WP: Gamble on Sharon Goes Awry for Bush

[kskiska]

President Bush took a huge diplomatic gamble two weeks ago when he forcefully embraced Israeli Prime Minister Ariel Sharon's plan to withdraw from Gaza and handed Israel key concessions on a final peace deal. The backlash in Arab and European countries was especially intense, but administration officials argued Sharon's plan carried the seeds of a breakthrough in the stalled peace process.

Now, the Likud Party's overwhelming rejection of that plan has left the administration's credibility in the Middle East in tatters. The tilt toward Israel will not soon be forgotten by the Arab world, but it will be harder for the administration to claim that Bush's support of Sharon has made a difference. Moreover, the Likud vote comes when the image of the United States is already greatly damaged by accounts of psychological and sexual abuse of Iraqi prisoners by some U.S. soldiers.

"The real objective of giving Sharon the blank check he left with was to shore up his political support at home," said a State Department official speaking on the condition of anonymity. "We paid a very high price and did not get a return."

more…
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/articles/A61482-2004May2.html

[stellanoir]

1. well WTF did they expect. . .

two war mongering thuggish idiots confer and settle on an absurdly insensitve plan to resolve a 5000 year old conflict over the course of a singular meeting. . .with no representation from the other primary party whatsoever. . .yeah that ought to work. . .these guys are "on glue"

[madrchsod]

4. i hate to be picky but

this conflict isn`t 5000yrs old. after doing alot of reading this conflict really started in the late 1800`s and really blew up after ww2. yup-these guys are on glue......

[stellanoir]

18. sorry for the belated response. . .

I was speaking generally and perhaps embellishing a bit.

I was referring to how long that particular region has been consumed in conflict. No one really knows precisely when Moses' tribe landed there. Before his crew, the Hittites were always going after someone. Then the destruction of the two temples and diaspora, then the crusades, then Alexander the Great, Constantine, the Greek, Roman, Ottoman, and British empires (aka occupations and not necessarily in that order). My point was only that this has been going on forever. Two thugs on a weekend with obviously biased agendas are nothing less than arrogant to think they can settle it. /eom

[w4rma]

19. Re: 5000 years.

Christ wasn't born until just over 2000 years ago. And Mohammed wasn't born until about 1500 years ago.

On Edit: This was meant to be a reply to post #1, not post #4. I agree with you, rchsod.

[acmavm]

2. Just another 'success' from the people who brought us the Iraq war.

Dumb shits.

[madrchsod]

3. so fat boy played bush and

bush thought he was going to get some big checks and votes from the right-wing american jewish communinty. so fat boy lost and what does bush get-nothing...god is this guy dumb...

[notadmblnd]

16. I think Sharon and his ilk are

blackmailing this administration. It's just my gut feeling.

[Miss Authoritiva]

5. . "We paid a very high price and did not get a return."

This could be reworked into a new Bush/Cheney campaign slogan:

"You'll always pay a very high price and never get a return."

The "you" being all the people who are not in the Bush/Cheney political and economic class.

[Eye and Monkey]

7. Worse. We paid a high price and got a lemon. Another high price pending.

This roadmap leads to the junkyard.

And the situation still needs wheels.

[arikara]

6. Doesn't everything go awry for the chimp?

This one just happened a bit sooner than most of his ill-thought ventures.

What a pathetic moran.

[opihimoimoi]

10. "Watch my Drive"

Even that he fucks up.
Shoots in the 100's, 4 putts?

[makhno]

8. Treason?

"The real objective of giving Sharon the blank check he left with was to shore up his political support at home," said a State Department official speaking on the condition of anonymity.

Doesn't that fit at least some common definition of treason? Compromising state interests to gain domestic political advantage?

[Eye and Monkey]

9. I think the quote refers to shoring up Sharon's support in Israel.

Perhaps not treason, but who, in their right mind, would say that the "blank check" would remotely promote US foreign policy interests.

[IndianaGreen]

11. Guess who else embraced Sharon and joined Bush at the hip?

The GOP does not hold a monopoly on political expediency!

Meet the Press (NBC News) - Sunday, April 18, 2004

MR. RUSSERT: On Thursday, President Bush broke with the tradition and policy of six predecessors when he said that Israel can keep part of the land seized in the 1967 Middle East War and asserted the Palestinian refugees cannot go back to their particular homes. Do you support President Bush?

SEN. KERRY: Yes.

MR. RUSSERT: Completely?

SEN. KERRY: Yes.

http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/4772030

[Disturbed]

12. J. Kerry needs to get his head on straight.

Kerry seems to think that by being Repub. LITE that he can get more votes. In my view, it is the opposite. I don't need to vote for him here in CA because he will carry the state but even if I voted for him it would be grudgenly. I am sure there are millions that feel that way.

[DaveSZ]

13. Indiana

I was about to post that as well.

Good going dear.

:P

[bpilgrim]

14. is there a litmus test out there in elite circles he's try'n to pass

on some issues like this and the other being MORE SUCCESSFUL in IRAQ than the neoCONs.

if the DU view of reality isn't too far off the mark on these issues...

1. CLIMATE
2. PEAK OIL
3. U.S. Foreign Policy/PNAC

then no one could probably get elected without ensuring that our longterm interest in the ME are SECURED and INFLUENCIAL.

unfortunately our only real asset left appears to be military but the neoCONs are in the proccess of abusing that to the point of riddicule.

either way the neoCONs are obviously going to try and exploit the security issues with their typical 'GET TOUGH' approach the question is how do we turn it around on them.

i think americans are more than ready to hear the BALLANCED approach at this point and it is up to kerry to deliver the msg and not get too DISTRACTED by their negative attacks.

he needs a list of throwaway one liners he can use to CHANGE THE SUBJECT to talk about his PLAN especial in contrast to their Dr. Strangelovian VISION - PNAC - in responce to the inevitable negitive question that will be parroted by talk radio and their friends in the media.

:shrug:

peace

[RUMMYisFROSTED]

17. Can't have a "balanced" or "evenhanded" approach.

That's what I "learned" in the primaries.

[maddezmom]

15. interesting, state dept official admits to bush pandering

:(