratic "revolution" that changed all that. It was amazing to me how quickly he became a voice for inter-party cooperation once he knew that was his only way forward.
The Point
To conclude, I'll use a pithy saying I read on the wall of some doctor's office somewhere: Sincerity is always subject to proof. Even, and ESPECIALLY, in politics.
Comments
Just doing a quick Google search for "Bush Iraq Visit" reveals a couple articles of a couple different trips Bush took to Baghdad, which is in Iraq, which is in the Middle East.
So rather than say Bush had not yet visited the Middle East, it would be accurate to say he had not yet visited the Levant, or the portion of the Middle East which lies on the shores of the Mediterranean.
One reason Bush did not visit this region before now is due to the perception that a sitting US president visiting with the head of Hamas somehow legitimizes a terrorist movement. And before Hamas, a big reason is that Bush did not want to be seen shaking hand with Arafat (which I agree with, the guy was a terrorist thug). Folks can agree or disagree with the foreign policy action of not visiting the Levant until now(I personally disagree, should have been on the first plane to Haifa the day Arafat shuffled off this mortal coil), but it is important to note the rational, logic and policy behind it.