That being said, Rush has not been elected to anything. He's not the President, he's not a Senator, he's not anything but, by his own admission, a radio personality, part educator, part entertainer.
As far as the Middle East goes, it's easy to say how things should be, what you would do, etc. etc., it's easy to criticize. But who knows what you would do if you were in Bush's shoes. We don't know the whole story; we don't see the whole picture; we are not briefed every morning. We see what the media feeds us. We listen to others' accounts of what is happening.
I prefer to trust Bush, keep my mouth shut and see what transpires. If when all is said and done Bush blows it, I'll be the first to admit it, but we're in the middle of the mess, so give the guy sometime to work it out.
You beat me to it. This is a rapidly evolving situation with a number of variables, more like 3D chess than poker. Israel only has one ally - us - and one adversary - the Arabs. Bush has to balance any number of conflicting interests in just this one area, and he has constraints we don't know about, or don't sufficiently acknowledge. Among these are logistics - our military isn't ready to strike yet - and strategy. Bush and his military advisers are mindful that the best option is not to start an offensive with hostile or potentially hostile forces on your flanks or across your supply lines. His priority in keeping "the coalition" in line is avoiding just this lousy state of affairs.
In the matter of the Middle-east, I more or less agree. However, on other matters, such as CFR, education, and immigration policies, he has already acted. His part in those choices is over. Therefore, we can and should reach some sort of conclusion on Bush's actions.
Tuor