Bush blames Clinton's Mideast summit for current disaster (?!)
The audacity of that Texas truckdriver and White House burglar George W. Bush continues to amaze. On British television, Bush blamed Clinton for the disaster in the Middle East. This is too good! We must let the man's words speak for themselves (as reported by the Associated Press on "Yahoo News") :
"It wasn't all that long ago where a summit was called and nothing happened, and as a result we had significant intefadeh in the area," Bush said.
This is obviously the schoolboy president's way of trying to divert attention away from his own inaction during the first year of his presidency while the Israeli-Palestinian situation degenerated into the savagery we are now seeing.
Here's how Bush explains it: "The problem is, the American president, when he calls a summit, better get it right. If a summit fails, if the president ... lays it out there and nothing happens, generally the ... follow-up is worse than the status quo."
This then explains clearly his policy of doing nothing at all. According to this logic, trying only makes things worse. Obviously the chance of a summit failing is high in such an incendiary situation as the one between Israel and the Palestinians. Bush neglected to explain why attempting to help negotiate a settlement would make things worse. Bush's neglect of the entire situation - or his encouragement of the bloodthirsty instincts of Sharon -- has certainly not helped.
In this supposed massive majority that the polls tell us "approve" of Bush's job as president, are there a lot of people who admire a chief executive who passes the buck in such a transparent way as this? Is this one of the qualities of leadership we are supposedly in awe of since the September 11 transformation from fratboy doofus to Winston Churchill? And if this is not one of those admirable qualities, what are the qualities that have allegedly so captured the hearts of Americans - or at least their "approval," whatever that means.
Bush is through with the first quarter of his term. When does he start to take responsibility for leadership of the country? At the current rate of disintegration, it's easy to imagine a scenario in which Bush has just carried out his plans to nuke China and Russia, and those who have survived are looking at a nuclear winter that will probably finish them off. And Bush - who has never had to take responsibility for anything in his life - will surely find a way to blame Clinton for it. By the same logic he could say: "Clinton tried to get along with them, and it only made matters worse. And now look at what has happened."