Bush puts his prestige on the line

National Post ^ | June 04 2003 | David Warren/Ottawa Citizen

[knighthawk]

Contrary to media assumptions, the U.S. President knows the Arabs and not the Europeans are his most important "sell," his most difficult, and for the biggest stakes. For the purpose of his grand exercise in the assertion of American power is not to become fashionable in Paris, but to eliminate "terror international," its causes and effects. That is why he is moving so recklessly on Israel/Palestine, and throwing himself into the bearpit in Sharm el-Sheik and Jordan.

Previously, he sent Colin Powell, and it was unworthily suggested he was willing to sacrifice the credibility of his Secretary of State on a hopeless cause. Now he has sent himself, and on the same agenda.

Those who do not grasp by now that the President means what he says may be fairly dismissed as impenetrable. Such commentators exist on both left and right, and indeed both ends of the political spectrum seem now to be convinced that Mr. Bush is, with Ariel Sharon in carriage, purposely advancing a "road map" so little different from the old failed Oslo process that he must be expecting it to fail, leaving Israel free, when it does, to settle matters by force. This is, however, a complete misreading of Mr. Bush. He may be foolish, but he is not cynical. He has put his money where his mouth was a sufficient number of consecutive times, and been sufficiently transparent about his intentions, to be relieved of the latter charge.

I myself don't see how that road map can possibly succeed; and my pessimism is reinforced by watching the new Palestinian Premier, Mahmoud Abbas, a.k.a. Abu Mazen, trying to arrange a mere "ceasefire" with Hamas, and offering it a place in his government, when he has pledged to eliminate it. He has allowed Yasser Arafat to create under his very nose an entirely new directorate for terror that is not answerable to the official Palestinian Authority which Abu Mazen now theoretically heads. He has watched silently while Mr. Arafat publicly poses with a Palestinian child, exhorting the little girl to become a "shaheed" ("martyr"). He has allowed the official Palestinian newspaper, Al Hayat Al Jadeeda, to continue to fill its front page with gloating and approving accounts of terrorist hits on Jewish civilians. The paper, like most other Arab media, continues to identify Jewish towns within the Israeli Green Line as being in "occupied Palestine." The whole apparatus of incitement continues to scream, while Abu Mazen makes empty claims to be dealing with it, for purely foreign consumption. This is the old game: Palestinian words for Israeli deeds; and even the words are ambiguous.

At the Sharm el-Sheik meeting, Mr. Bush turned to Abu Mazen to declare that he and the other leaders assembled (the Syrian President was conspicuously absent) expected him to deliver on his undertakings. And yet, behind Mr. Bush's back, the Egyptian Foreign Minister was reasserting that it is Mr. Arafat and not Abu Mazen who represents the Palestinian people.

Mr. Bush's message to all was expressed thus: "Achieving these goals will require courage and moral vision from every side from every leader. America is committed and I am committed in helping all the parties to reach the hard and heroic decisions that will lead to peace."

Israel for its part has released actual terrorists, convicted killers, as a "gesture of goodwill" -- and watched them flash the usual victory signs to the media on their way home. Prime Minister Sharon last week declared that the occupation of the West Bank and Gaza cannot continue -- traumatic statements to prepare his country, at his own political expense, for the actual removal of Jewish settlements in the West Bank and Gaza. And yet Mr. Sharon was not allowed to step on Egyptian soil -- which is why Mr. Bush is meeting with him and with Abu Mazen in Jordan.

Notwithstanding, Mr. Bush is putting the credibility of the United States, and his own prestige, on the line. He is banking on the new leverage the United States has as a regional power in its own right -- it has occupied Iraq -- and on the cumulative effect of the trauma in the Arab world of watching Saddam Hussein's statue come down, and absorbing that occupation. Alike to leaders and to the "Arab Street," Mr. Bush is saying: Which way will you go? Toward democracy and constitutional order, or toward Armageddon, there is no third way. That is what he believes, and has every reason to believe; and he is taking risks on the basis of that belief.

Israel most certainly risks getting burned, for the peace Mr. Bush seeks is regional not local. He is trying to build momentum, for a Middle Eastern "1989"; and continues to view the international situation in much broader terms than his critics. They, for their part, continue to interpret Mr. Bush's moves according to rules of international behaviour that he publicly jettisoned after Sept. 11th, 2001.

This is a Herculean task: cleaning the Augean stables, changing the very nature of Arab politics. Mr. Bush believes it cannot be avoided, and he is right in the middle of it now.

[knighthawk]

Ping

[facedown]

He may be foolish, but he is not cynical.

He is neither.

[Trueblackman]

For all his supposed lack of intelligence(a charge leveled by the left since his early campaign days), Bush has more intelligence and charm iin his little finger than most Democrats have in there whole bodies. It is time for Bush to get the credit he is due and put the left to bed once and for all.

[LarryM]

This was a very reckless move on Bush's part--and it is likely to lead to disaster.

[Redwood71]

It's nice to see that such a creditable, unbiased news source like Canada.com can handle such a sensitive issue when they, in their intellectual genious, sent no support to stop a country that was torturing women and children. It, also, shows their sense of priorty when above this story on the sight, they are selling sports tips for $19.95. Oh, Canada........

[Grig]

"It's nice to see that such a creditable, unbiased news source like Canada.com can handle such a sensitive issue when they, in their intellectual genious, sent no support to stop a country that was torturing women and children."

Canada.com is a news website. They didn't get to decide anything about Canada's Iraq policy.

[Wright is right!]

Actually, r71, the National Post is a beacon in the Canadian darkness. It has also featured the brilliant essays of Mark Steyn, although he and the paper parted company recently.

Michael

[Redwood71]

"Canada.com is a news website. They didn't get to decide anything about Canada's Iraq policy."

Nothing in Canada is not controlled by the government. They are so socialist, they reek of it. I see it as another negative comment about the Bush administration from a source coming from a government controlled media that has been unsupportive from the git-go, and just cowardice enough not to blatantly disagree and start an argument with the administration. It's the same old "he won't be able to do it" routine I've heard from so many liberals in our country, with no suggestions on how to do it right. And the funny thing is, Bush has accomplished a vast majority of what he was voted in to do, along with making strides to rid the world of murderers and fear mongers. Even with the back stabbing liberals using questionable tactics to try to derail the efforts like bribing Jeffords to cross over to gain control of the Senate, and stalling the home security bill to protect the lawyers for way too long, he has been successful. Canada plays both sides against the middle, don't be fooled.

[Grig]

"Nothing in Canada is not controlled by the government."

So much for your credibility. I LIVE in Canada buddy, in Ottawa in fact, and for you to take any word from any media source as if it came straight from the PMO (know what that is?) is quite funny.

Clearly you haven't read the National Post, Toronto Sun, or any other conservative newspapers in Canada. You haven't heard Lowell Green on the radio. What about those 8000 people who rallied for the USA on the steps of Parliment Hill at the start of the war? A couple of years ago it was very common for you guys to moan about how Canadian and British papers did a better job reporting Clinton's misdeeds than American papers, even though X42 and our PM are good friends. Then there are all the canadian conservative web sites. Are they government controled too?

Before making insane broad accusations, take some time to learn the facts.

[Grig]

"I see it as another negative comment about the Bush administration from a source coming from a government controlled media that has been unsupportive from the git-go"

If that's how you see it, get new glasses. The National Post is a huge thorn in the side of this government, and I don't see any critism of the Bush administration in the article, just an observation of how much Bush is willing to put on the line and some perfectly valid concerns about it that other pro-Bush freepers have also expressed. You are only seeing what you expect to see.

[Redwood71]

In a socialist state, even with, supposed, doctrines, the media is monitored and either is considered rogue or supportive of the state. You mentioned the diatribes of some of the American rags like the NY Times, the LA Times, and many other rags. I completely agree with you. And I have found both ultra-liberal and ultra-conservative comments from both. In my mind, more of the first than the second. But, they occasionally "slip up" and put something conservative in thought in their rag.

But my original entry in this was that the article was saying the same thing that many of our papers were saying, i.e. Bush is wrong, he is going the wrong way, he is sending people to do impossible jobs......

Exerts:

That is why he is moving so recklessly on Israel/Palestine, and throwing himself into the bearpit in Sharm el-Sheik and Jordan.

Previously, he sent Colin Powell, and it was unworthily suggested he was willing to sacrifice the credibility of his Secretary of State on a hopeless cause. Now he has sent himself, and on the same agenda.

I myself don't see how that road map can possibly succeed; and my pessimism is reinforced by watching the new Palestinian Premier, Mahmoud Abbas, a.k.a. Abu Mazen, trying to arrange a mere "ceasefire" with Hamas, and offering it a place in his government, when he has pledged to eliminate it.

Which way will you go? Toward democracy and constitutional order, or toward Armageddon, there is no third way. That is what he believes, and has every reason to believe; and he is taking risks on the basis of that belief.
___________________________________

If you can possibly display for me how this is not another Bush is wrong series of statements, then I will agree with your assesment and that I was wrong in my observation. I have been listening to the US papers distate that Bush has been wrong in every turn he has made, when, so far, he has been right and has done a magnificent job not only cleaning up after our last mistake, Clinton, but taking brave new steps toward a world peace that has been the wishes of civilized states for centuries.

BTW, you mentioned Clinton in your entry and that some of your media has been strong in reporting the issues. I agree. A vast majority of ours hasn't, and won't. And they are continuing to this day. As far as I'm concerned, he violated his oath of office when he failed to preserve, protect, and defend our Constitution by lying under oath in a deposition and under direct questioning. (Although, he's done worse like knowingly selling aids-tainted blood to your country in the late 80's when he was told he couldn't do it here, and intimidating minorities at the polls in Arkansas)

Sorry, my assesment stands on this topic. I still think this article was negative like so many that Bush has faced. And it came from a country that, being socialist, wishes complete government control over everything in sight.

Your nation's government, after being let in on sensitive information about the Baath regime and their tactics, failed to join in an effort to free the people of Iraq and make sure that Saddam was unable to murder more people with weapons that are ugly in their action. For that your country's government should hang its head. I have been embarrassed by my nation's government a few times too. This is one of the reasons I frequent these boards. With my limitations, this is the only way I get and pass info.

Do I need glasses? Most likely, it's been a while since I got the current ones. But it wasn't hard to see the entries in the article that there were broad accusasions being made. If I'm wrong, I'm not big to admit it. But I don't think I am.

[Grig]

In a socialist state, even with, supposed, doctrines, the media is monitored and either is considered rogue or supportive of the state.

So you don't think the white house monitors what the media is saying? You think they are blind to the bias in certain media outlets in the USA? Come on.

Your assertion was that Canada.com and every other news report from a Canadian source is written on Parliment Hill first is insanely stupid and indefensable.

If you can possibly display for me how this is not another Bush is wrong series of statements, then I will agree with your assesment and that I was wrong in my observation

The article says many postive things about Bush as well, the author is not a liberal, and taken as a whole I don't see the article declaring as a fact that Bush is wrong or that this will fail. It doesn't try to make an opinion into a fact or prediction either.

I see it acknowledging the risk he is taking, that he is taking that risk for worthy reasons. The author clearly identifies his concerns as his own personal opinions, but even still the author is hoping for success, not failure.

Do you think Bush is risking nothing? Are you 100% sure it will work? Do you see no potential problems with reaching the end of the road? Just because someone else doens't make them anti-Bush or anti-American. If the government did get to have any input on it, I can assure you it would be far different than this.

Exerts: That is why he is moving so recklessly on Israel/Palestine, and throwing himself into the bearpit in Sharm el-Sheik and Jordan"

Back up and read what comes just before that: "For the purpose...is not to become fashionable in Paris, but to eliminate "terror international," its causes and effects."

"Previously, he sent Colin Powell, and it was unworthily suggested he was willing to sacrifice the credibility of his Secretary of State on a hopeless cause. Now he has sent himself, and on the same agenda. "

First, notice the 'UNWORTHILY SUGGESTED' in the quote. The author is disagreeing with that that accusation, then goes on to show how Bush's actions in going himself disprove the suggestion the the President is some coward who would send other to do things that he would not.

"I myself don't see how that road map can possibly succeed; and my pessimism is reinforced by watching the new Palestinian Premier, Mahmoud Abbas, a.k.a. Abu Mazen, trying to arrange a mere "ceasefire" with Hamas, and offering it a place in his government, when he has pledged to eliminate it. "

You do realize that is is an op-ed, right? The author states his opinions and his reasons for it. He clearly identified it as his own opinion. If you don't like it, argue against the merits of his argument.

He did not call Bush any names and his opinion is one that some other conservatives share as well. Just because you are conservative doesn't mean that you have to think everything Bush does is perfect.

"Which way will you go? Toward democracy and constitutional order, or toward Armageddon, there is no third way. That is what he believes, and has every reason to believe; and he is taking risks on the basis of that belief. "

I don't know what your problem is with that part, it says Bush has strong convictions that are justified, and a heck of a lot of courage to stick to them.

Perhaps you might be intereste in this quote from the author in his 30 Mar 2003 column:

This New Canada, and these New Canadians -- who can no longer look an American, nor a Briton, nor an Australian in the eye. This Canada that dispatched its few remaining available soldiers hurriedly to peacekeeping duties in Afghanistan, as a kind of insurance, in case the Americans asked for help. ("Sorry! We gave at the office.")

"How dare you!" I have felt, listening to the latest poll-driven volte-face from the most contemptible prime minister this country ever had; or to the little anti-American licks from the lickspittles who people his offices and benches -- Francoise Ducros ("moron"), Benoit Serre ("trigger-happy"), Colleen Beaumier ("how many children?"), Carolyn Parrish ("bastards"), Herb Dhaliwal ("let the world down"), and Mr. Chretien himself. ("Not everyone around the world is prepared to take the word of the United States on faith" -- and he said this in Chicago.)

If any American, or Briton, or Australian, or free man or woman should happen to be reading this, I want you to know that I am not speaking only for myself. I am speaking on behalf, quite literally, of millions of Canadians, who are every bit as disgusted as you are with our country. You have the same kind of people -- you will know perfectly well -- within your own countries. The difference is, in Canada they are in charge."

Ignorant, knee-jerk reactions from americans does nothing to help conservative up here. Stop painting us all with the same brush and instead thank God you don't have the deck stacked against you like we do up here.

[Redwood71]

"So you don't think the white house monitors what the media is saying? You think they are blind to the bias in certain media outlets in the USA? Come on."

What in the world led you to believe that I ever trusted our media. When you have far greater than 60% of an industry with a bias reporting procedure that is so blatant, they have to try to cover it up, by blaming the other guy, it is uglier than a mud fence. Our system of media here, that has hidden behind our 1st Amendment since the 50's, is horrible. That was the entire intent of the comparison of the article to begin with.

I have entered on other boards my own dealings with the media and it's failures to tell even a small amount of the truth. Don't think I ever said your media is any worse than ours for this. I believe ours is far worse.

"Your assertion was that Canada.com and every other news report from a Canadian source is written on Parliment Hill first is insanely stupid and indefensable."

And I still feel that way. I indicated what I read, and the intent that I got out of it directly from the article that I copied and pasted. If you feel that it was saying something else, that is your opinion and I would never make any effort to stop you from having it. Like I mentioned in my entry, publications go both ways with different journalists. I felt this entry was a copy of the Bush failure routine that has been used in this country till I am sick of seeing it when almost everything they have said has been wrong, and Bush has been right.

"The author clearly identifies his concerns as his own personal opinions, but even still the author is hoping for success, not failure."

In the exerts that I gave you, the author openly called the effort reckless, that Bush was going to destroy his credibility, and that the effort can't possibly succeed and that he was pessimistic about it. Now, if you can call that positive reinforcement, then your glass will remain half full for the rest of time. There is nothing in those statements that indicates hope for a success, the author makes no effort to recommend an alternate plan, so I have to say it is the same old bashing Bush gets down here when he has been right, and successful in his efforts, and liberals with their attack dog media, have not. And if this is his opinions, then he is mirroring. And I also believe that all the medias "make deals" with regimes to get what they want. This is no different. If a publication helps out the socialists, they get something in return. In the meantime, it is called "fair reporting" to have an opposite point of view. We have one network down here that does that. It's call Fox. They are basically conservative with reporters like Haraldo Reviera, Greta Van Suskrind, and Alan Colmes (pardon the spelling) representing the liberals and getting huge air time. The first two coming from CNN direct.

You referenced a wonder if I think Bush is right all the time. Nope. I have disagreed with a number of moves he has made, but overall, he has done a magnificent job and has made every effort to do what he was elected to do, that which he promised. And for that, I positively recognize anyone. And, even though you have made questionable references directed at me, "insanely stupid," I still respect your right to an opinion. I just don't question you as a person as I would not, and have not, made any reference to your ability to think or react as you have toward me. I would like to think this board is above that type of thing and a discussion of opinions are welcome. I would hope the same is true in Canada, also. When I have visited your country, I have never found a disrespectful Canadian yet.

[Grig]

"What in the world led you to believe that I ever trusted our media."

You missed the point. You linked the media being monitored by the government and the recognition of bias in meidia outlets as a socialist trait. I'm pointing out that it is something done by all governments, even yours.

"In the exerts that I gave you, the author openly called the effort reckless,"

It appears to be a very hasty move, and haste is often seen as recklesness.

"that Bush was going to destroy his credibility"

No, it said he was putting his credibility at risk, and that is a statement of fact.

"and that the effort can't possibly succeed "

He said that it was HIS OPINION that it can't succeed, and he stated why. If you feel his reasoning is flawed, point out how so, don't jump all over a guy because he states and opinon you don't like and provides a rational for it.

"I felt this entry was a copy of the Bush failure routine that has been used in this country till I am sick of seeing it when almost everything they have said has been wrong, and Bush has been right. "

You are seeing what you expect to see. I'm a conservative, I wish to God we had a leader up here in Canada with just 1/10 the leadership of Bush. I want Bush to succeed in this effort and I deeply admire his courage to tackle Middle East peace like this, but I am not optimistic that it will happen this way. Not because of any fault on Bush's part, but because of the unwillingness of the other parites to change. Both myself and this reporter are not anti-Bush or just looking for some excuse to take a poke at him.

"And, even though you have made questionable references directed at me, "

I called part of your POSITION "insanely stupid", not you.

[livius]

This was an excellent article. Bush is taking a tremendous chance here, but it's really the only way to go. If he achieves this, the Middle East may cease to be what it has been since the rise of Islam: a source of terrorism and strife worldwide. It could then go back to being what it was before Islam, namely, a place where there were scientists, thinkers and creative people, and it could finally join the modern world.

If the Middle East can somehow manage to do this, it will also defuse radical Islam in other parts of the world (Africa and Malaysia, for example), since it is ME fanaticism that has stirred them up, as well as funded and trained them in these areas.

I think Bush is trying the only thing possible right now. It may fail, but it has to be tried, since the alternative is going to be very bloody and very awful all around. Bush has a great deal of courage for undertaking this.